Griefers make open impossible, and how easy the solution is.

I hope you haven't been holding your breath the entire time since that one forum post was made eons ago by a developer who has since left the ED team.
I'm not but I'm also not desperately trying to cope with the idea that I might have to interact with other people if I want to effect a shared galaxy.
 
Last edited:
Too late, I bought it :D
Additional, this is stupid way of thinkink, because it sound as "play only if you like 100% of features, dont play if you don't like 1% of mechanics". I love this argument after a bit of criticism :)
And... this isn't core feature for me. Important (Especially CG), but not core, for me exploration is core. BGS and PP aren't important for me, but i see, that this isn't fair, when you can't defend your faction/power/anything else, when you have invicible enemy and you have only 1 way to defend- moar grind than other side.
The faction supported by the squadron I am in has had a few wars this year in which all of the opposition activity was in PG/solo, all of our action being in open, we won every war, despite opposition, by working harder than those who opposed us - and with assistance by other supportive squadrons 'joining in the fun'. Had the opposition played in open the outcome would not have been any different, but at least we would be certain just who was opposing us.

The game permits all modes to work on the BGS equally, countering negative actions will always require 'working' the BGS, in any way possible :)
 
Be honest.
It is fair in your opinion, or just...fun?
It is the way the game is designed, exactly as described when I purchased it. Being brutally honest, it was probably more fun winning the last 2 wars in 4 days even with the invisible opposition, particularly as the group we believe opposed us are much larger than our own small squadron, even in the safety of PG/solo we were able to shrug off their efforts. Satisfying.

It is only a game, played by many different personalities, wishing to 'see' those playing against us is only natural, but out-playing them anyway is its own reward.

ETA: We have another war ongoing, although this time not in our 'home' system :)
 
group we believe opposed us are much larger than our own small squadron, even in the safety of PG/solo we were able to shrug off their efforts. Satisfying.

It is only a game, played by many different personalities, wishing to 'see' those playing against us is only natural, but out-playing them anyway is its own reward.

ETA: We have another war ongoing, although this time not in our 'home' system :)
Good for you, win again much bigger group is satisfying, but i still prefer win again equal group in open o7
 
Good for you, win again much bigger group is satisfying, but i still prefer win again equal group in open o7
That which we prefer, compared against what we get, differ often enough to just make doing what we can the best option :)
Not disagreeing with the sentiment, it is fine!
 
Too late, I bought it :D
Additional, this is stupid way of thinkink, because it sound as "play only if you like 100% of features, dont play if you don't like 1% of mechanics". I love this argument after a bit of criticism :)
And... this isn't core feature for me. Important (only CG), but not core, for me exploration is core. BGS and PP aren't important for me, but i see, that this isn't fair, when you can't defend your faction/power/anything else, when you have invicible enemy and you have only 1 way to defend- moar grind than other side.
Ok I will rephrase..... Suck it up buttercup because IF FD removed the modes or the ability to play the BGS in the modes the rage of bait and switch would be epic.
You are right you don't have to like 100% of the game (god knows I don't) but you bought in ignorance that is on you. The modes may not be core to you but they are to a lot of folk.
Regarding PP. There is a small window of hope there fore you. PP was a tacked on mode added well after launch. I only speak for myself but Incan see a way of appeasing some by making PP more PvP orientated without it breaking the rest of the game. It would need to be decoupled fully from the BGS however and the unique gear added to tech brokers imo.
(That is just me guessing however others may disagree)

Btw the factions are not yours they are NPC factions not player factions.... You can just choose to support them or not.

PS that 1st part sounds more agressive than I meant. No offence meant.
 
Last edited:
I usually play solo, but every now and then I'll go online to find some CMDRs, and have some interaction. Every single time I did however, I have been interdicted and killed within 10 minutes of launching out of the station. You spawn, you try to fly somewhere and someone interdicts you and kills you without any thought or explanation. That's my complete experience with open. I'm fine with piracy and bounty hunting and all. But these people that just attack for no reason at all makes it that me, and a lot of people like me, don't want to play in open at all. Today I just wanted to screw around with some CMDRs at the community event. Never mind, cause they're waiting to kill you.

I have never, in a year of playing Elite, been in open and not been randomly killed by a griefer. Imagine that. Every time I played in open, a griefer has killed me (and no I have no open bounties). And the saddest thing is, I'm not even exaggerating. Open is completely useless. It has no upsides at all. Doesn't matter what you do, you risk everything on your run by playing in open. Whether you're exploring, mining, trading, bounty hunting or even pirating. All your hard work is ruined by some half-baked gently caresstard in a Challenger.

But instead of complaining, here's my solution: A scoring system. A simple one from the top of my mind: X / kills in the last X hours of play = S. If S < 3, the player is a griefer. IE 6 / 15 = 0.4 (meaning 15 innocent kills in the last 6 hours the player was online), which means this player is a real piece of poopoo griefer. This simple system can be upgraded to use the players full pvp history.

Punishment for players when the score drops below the threshold for the first couple of times:
  • Not be allowed to dock at any station (no repairs, resupplies, engineering, respawns, missions, etc).
  • Immediately be attacked by security forces in any inhabited system. And I'm talking constantly. As soons as the drops in the system the security forces should start interdicting. By doing this constantly, the annoyance of the griefer will be pushed to new levels and he'll stay away from inhabited systems.
  • Be made a large target for bounties. Players can go to a station, go to contacts and get contracts for griefers. With the reward around 1 million per player killed, hunting griefers becomes a liable option for people to make money. Besides, the community will ridding itself of the toxicity. The contracts update to let the hunter know where the griefer is (what system and where in the system). When the hunter attacks, the griefer has 2 options, Flee or fight. If they die, they have to wait for their score to rise before they can spawn in again (cause no griefers at stations). If they fight and win, they just killed another player with no bounty. So their score goes down even more, while more hunters will be on their way. Fleeing grievers will be on the run until their score rises enough. The worse their crimes, the longer they're on the run.

Harsh, but as we say in my country, a cookie of your own dough. You ruin the game for others, the game is ruined for you to.

Punishment for players who go below the threshold more than x times:

Flatout ban these players from playing in open for a week and put a strike on their account. If the player receives 3 strikes the account is banned, GG you played yourself.

I think this is fair because it has clear warnings, you can stop and better yourself at any point. If you get banned it's cause you simply don't do anything other that ruining the game for others. This system however leaves space for killing each other for RP reasons, I mean, you wanna be able to blast some imps on sight. I'm not against PVP, but I am against consistent pointless griefing. As many people are. And it's time Frontier did something about this, cause people have been complaining for years (I've followed the games development for a long time). Elite NEEDS a system. No one stands any real consequence of losing anything if they misbehave in game. The fine for killing a player for no reason is around 150.000 credits. If I saw 150.000 credits floating in space I wouldn't even bother to try and scoop it up. It's nothing, to anyone. Imagine if we had this system in place for murder in real life? You killed a random person now pay a 15 cents fine. It is laughable. There is a reason why you don't need to worry about being gunned down for no reason when going somewhere (except maybe if you live in the US); you murder, you go to jail for a long time. And no-one (sane) is willing to risk that for a stranger. But in Elite there are practically no consequences which is why it's out of control.

Real consequences = less griefing.

Simple as that. And quite frankly, Frontier has tried doing nothing for 5 years now and it clearly hasn't worked all that well. I'd give up space legs, fleet carriers and atmospheric landings for just some peace and interaction with other CMDRs. I've played this game for a year, and have been alone for the entire time. Despite all the hype, all the enthusiasm of people of how great the community is, I have only ever encountered the business end of railguns and plasma accelerators.

Open is impossible, inhospitable, toxic and frustrating , and quite frankly, it's beyond me why Frontier is not doing anything about it. The player pressing alt-f4 when he encounters a griefer is liable for a ban but the griefer is not. It's poor game design and it's poor community management. Frontier should be called out for it. Every other gamestudio actively fights toxicity, Frontier should as well.

I feel your pain - I wish they would make PvP Consensual only, but I don't think they will...
 
Hi CMDRs, I've just sketched some ideas how this rampant criminality could be handled! I thought

What if CMDRs could take care of CMDR problems?

The galaxy could be more helpful in offering some bonuses and mechanisms to do so. And it should reward causing trouble too. That'd help CMDRs to become "content" to each other.


Bests,
CMDR C. FLOSS
Imperial Princess
 
Hello, this is a pretty terrible idea. Restricting a player from playing where they want because they're not built for combat is so horrifically shortsighted I don't even know how to really explain it without being insulting so I'm just going to end the post.

Apologies for the delay, but my reply was more sarcasm than anything. Not sure why you didn't reply with the same attitude to the OP though...
 
The faction supported by the squadron I am in has had a few wars this year in which all of the opposition activity was in PG/solo, all of our action being in open, we won every war, despite opposition, by working harder than those who opposed us - and with assistance by other supportive squadrons 'joining in the fun'. Had the opposition played in open the outcome would not have been any different, but at least we would be certain just who was opposing us.

The game permits all modes to work on the BGS equally, countering negative actions will always require 'working' the BGS, in any way possible :)
Bingo. I've faced precisely one cmdr ever in all the wars I've ever fought. My first bunch on my little anarchist spree were a constant stream of winning every day of the wars, then having trouble keeping up with the random traffic by myself 'cause it went to the non-anarchy factions, then a war would trigger again which I'd win. I'd rarely see another CMDR and those I did see didn't seem like organised opposition. Eventually I caught one guy bounty hunting and blew him up, and that seemed to get the point across and the opposition stopped. I don't know if it was just that guy or a group, but it effectively communicated that they were muscling in where someone else was active. Either way, I've not faced the same opposition elsewhere, just the occasional day where minimal effort wasn't enough to win a war, which given the lack of resistance afterwards, seemed like random players looking for a war system and picking the "goodies" to fight for.
 
The OP gave his opinion on the matter so I have every right to voice mine as well.
Do you think having an opinion deems it beyond reproach? My response was very clear that your statement that something "hurts" the game just because you don't like it is nonsense because you provide no real basis for that.

You disagreed with somebody's opinion but seem rather displeased that the same has happened to you.
 
Posting a video of an invincible ship in a station griefing other ships is black and white.

In general I don't name drop however,
Griefing however which the OP is talking about is a greyer issue imo....

But in general the logic that is used against players " whining" about being used as content for a purple haired hero to make a jeering video (you are in open so suck it up) fits well enough when a " griefer" is recorded .

Seems to be a lot of double standards imo.

Open is either anything goes and you accept it or don't go into open..... Or it isn't. Imo

PS I apologise for not responding to you sooner I was not ignoring you I missed your reply.
Regardless of if the player was cheating or not, the rule's the rule on naming and shaming. If it was "okay" to name and shame when somebody's perceived to be cheating, that would be a double standard.

There are legitimate complaints about flimsy C&P and enforcement, so it's not unreasonable for people to want for a better Open experience, where people who carry out griefing and the like are subject to in-game consequences and risk. Despite the outlandish complaining carried out by some that sullies the argument, there is something to be said about wanting a more effective and productive environment where player interactions carry both risk and reward on both sides.
 
No. modes shouldn't be equal.
For example- BGS, PP and CG, this activties should be possible only in open :)
This activities in solo are absurd. If you want to support your power do it on open, and encounter with their enemies.
This argument really falls apart as soon as you apply even a little bit of scrutiny to it. Like, for instance, instancing, blocking, groups in different platforms, different times, all those things effectively remove other players from contention in these activities. But somehow "Open only" is some universal solution, as long as you don't look at it.
 
No. modes shouldn't be equal.
For example- BGS, PP and CG, this activties should be possible only in open :)
This activities in solo are absurd. If you want to support your power do it on open, and encounter with their enemies.
This Idea does not hold any merit until crossplay between platforms is sorted out
 
This argument really falls apart as soon as you apply even a little bit of scrutiny to it. Like, for instance, instancing, blocking, groups in different platforms, different times, all those things effectively remove other players from contention in these activities. But somehow "Open only" is some universal solution, as long as you don't look at it.
...in the 'ideal' open-only world all of these minor irritations would, of course, be removed along with the redundant modes...
(Pre-empting the response :) )
What is hinted at by the open-only comments is that these folk wanted a different game to this...

This Idea does not hold any merit until crossplay between platforms is sorted out
... or until console players no longer have to pay a Premium for playing the way PC owners get for free.
 
... or until console players no longer have to pay a Premium for playing the way PC owners get for free.
I thought I was going to finally get away from this stupid "multiplayer tax", but since I moved to PC, my wife has fallen in love with RDO - on PS4! So it looks like I'll be buying another season of PS+ 😧
 
Back
Top Bottom