FRONTIER DEVELOPMENTS CODE OF CONDUCT (changes)

[xondk]

this was your words

It sounds like I need their concent to pvp them which regardless of whether if they can or cant defend themselves I will rob them.

Robbing is not PvP as such in my book, it is piracy, the goal isn't to destroy the target but to take something they have that you want, if that is your aim then I can see where you might end up frustrated.

That said I read it as your goal was PvP, a challenge, combat.

perhaps you will care about logging when your friend gets killed by one then you hunt him down to have him just log. If they log I take it as a win but they don't lose anything and that's why im never satisfied with that.

There are indeed those that attack others but use logging out as way to get around losing things themselves.
And yeah those are incredibly frustrating, but you do effectively win, an even bigger win then blowing them up in my book.
You prove that they clearly are not a combatant and that they clearly are simply out to destroy easy targets and run away from an actual fight.

Now yes, the fact that they do not lose any material in game but cause others to lose such is a problem, but I seriously doubt increasing the timer will do much, but I suppose it is worth a try, scaling it towards defence and such might not be a bad option.
But that being said, my experience with hunting such people in various other games, that gank and aren't out for general combat, is that they will then work to find another way to avoid death, so it doesn't really solve the problem and more just pushes it around.
A more effective solution in my book is upping the in game punishment, and make it so that the state of your target, their strength compared to yours, also means that for example, if someone attacks a target that is significantly weaker then themselves in outfitting, in the view of the pilot federation they would be attacking helpless people, and that deserves another punishment then attacking those that are actively fighting, but if or if not it can be made properly is a tricky thing.
For all its flaws FO76's damage scaling in terms of PvP might be a better solution, your damage is reduced for x time unless they fire back, but hatch breaking and similar that does other things will still work.
Maybe making the cargo bay vulnerable despite this state?

 

[EponymousCowherd]

Been reading the actual Frontier Code of conduct. This is what it says about cheating:

We do not tolerate cheating of any kind in our online multiplayer games. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of automated scripts, programs or services offered outside of the game to generate a player advantage, altering game code or memory, sharing or trading account access with others or using cheat codes.
We do not tolerate the use of any exploits or taking advantage of any bugs in the game to generate a significant player advantage.
Any player caught cheating or exploiting our games or services may be subject to game moderation, the alteration or removal of in-game assets, a gameplay suspension or ban, or the termination of their Frontier account.

Pretty sure that "We do not tolerate the use of any exploits or taking advantage of any bugs in the game to generate a significant player advantage" would cover combat logging.

However, the section on harassment states:

We do not tolerate harassment within our community or our games. This is defined as being insulting to any person via obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory comments. This also includes the prolonged, extensive, and/or malicious targeting of an individual or group of individuals through Frontier-owned platforms for the purposes of disruption or agitation.

This seems to say that any malicious targeting of an individual ("and/or malicious", not merely "and malicious") is against their code of conduct. This seems to outlaw any PvP attack where the primary aim is to cause upset to the player.

 

[xondk]

This seems to say that any malicious targeting of an individual ("and/or malicious", not merely "and malicious") is against their code of conduct. This seems to outlaw any PvP attack where the primary aim is to cause upset to the player.

Yeah, it would be the case with ganking and griefing where the goal is simply to destroy someone for no in game reason.
Piracy however would be fine, since the goal is the cargo and not destroying the target.

 

[tafkabb]

Been reading the actual Frontier Code of conduct. This is what it says about cheating:



Pretty sure that "We do not tolerate the use of any exploits or taking advantage of any bugs in the game to generate a significant player advantage" would cover combat logging.

However, the section on harassment states:


This seems to say that any malicious targeting of an individual ("and/or malicious", not merely "and malicious") is against their code of conduct. This seems to outlaw any PvP attack where the primary aim is to cause upset to the player.

That last bit has always been the case. Murdering someone is fine. Repeatedly attacking the same person with the intention of ruining their experience is seen as harassment.

 

[xondk]

That last bit has always been the case. Murdering someone is fine. Repeatedly attacking the same person with the intention of ruining their experience is seen as harassment.

Same person or a specific group of people, people participating in certain events, newbies and such, would also fall under this last I checked in one of their clarifications.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

That last bit has always been the case. Murdering someone is fine. Repeatedly attacking the same person with the intention of ruining their experience is seen as harassment.

I don't read it like that. As I said, the "and/or" changes the meaning:

This also includes the prolonged, extensive, and/or malicious targeting of an individual or group of individuals

So repeatedly attacking someone, even for gameplay reasons, over a length of time is harassment but a single attack on someone with the intention to ruin their experience is also harassment.

If I went up to a random stranger in the street and hurled abuse at them in order to upset them nobody could argue that that was not harassment, even if I did it to them only once. There is no requirement in any definition of "harassment" for it to be comprised of multiple incidents. Indeed, the legal definition of harassment in the UK is:

the offence in England of using threatening or abusive or insulting words within the hearing or sight of a person likelyto be harassed thereby: Public Order Act 1986.

Note there is no requirement for it to be repeated.

 

[Thepirateorc]

I don't read it like that. As I said, the "and/or" changes the meaning:



So repeatedly attacking someone, even for gameplay reasons, over a length of time is harassment but a single attack on someone with the intention to ruin their experience is also harassment.

If I went up to a random stranger in the street and hurled abuse at them in order to upset them nobody could argue that that was not harassment, even if I did it to them only once. There is no requirement in any definition of "harassment" for it to be comprised of multiple incidents. Indeed, the legal definition of harassment in the UK is:



Note there is no requirement for it to be repeated.

I would continue to kill my enemy if I see them on site this includes those who logged on me or bad mouthed me during a stop and search operation

 

[EponymousCowherd]

I would continue to kill my enemy if I see them on site this includes those who logged on me or bad mouthed me during a stop and search operation

Then you could well be in contravention of the Code of Conduct as it states quite clearly that prolonged or extensive targeting of someone is considered harassment, irrespective of whether it is deliberately malicious.

 

[Thepirateorc]

even if its modivated if its a war against another group

 

[EponymousCowherd]

even if its modivated if its a war against another group

Two player groups engaging in a private little war would, I guess, be consensual.

If someone can no longer enjoy the game because of worrying about being continually hunted by players more skilled than them in a much more powerful ships because they got a bit gobby once? Yeah, I'd call that harassment.

 

[tafkabb]

There are people I'd shoot on sight in-game, whenever and wherever I saw them. Not because I want to ruin their game, but because I want them to explode.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

There are people I'd shoot on sight in-game, whenever and wherever I saw them. Not because I want to ruin their game, but because I want them to explode.

Yes, your honour. I do punch Mr Smith in the face every time I see him, but it's not because I want to do him any harm, I just like seeing his face explode.

I can really see that defence working.

 

[Munster26]

The devs have given players complete autonomy on how to behave in game.
I have total respect for people who have managed to create and enforce some kind of moral code or social order in their corner of the community.
Just because frontier haven't written explicit rules for us doesn't mean that some kind of "the purge", or "Lord of the flies" chaos is acceptable.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

The devs have given players complete autonomy on how to behave in game.
I have total respect for people who have managed to create and enforce some kind of moral code or social order in their corner of the community.
Just because frontier haven't written explicit rules for us doesn't mean that some kind of "the purge", or "Lord of the flies" chaos is acceptable.

They have written explicit rules. That's what the ⬆⬆⬆ above ⬆⬆⬆ discussion was about.

 

[Munster26]

They have written explicit rules. That's what the ⬆⬆⬆ above ⬆⬆⬆ discussion was about.

No they haven't.
Their code of conduct is not explicit rules, or even close.
It's just a "don't cheat" generic code of conduct. Player interactions and rules of engagement are up to us as long we don't log or harrass.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

No they haven't.
Their code of conduct is not explicit rules, or even close.
It's just a "don't cheat" generic code of conduct. Player interactions and rules of engagement are up to us as long we don't log or harrass.

What else would be needed?

How would it be enforced? ⬅⬅ This is the real problem. Rules that can't be enforced are pointless.

 

[Knot2clever]

All I read is ''stop people logging out so I can kill defenceless space ships''

That's what all these posts amount too, they don't want too PVP with you, it's not PVP it's clubber v's seal.

Shout about the rules as loud and as often as you like, but until the ganking is curbed the logging will continue.

Go find all the other combat hero's that complain of logging and PVP with them.

 

[Munster26]

What else would be needed?

How would it be enforced? ⬅⬅ This is the real problem. Rules that can't be enforced are pointless.

I didn't suggest there should be one. That would be ridiculous.
How about we stop treating a useless and frankly irrelevant document like it's some kind of constitution, or code of laws.
That was my point.

On a side note: Have you ever heard of a case where the code of conduct has even been enforced?

 

[EXE Sasser]

Pretty sure every ones done the typical log on NPCs log and I'll admit straight up I've done it.

However, inside I know full well I cheated at getting killed. Yet, if you put that aspect into other games which have a similar type to dying in combat you lose a lot of stuff and respawn at your last save point.

No Man's Sky for example if you play Survival mode. Any Fallout game (Not sure about 76). You can essiantially "log" to avoid death and have another crack.

Whereas menu or force close logging in the eyes of a player is plain right cheating and exploited beyond belief. the punishments for that need to be upped in terms of response time. To be honest I can't remember the last time I heard someone got slammed for logging by FDEV, then again I don't think I've EVER heard from a birdy in the nest that it's happened.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

I didn't suggest there should be one. That would be ridiculous.
How about we stop treating a useless and frankly irrelevant document like it's some kind of constitution, or code of laws.
That was my point.

Like all good rule books, it keeps it simple. Basically don't abuse others and don't use exploits. Pretty much all that's needed.

On a side note: Have you ever heard of a case where the code of conduct has even been enforced?

Yes.

Got an official warning myself for a couple of things and I know of a couple of people given perma-bans from these forums.