Griefers are killing this game............

[Nara]

it has nothing to do with emotions

Dictionary definition of Sociopath:
"noun, Psychiatry.
1.a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial,often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or socialconscience."

and i meant it regarding the relevant players and all your(and many others) posts in this thread where you(not "you" specifically) fail to recognize that you are a part of a community.
Keep defending your own viewpoint/Freedom of choice, yet fail to recognize that others have one too.

Part of the profile for a Sociopath is also shallow emotions, so you are incorrect about that.

The community doesn't decide the rules for this game and can't tell anyone how to play the game. FD set the rules and can tell people how to play.

Can you not see that placing your own personal rule set on others and against the defined rule set for the game is like trying to ice-skate up hill?

- - - Updated - - -

Common sense?

why do you suppose is illegal to attack and beat a child?

Ok, time for me to back out of this particular discussion, as it's no longer got anything to do with the game

 

[Jay8ch]

That's analogy doesn't work, because many real rules were broken. The teenagers and possibly the grounds keeper would all be arrested. What rules are broken when someone gets randomly killed in ED?

That's EXACTLY what's wrong with the game, the rules of ED are incomplete, in fact they're almost non existent. In ED the 4 teenagers can stomp on the kids castle then smash his head in with a shovel with absolutely no consequences. That's not fun, that's not dangerous. That's nihilism. It's nothing at all. What ED needs is either a SWAT team who are going to take those teens down big time (NPC) or perhaps, for those that like it "dangerous", an easy way for the parents to arrange a lynch mob and leave the teenagers mangled corpses hanging from the nearest tree.

 

[ToniB]

1st how should i know?
2nd yeah your probably right. but then how would the op, if he was new, know this? from his perspective he was ruthlessly mauled by that band of level 100 rogues. (not sure what the op level is. highly dependant of what he was flying and directly influences how i would feel about this thread).

well he knows now and his sidewinder is for free anyway

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever definition of griefing you use is superfluous. Because when it all boils down, if a player FEELS that they have been griefed then they are going to feel exactly the same WHATEVER artificial definition you use. Just by say 'oh that's not griefing because it doesn't fit x, y, z, criteria' is pointless if the victim feels the same anyway.

well by that there musnt be any weapons in Elite and only happy little ponys.

 

[Nara]

That's EXACTLY what's wrong with the game, the rules of ED are incomplete, in fact they're almost non existent. In ED the 4 teenagers can stomp on the kids castle then smash his head in with a shovel with absolutely no consequences. That's not fun, that's not dangerous. That's nihilism. It's nothing at all. What ED needs is either a SWAT team who are going to take those teens down big time (NPC) or perhaps, for those that like it "dangerous", an easy way for the parents to arrange a lynch mob and leave the teenagers mangled corpses hanging from the nearest tree.

Actually I agree that FD need to make them easier to find. If you search for posts by the dev Sandro he has said what is and isn't allowed in terms of PvP. There should probably be a sticky post somewhere, or something in game to make it all more clear.

Maybe if the rules was generally better known, we'd have far less threads with the word griefer in them.

edit: hmmm.. these rules are probably covered in the TOC.

 

[Philip Foster]

The only way the OP would have a point is if a rule was broken. No rule was broken. That's not opinion.

Peoples feelings, emotions, real time value and opinions don't really matter, same as in any other game with defined rules.

And what's worse the OP said he would break the rules by combat logging the next time, which I think is an act that could be considered griefing.

My definition of PvP is no different from the actual definition. It is simply player/s pitting themselves against other player/s within the rules defined for the game. I honestly don't understand why anyone would attempt to introduce their own set of personal rules into the situation and then get upset afterwards when they are ignored.

"The only way the OP would have a point is if a rule was broken. No rule was broken. That's not opinion."

In your mind no rule was broken. In the OPs mind a rule was broken. Where is it written that either of you is right and what makes you right and the OP wrong?

"Peoples feelings, emotions, real time value and opinions don't really matter, same as in any other game with defined rules."

Who decided this and when was it ever true? Emotions drive everything in real life and I am playing the game in real life using real time because I want to. Wanting to do something is emotional. Emotions drive how I play the game. Emotion drives everything a human does. Not logic. Logic is important but it is driven by emotion.

"And what's worse the OP said he would break the rules by combat logging the next time, which I think is an act that could be considered griefing."

But in the opinion of the OP a rule has been broken how is he making it worse by breaking a rule himself? Where in the rules does it say that combat logging is illegal when you are being virtually mugged whilst minding your own business and have little or no chance to 'fight back'?

"My definition of PvP is no different from the actual definition. It is simply player/s pitting themselves against other player/s within the rules defined for the game. I honestly don't understand why anyone would attempt to introduce their own set of personal rules into the situation and then get upset afterwards when they are ignored."

What is the the actual definition? Where in the rules does it say "It is simply player/s pitting themselves against other player/s within the rules defined for the game."? Where is all this written? You are introducing your own set of personal rules into the situation and you are pumped up that anybody else dare do the same thing.

 

[kingchub]

look at the op's post in this thread.

i think its safe to assume he was flying that python. This incident he has reported, therefore, was NOT griefing imo.

i was thinking they were dropping 2 condas and a python on his sidey or something....

- - - Updated - - -

he is also dangerous rated

 

[Jay8ch]

Actually I agree that FD need to make them easier to find. If you search for posts by the dev Sandro he has said what is and isn't allowed in terms of PvP. There should probably be a sticky post somewhere, or something in game to make it all more clear.

Maybe if the rules was generally better known, we'd have far less threads with the word griefer in them.

edit: hmmm.. these rules are probably covered in the TOC.

I'm talking about game world type rules. Maybe a community goal mission is automatically created wherein a pilot who destroyed a clean commander's ship must in turn be destroyed by 20 different commanders and the perpetrator will remain wanted (fugitive) until that goal is complete. Making it a requirement that many different commanders have to kill them would hopefully stop them just using it to bounty farm.

That way if the "evil" commander was good enough at the game he would actually relish the challenge, and it would be a challenge rather than a mugging. Everyone wins. Just make it hard enough in game to do these things to make people think about it for more than 10 seconds.

 

[Philip Foster]

look at the op's post in this thread.

i think its safe to assume he was flying that python. This incident he has reported, therefore, was NOT griefing imo.

i was thinking they were dropping 2 condas and a python on his sidey or something....

- - - Updated - - -

he is also dangerous rated

Are we saying that the good commander doth protest too much?

Not sure it makes any of the arguments redundant though.

 

[Crumb]

I just lost all my money in one evenings session. I'm back at 1000cr. First I got rammed trying to leave the station. Next time I got rammed inside the station by a sidewinder and a hauler. They had shields, I didn't, plus I was in a T6. I'm not complaining because there are many arguments for and against the current rules but I am now, for the first time since buying the game a few months ago, moving over to solo. I spent weeks and weeks earning the money and I can't be to loose it all in such a ridiculous way. There is no penalty for the other players whatsoever. Seems a bit lame.

Maybe I'll play open again if I ever hit tens of millions.

 

[kingchub]

Are we saying that the good commander doth protest too much?

Not sure it makes any of the arguments redundant though.

doesnt it make the original post a fallacy as he is complaining about legit pvp and valid gameplay?

edit - people should post about the real griefers not organised gankers going after a capable ship and player.

 

[teufeldritch]

I just lost all my money in one evenings session. I'm back at 1000cr. First I got rammed trying to leave the station. Next time I got rammed inside the station by a sidewinder and a hauler. They had shields, I didn't, plus I was in a T6. I'm not complaining because there are many arguments for and against the current rules but I am now, for the first time since buying the game a few months ago, moving over to solo. I spent weeks and weeks earning the money and I can't be to loose it all in such a ridiculous way. There is no penalty for the other players whatsoever. Seems a bit lame.

Maybe I'll play open again if I ever hit tens of millions.

Go to Mobius. You can have social interaction with other players & you don't have to deal with non-consensual PvP.

 

[Nara]

"The only way the OP would have a point is if a rule was broken. No rule was broken. That's not opinion."

In your mind no rule was broken. In the OPs mind a rule was broken. Where is it written that either of you is right and what makes you right and the OP wrong?

If you search you can find posts by devs such as Sandro that say that random PvP is not against the rules.

"Peoples feelings, emotions, real time value and opinions don't really matter, same as in any other game with defined rules."

Who decided this and when was it ever true? Emotions drive everything in real life and I am playing the game in real life using real time because I want to. Wanting to do something is emotional. Emotions drive how I play the game. Emotion drives everything a human does. Not logic. Logic is important but it is driven by emotion.

I stand by the statement that peoples emotions don't make any difference to the rules.

"And what's worse the OP said he would break the rules by combat logging the next time, which I think is an act that could be considered griefing."

But in the opinion of the OP a rule has been broken how is he making it worse by breaking a rule himself? Where in the rules does it say that combat logging is illegal when you are being virtually mugged whilst minding your own business and have little or no chance to 'fight back'?

A post made by Sandro that was initially stickied at the top of this forum stated clearly that combat logging was breaking the rules and that players would receive out of game punishment for doing it.

"My definition of PvP is no different from the actual definition. It is simply player/s pitting themselves against other player/s within the rules defined for the game. I honestly don't understand why anyone would attempt to introduce their own set of personal rules into the situation and then get upset afterwards when they are ignored."

What is the the actual definition? Where in the rules does it say "It is simply player/s pitting themselves against other player/s within the rules defined for the game."? Where is all this written? You are introducing your own set of personal rules into the situation and you are pumped up that anybody else dare do the same thing.

PvP means Player versus Player. Nothing more or less. PvP in Elite Dangerous is either combat, trade or exploration and soon faction based. I haven't redefined anything or applied personal opinion to that. I'm not responsible for the rules FD have decided upon for ED either. I'm not pumped up, actually I'm enjoying a nice cup of Earl Grey at the moment.

I suggest you do some searching on the forum for what the devs have to say about this so called griefing.

 

[kingchub]

the op should indeed have to face some kind of punishment if he combat logs due to legit pvp.

 

[Joe Spivey]

If you search you can find posts by devs such as Sandro that say that random PvP is not against the rules.



I stand by the statement that peoples emotions don't make any difference to the rules.



A post made by Sandro that was initially stickied at the top of this forum stated clearly that combat logging was breaking the rules and that players would receive out of game punishment for doing it.



PvP means Player versus Player. Nothing more or less. PvP in Elite Dangerous is either combat, trade or exploration and soon faction based. I haven't redefined anything or applied personal opinion to that. I'm not responsible for the rules FD have decided upon for ED either. I'm not pumped up, actually I'm enjoying a nice cup of Earl Grey at the moment.

I suggest you do some searching on the forum for what the devs have to say about this so called griefing.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the oh so typical reaction. "It's in the rules so it's ok!" Sure, PvP is in the rules, even one sided PvP is in the rules. The thing is, though, that it really doesn't matter if it's 'in the rules' or not. If a player feel that he has been griefed then he is going to react to that, 'in the rules' or not.

And let's not forget that it's not usually just PvP we are talking about, it's the guy in the twinked out battle-waggon against the guy in the type 6, the sidewinder, or the hauler. Sure, it's all in the rules but don't you 'it's in the rules DUHHHHH' people realise that all you are doing is driving players into group and into solo? Then you start wondering why the barrel is getting emptier and emptier of fish. Then you start complaining because all the people you have driven into solo and groups are having an effect on the open game and you can't 'get them back'. THEN finally you start demanding solo and group be done away with so that you can get your targets back.

If it's PvP you want then create PvP groups... oh wait, that won't work because it's not PvP that you want. You want your barrel full of minnows so that you can feel cool as you blow away another type 6 in your annie.

But, to hell with common sense, 'It's all in the rules!'

 

[kingchub]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the oh so typical reaction. "It's in the rules so it's ok!" Sure, PvP is in the rules, even one sided PvP is in the rules. The thing is, though, that it really doesn't matter if it's 'in the rules' or not. If a player feel that he has been griefed then he is going to react to that, 'in the rules' or not.

And let's not forget that it's not usually just PvP we are talking about, it's the guy in the twinked out battle-waggon against the guy in the type 6, the sidewinder, or the hauler. Sure, it's all in the rules but don't you 'it's in the rules DUHHHHH' people realise that all you are doing is driving players into group and into solo? Then you start wondering why the barrel is getting emptier and emptier of fish. Then you start complaining because all the people you have driven into solo and groups are having an effect on the open game and you can't 'get them back'. THEN finally you start demanding solo and group be done away with so that you can get your targets back.

If it's PvP you want then create PvP groups... oh wait, that won't work because it's not PvP that you want. You want your barrel full of minnows so that you can feel cool as you blow away another type 6 in your annie.

But, to hell with common sense, 'It's all in the rules!'

but he has NOT been griefed, its the ops attitude that is wrong here.

edit- i do find it disturbing however that some people would be ok with what happened to the op if he was in a sidey and rated harmless

 

[Joe Spivey]

but he has NOT been griefed, its the ops attitude that is wrong here.

Wrong, if he feels he has been griefed then it doesn't matter what artificial definition you put on it. The effect is THE SAME. Less players in open.

 

[Sadistic Savior]

I just bought this game this week. I can tell you, griefing will never be an issue for a very simple reason...solo and private options. You have a built in VERY easy way to avoid griefers.

If you insist on playing public...well...get over it. This is a fact of life of sandbox MMOs that is never going away. You cant have both freedom and rules.

 

[Philip Foster]

doesnt it make the original post a fallacy as he is complaining about legit pvp and valid gameplay?

edit - people should post about the real griefers not organised gankers going after a capable ship and player.

Possibly. In fact. Hats off to the feller who started the attack in the Sidey.

- - - Updated - - -

If you search you can find posts by devs such as Sandro that say that random PvP is not against the rules.



I stand by the statement that peoples emotions don't make any difference to the rules.



A post made by Sandro that was initially stickied at the top of this forum stated clearly that combat logging was breaking the rules and that players would receive out of game punishment for doing it.



PvP means Player versus Player. Nothing more or less. PvP in Elite Dangerous is either combat, trade or exploration and soon faction based. I haven't redefined anything or applied personal opinion to that. I'm not responsible for the rules FD have decided upon for ED either. I'm not pumped up, actually I'm enjoying a nice cup of Earl Grey at the moment.

I suggest you do some searching on the forum for what the devs have to say about this so called griefing.

Oh I'm, sorry I thought you'd ducked out of the conversation.

Anyway it's moved on. Turns out the OP was crying wolf. Do try to keep up.

 

[Nara]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the oh so typical reaction. "It's in the rules so it's ok!" Sure, PvP is in the rules, even one sided PvP is in the rules. The thing is, though, that it really doesn't matter if it's 'in the rules' or not. If a player feel that he has been griefed then he is going to react to that, 'in the rules' or not.

And let's not forget that it's not usually just PvP we are talking about, it's the guy in the twinked out battle-waggon against the guy in the type 6, the sidewinder, or the hauler. Sure, it's all in the rules but don't you 'it's in the rules DUHHHHH' people realise that all you are doing is driving players into group and into solo? Then you start wondering why the barrel is getting emptier and emptier of fish. Then you start complaining because all the people you have driven into solo and groups are having an effect on the open game and you can't 'get them back'. THEN finally you start demanding solo and group be done away with so that you can get your targets back.

If it's PvP you want then create PvP groups... oh wait, that won't work because it's not PvP that you want. You want your barrel full of minnows so that you can feel cool as you blow away another type 6 in your annie.

But, to hell with common sense, 'It's all in the rules!'

Common sense to me is looking at the game I am playing, understanding what is and isn't allowed, and also how I want to play the game taking into account my emotional state and real life limitations, and playing accordingly. If I look at open play and think "gosh, if I get killed I can't play anymore because I don't have enough play time to cover the loss" then my common sense would tell me that I probably shouldn't join open play. I would choose a group like Mobius or play solo.

My common sense wouldn't say "gosh I could get killed, so I will prepare my 'I got griefed' forum thread before I launch and die".

 

[DanTheMan]

Hi Folks, it is me the OP back again.

I've read a great many of the responses to my original post and I thank everyone for their input.

I am not a regular player of games and ED is the only game I have played where there is PvP content in the past 20 or so years.
My misuse of the word "griefer" I will own-up to. I should have said "mindless Ganker(s), but it caused me grief and not being au-fait with modern terms I mis-spoke.
I accept that SOLO or closed groups like Mobius are available to me if I don't want to run the risk of getting ganked.

I have not and probably will not combat log to avoid death, because it isn't "sporting".

As an elderly player I was a little surprised to encounter the "Ganking" mindset; and I think this is my main issue, not PvP per-se.
But, as many have pointed out, if it isn't prevented by the game mechanics then it is "fair-game". But on that basis, so would ramming expensive ships with disposable ships or crushing people in the slot with your T9 be "legitimate"; and ED are taking action against those "Legitimate" activities so I sense a degree of "double-standards" is in operation.
WHO gets to say what is and is not allowable activity when the mechanics do not prevent an action I am less clear on at this time.

I hope you are all enjoying your gaming as much as I am.

Best regards,