Compromise is the ideal, as I have explained earlier.
However, currently it's going in the opposite direction of that.
Griefing: Is it?
- Thread starter Layne Vakarian
- Start date
Compromise is the ideal, as I have explained earlier.
However, currently it's going in the opposite direction of that.
"I certainly hope nobody brings their RL morality into a game."
We know for a fact some do. Columbine is just one example of many. Almost without exception, troubled teens who become obsessed with going out while killing the most people they can
also become obsessed with demonstrating their grievances in chat and social media. Rather than becoming an outlet or steam release for their aggression, it fuels it as they get riled
up over every little thing people say about them or their opinions. The days of "it's just a game" are long gone. For most of us who are adjusted and have learned coping mechanisms,
it is still just a game. For those who haven't grown up yet or the real life pressures are too much, the "game" is personal. They do not realize there is no longer a separation between real life and
the game. Instead of "escaping" into the game, they bring real life into it.
The rest of us? We cannot really gather gilt or responsibility for nurturing the environment. It's after all the griever's responsibility for their actions and attitude.
They claim the AI is just not challenging enough so they want human opponents. I would speculate if they are actually regularly winning against every AI opponent the game throws
at them, FD needs to keep looking at where they can make the AI better against high ranking pilots. If the griefers are so occupied in surviving the AI, they have less time and availability to seek out humans.
Second, if they (the griefers) are really so good a wing of AI Vipers and Vultures are just a momentary nuisance, the desire to find more worthy targets is not a strong argument.
I venture the majority of human players are not as skilled as a wing of AI Elite, so what the griefers are really doing is seeking out EASIER targets, not harder ones. Also, shooting AI
has a certain impersonality to it. Plastering a human controlled ship though has associated with it a certain personal dimension. A person on the other end is going to suffer some
real and measurable inconvenience and remember it. For those maladjusted players, this small score fuels the fire of retribution against the world. Eventually, this fire ranks up and spills back
into the real world as unsatisfied aggression. "I want to make somebody REALLY hurt the way I hurt."
-Pv-
- - - Updated - - -
"However, ramming player ships to avoid getting attacked by station defenses is an EXPLOIT"
I have long thought the defensive zone around the larger and more popular/power stations is too small. High security should mean not only more numbers of security and aggressiveness, but also a longer reach. I assume the 100 speed and above is leveraged to represent the ramming speed at which damage can be afflicted. Perhaps the higher ranked (more experienced and should know better) players should have increased scaled fines imposed.
-PV-
We know for a fact some do. Columbine is just one example of many. Almost without exception, troubled teens who become obsessed with going out while killing the most people they can
also become obsessed with demonstrating their grievances in chat and social media. Rather than becoming an outlet or steam release for their aggression, it fuels it as they get riled
up over every little thing people say about them or their opinions. The days of "it's just a game" are long gone. For most of us who are adjusted and have learned coping mechanisms,
it is still just a game. For those who haven't grown up yet or the real life pressures are too much, the "game" is personal. They do not realize there is no longer a separation between real life and
the game. Instead of "escaping" into the game, they bring real life into it.
The rest of us? We cannot really gather gilt or responsibility for nurturing the environment. It's after all the griever's responsibility for their actions and attitude.
They claim the AI is just not challenging enough so they want human opponents. I would speculate if they are actually regularly winning against every AI opponent the game throws
at them, FD needs to keep looking at where they can make the AI better against high ranking pilots. If the griefers are so occupied in surviving the AI, they have less time and availability to seek out humans.
Second, if they (the griefers) are really so good a wing of AI Vipers and Vultures are just a momentary nuisance, the desire to find more worthy targets is not a strong argument.
I venture the majority of human players are not as skilled as a wing of AI Elite, so what the griefers are really doing is seeking out EASIER targets, not harder ones. Also, shooting AI
has a certain impersonality to it. Plastering a human controlled ship though has associated with it a certain personal dimension. A person on the other end is going to suffer some
real and measurable inconvenience and remember it. For those maladjusted players, this small score fuels the fire of retribution against the world. Eventually, this fire ranks up and spills back
into the real world as unsatisfied aggression. "I want to make somebody REALLY hurt the way I hurt."
-Pv-
- - - Updated - - -
"However, ramming player ships to avoid getting attacked by station defenses is an EXPLOIT"
I have long thought the defensive zone around the larger and more popular/power stations is too small. High security should mean not only more numbers of security and aggressiveness, but also a longer reach. I assume the 100 speed and above is leveraged to represent the ramming speed at which damage can be afflicted. Perhaps the higher ranked (more experienced and should know better) players should have increased scaled fines imposed.
-PV-
Last edited:
This is essentially an argument that video game make people violent and potentially hurt people.
So let's bring in the equivalence of this: Do guns make people violent and hurt people?
Anyone get my drift, yet?
I've read all 16 pages - I even tried talking some sense into the mixing bowl (didn't go anywhere - anyone heard of what it's like to play chess with a pigeon?)
It's clear that all parties are unsatisfied.
If pirates/griefers/murderers/whatever you want to label them are so bored with fighting matched opponents (AI or players) that they are compelled to attack sidewinders, there is a problem with PvP/PvE.
If players are getting sick of being killed for no reason/spawnkilled/griefed/whatever they call it, then there is a problem (lack of communication? Differing set of gameplay standards?)
Only FDev can sort either of these problems. Player fixes can help (PMCs, escort groups, playing in solo) but they won't last forever. FDev is responsible entirely for the problems these players have. Let them notice the problem and fix it.
It's clear that all parties are unsatisfied.
If pirates/griefers/murderers/whatever you want to label them are so bored with fighting matched opponents (AI or players) that they are compelled to attack sidewinders, there is a problem with PvP/PvE.
If players are getting sick of being killed for no reason/spawnkilled/griefed/whatever they call it, then there is a problem (lack of communication? Differing set of gameplay standards?)
Only FDev can sort either of these problems. Player fixes can help (PMCs, escort groups, playing in solo) but they won't last forever. FDev is responsible entirely for the problems these players have. Let them notice the problem and fix it.
And pretty much every study into the association between them has shown no causative association. It can't even show correlation due to the prolific nature of games. It's just another straw man like how rap music, rock and roll, swing dancing, two piece bathing suits, exposed ankles on women, and using a wheel to make labor easier had their turns.
There is actually a video game about columbine that shows where the real motivation can come from. It's hated for being about Columbine and made with RPG maker.
Untrue. I am satisfied with the current way that FD have implemented the game. I've done very little PvP so far, spending most of my time PvEing, but I play almost exclusively in Open because I want the danger that player commanders bring.
Last edited:
"OK so someone might RP as a but I don't know why and who cares?"
This is a valid argument since we all know getting attacked by humans is avoidable in so many ways.
The reality is if you are playing the human risk side of the game, you have these options:
- Wing up.
- Rank up your skill. Practice the training where you can beat all the sessions without trouble. Avoid the ramming game and shoot with skill from a distance.
From what I've seen in the many combat videos, high speed ramming is the technique of choice for most of these players and can be avoided.
- Module up your ship.
- Avoid the aggressive human saturated areas.
For those who respond to griefers by avoiding them using play options, it's the griefers themselves who are poisoning their own lunch.
For those who love the challenge, get out there and shoot these guys to dust.
If the greifers are really saturating the environment where the majority of players are hopelessly helpless against them, then it's the community's
fault for not responding in kind, just like appeasement in the real world fuels more aggression against the helpless.
-Pv-
This is a valid argument since we all know getting attacked by humans is avoidable in so many ways.
The reality is if you are playing the human risk side of the game, you have these options:
- Wing up.
- Rank up your skill. Practice the training where you can beat all the sessions without trouble. Avoid the ramming game and shoot with skill from a distance.
From what I've seen in the many combat videos, high speed ramming is the technique of choice for most of these players and can be avoided.
- Module up your ship.
- Avoid the aggressive human saturated areas.
For those who respond to griefers by avoiding them using play options, it's the griefers themselves who are poisoning their own lunch.
For those who love the challenge, get out there and shoot these guys to dust.
If the greifers are really saturating the environment where the majority of players are hopelessly helpless against them, then it's the community's
fault for not responding in kind, just like appeasement in the real world fuels more aggression against the helpless.
-Pv-
Last edited:
Thank you.
The controversies of Postal and Hatred are great examples,and of course, the most well known would be GTA.
Last edited:
"This is essentially an argument that video game make people violent and potentially hurt people.
So let's bring in the equivalence of this: Do guns make people violent and hurt people?"
This is not the argument I'm making.
Games do not make people aggressive.
People make games aggressive.
Guns do not kill people. People sometimes use guns to kill people.
People fear guns more than other weapons because of their ability to
maim/kill at a distance without defense. We can envision ourselves defending against a knife, like happened here a few days ago.
It's much harder to envision ourselves defending against a spray of bullets.
My point is *not* that Elite (or any other game) CAUSES griefers or aggression. Some Griefers have personal problems they bring to the game.
Many of the mass murders occurring regularly in the US while not directly attributable games, almost without exception, these same
people are showing extreme distress in the social media prior to their acts.
You need to ask yourself. Do I get really riled and defensive over nearly everything people type on the screen?
As soon as my argument looks weak to myself, is a personal attack the immediate response and I cannot resist doing it?
Is an argument against my opinion immediately and inadvertently interpreted as a personal insult against myself requiring
an emotionally charged insult as a result? Is your argument ALWAYS right and you can prove it by how clever, insulting and creative your attacks
against a person's personality or perceived value in the world?
-Pv-
So let's bring in the equivalence of this: Do guns make people violent and hurt people?"
This is not the argument I'm making.
Games do not make people aggressive.
People make games aggressive.
Guns do not kill people. People sometimes use guns to kill people.
People fear guns more than other weapons because of their ability to
maim/kill at a distance without defense. We can envision ourselves defending against a knife, like happened here a few days ago.
It's much harder to envision ourselves defending against a spray of bullets.
My point is *not* that Elite (or any other game) CAUSES griefers or aggression. Some Griefers have personal problems they bring to the game.
Many of the mass murders occurring regularly in the US while not directly attributable games, almost without exception, these same
people are showing extreme distress in the social media prior to their acts.
You need to ask yourself. Do I get really riled and defensive over nearly everything people type on the screen?
As soon as my argument looks weak to myself, is a personal attack the immediate response and I cannot resist doing it?
Is an argument against my opinion immediately and inadvertently interpreted as a personal insult against myself requiring
an emotionally charged insult as a result? Is your argument ALWAYS right and you can prove it by how clever, insulting and creative your attacks
against a person's personality or perceived value in the world?
-Pv-
Last edited:
Hurricane Moon
Banned
guns dont kill people
people kill people
a weapon is only dangerous as the person who wields it
people kill people
a weapon is only dangerous as the person who wields it
I'm not sure why people with real life problems is relevant in a discussion about PvP combat and what constitutes "griefing" in a computer game. The game doesn't cause these people to have real life problems, and peoples real life problems when brought into the game usually gets them banned in short order. We might as well talk about how the price of rice in China effects the price of biowaste in Lave.
Last edited:
Thank you for clarifying your point.
As for your speculation, I'm merely pointing out the congruent nature between two arguments:
"For those maladjusted players, this small score fuels the fire of retribution against the world. Eventually, this fire ranks up and spills back
into the real world as unsatisfied aggression. "I want to make somebody REALLY hurt the way I hurt.""
and the controversial topic of do video games make people violent.
I personally respect both sides of the argument.
I think you should ask yourself the questions you want me to ask myself.
Perhaps you should make this less personal, it'll help you to avoid derailing the thread.
- - - Updated - - -
Precisely, I still don't understand why morals get involve in this discussion, nor of its necessity.
The griefing as described here is not a personal problem for me.
The question I see asked frequently is what to do about the problem as if the "problem" some how can be made to go away.
It cannot. In an effort not to derail, I have also suggested possible *mitigations" in several posts above. I've only postulated a few of the many
sources and motivations behind the problem and why it will not entirely go away in a combat game.
There ARE solutions for reducing one's perception of the importance or impact on your personal game style which is largely what this thread is about (and the hundreds like it created
nearly every day.)
-Pv-
The question I see asked frequently is what to do about the problem as if the "problem" some how can be made to go away.
It cannot. In an effort not to derail, I have also suggested possible *mitigations" in several posts above. I've only postulated a few of the many
sources and motivations behind the problem and why it will not entirely go away in a combat game.
There ARE solutions for reducing one's perception of the importance or impact on your personal game style which is largely what this thread is about (and the hundreds like it created
nearly every day.)
-Pv-
Last edited:
I'm glad you can be the spokesperson for players of Elite.
The problem is that fd made choices which cause problems for the comunity as a whole, and especialy people who kick started the game expecting the solo offline mode. the fact that they supported a game with the idea that it would be able to be played offline, then lost that option makes it clear that fd does not care about the people who supported them. as such, its also clear they wont be able to fix social problems for those who want to play in open mode. the only way we can fix open play is to as a community work together and help each other.
Its by no means the community's fault for people hiding in solo/groups. its instead fd's fault. however, its also only the comunity that has the ablity to change things for the better.
Fd dropped offline, fd did not use bartles taxology well, by overly supporting killers and achievers while under supporting explorers and social players. if you know anything about bartels work, you would know that killers and achievers do not mesh well. (usually why there is a pvp pve split sever wise) and because of the way the game works, killers are the only group getting a fully satisfied experience.
If fd was skilled at using this, they would be doing everything they can to help explorers out, and more importantly giving them more things to do in the bubble as well. allowing them to help reduce the number of killers to other people raitio. while also giving achievers more people to work with, and giving social people more people to talk to.
after that they would need to expand the social tools. but again, its what one would do if they understand game development advancement.
ether way. if people want to get escorts, or help other people with escorts, contact the recon guys via our website. http://aussidan.wix.com/recon
Your speculation was written as a direct response to my post, and you've made it very clear that you wish that I question myself with the inquiries you listed.
I'm stating that you are making your conversation with me too personal to be productive. The implication in your list of inquires are quite apparent to me.
And I'll repeat, making a conversation personal doesn't contribute much to the conversation.
If you're still confused, read this yourself:
Last edited:
One more mile....if gameplay is indicative of moral behavior, could you tell me what it means that the guy who was avidly against PvP in my old EVE corp, who did nothing but trading, mining, and production...killed two people and then himself shortly after his wife discovered his hard drive full of provocative underage images?
You can't really tie crazy gameplay to crazy people. You can only suggest that crazy people probably prefer entertainment forms that reward the body with seratonin to hold off depression and neurosis.
You can't really tie crazy gameplay to crazy people. You can only suggest that crazy people probably prefer entertainment forms that reward the body with seratonin to hold off depression and neurosis.
I don't need to be a spokesperson for players of Elite to prove your statement of "It's clear that all parties are unsatisfied." as untrue. As you made the initial statement, apparently as a spokesperson for all parties (or in other words players of Elite?) I just wanted to correct you, that you do not speak for all of us.