Griefing: Is it?

[Asp Explorer]

That's actually venturing into unlawful behaviour in the real world. Because someone blew up your ship in a game? Talk about seriously sour wine berries.

As I mentioned before - I don't do this - I merely point out possibilities. However, I have to thank you for multiple LULZ.

Someone wants in to my private property, and they get annoyed when I don't let them? Unlawful behaviour indeed. Elite uses our private property to provide the game to others. We pay to provide gametime for others. I have absolutely no problem with that. However, it would not be unreasonable for someone to lulzbann someone from their instance that they have no desire to play with after they have caused trouble.

A Publican can bar someone for being unpleasant. You can kick people out of your house. You can throw people from parties when they decide to dump in the sink for lulz. P2P gaming is exactly the same.

 

[Evil]

Right then. First up I'm making some unsubstantiated assumptions here: 'Ramming' has become a viable method of 'killing' a CMDRs ship (though not the CMDR, of course).

*SNIP*

I would suggest you step away from the game, I can see this form of PvP or "greifing" for you, is becoming a "issue" "extreme view point" you're clinging to, and its dragging you in to a world where you may struggle to clearly define differences between a game and real life. Step back from the digital stuff, don't get attached, its just 1's and 0's.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Griefing: Is it?

I play the game how it's meant to be played: My way.

In game, my way involves killing others for no other reason other than I like the opportunity to do so. This is how I choose to play and I expect some will not mind and I expect others won't like that one bit. I accept the consequences of my actions, in that I become wanted, yelled at, blocked, and hunted.

In real life in a personal setting, I generally don't care about people unless my interaction with them involves earning my respect. This is how I choose to live and I expect some will not mind that and I expect others won't like that one bit. I accept the consequences of my actions in that I don't have many acquaintances and earn a pretty negative reputation.

In real life while in a professional setting, I treat others with as much respect as I can possibly muster; customer service is part of my job. This is how I choose to live and I expect some will not care and I expect others will be satisfied. I accept the consequences of my actions in that I must stomach the idea of putting on a fake smile for money.

I am 100% confident with who I am. I am condescending, I am self absorbed, I am rude, but I am also helpful, honest, and caring (assuming I find a reason to). A well constructed post attempting to damage my personal identity is naught but dumbfires to my shield generator.

I have no problem with me, yet you do. And you know what? That's okay. Today you call me 'griefer' and I call you Silent Pact. But tomorrow, no matter how flipped the circumstances are, you will call me 'griefer', and yet I will still be calling you Silent Pact. With confidence I can say my IRL morality is far superior to yours.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

Nobody is asking whether or not the game allows it.

That's not a discussion point.

The discussion point is whether or not this behavior makes the person who did it a .

That's a subjective point. It might not seem like a move to you, in which case, you're welcome to your opinion.

Like any other social situation, if you promote or engage in behaviors that everyone around you sees as violating basic social mores, then people are going to perceive you as a .

That's how people are.

Generally, it's considered poor taste to engage in such behaviors. So, we call it "griefing."

Nobody, anywhere, in or out of a simulation, is magically exempt from being a jackass just because the rules technically allow you to be a jackass.

...and? Some of us consider hostile behaviour to be par for the course and just get on with it. Social norms are only relevant to the in-group. We don't all share the same end goal or vision. Whether that be for the greater social good or not.

As I mentioned before - I don't do this - I merely point out possibilities. However, I have to thank you for multiple LULZ.

Someone wants in to my private property, and they get annoyed when I don't let them? Unlawful behaviour indeed. Elite uses our private property to provide the game to others. We pay to provide gametime for others. I have absolutely no problem with that. However, it would not be unreasonable for someone to lulzbann someone from their instance that they have no desire to play with after they have caused trouble.

A Publican can bar someone for being unpleasant. You can kick people out of your house. You can throw people from parties when they decide to dump in the sink for lulz. P2P gaming is exactly the same.

Did you mention you don't do this? I must have missed that. Regardless, I wasn't pointing fingers, just saying that if one resorted to such behaviour over a game, it's serious sour berries.

I don't follow your reasoning though. Open galaxy play means good and bad. If you want to mediate over the bad, then that's exactly what Group play is for. I think your analogy would be more akin to having an argument in the pub and then deciding to take it outside for fisty cuffs.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Did you mention you don't do this? I must have missed that.

I've been mentioning it for years now. I don't do most of the stuff I talk about - except as experiments in testing phases to provide proof of concept and hard data.

I don't follow your reasoning though. Open galaxy play means good and bad. If you want to mediate over the bad, then that's exactly what Group play is for. I think your analogy would be more akin to having an argument in the pub and then deciding to take it outside for fisty cuffs.

That's a fair analogy - except that P2P players all own their own pubs, and can kick out anyone else they please - as they are all on equal levels of authority. That's kind of what peer means.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

That's a fair analogy - except that P2P players all own their own pubs, and can kick out anyone else they please - as they are all on equal levels of authority. That's kind of what peer means.

Right. Peer as in, no more authority or priority over any other peer. Node neutrality, if you will. That includes cherry picking. What you're suggesting undermines the principle of neutral peer behaviour when one starts discerning one kind of peer over another, which is also circumventing the game's networking protocol. I'm not up on the subject, but that sounds like it's going into the territory of breaking ToS or EULA. That is also way out of scope of the discussion. We are talking about in-game here, are we not?

Again, if one wishes to discern the kind of player they encounter, that's what Group play is for.

 

[Cicidac]

In all sincere honesty, I don't have anything against rammers. I understand that right now, rammers can get away with what they do. That should be patched and dealt with by Frontier. Perhaps after "x" many collisions in "y" minutes, you will receive a bounty or some penalty.

HOWEVER, I am not in support of a suspension or ban in anyway. Those punishments should be reserved for hackers, cheaters, botters, etc. If they are merely exploiting a game mechanic, it's justified, and the responsibility should fall on Fdev to patch such exploits for a balanced gaming environment.

Remember the rare goods exploits when ED first launched. Players were exploiting game mechanics to obtain insane amounts of credits. You can't exactly blame them for following a "get-rich-quick" mentality. In all honesty, it's not a bad thing to follow your id, and just follow your wild side. It's what makes the game, especially open worlds like this one, fun.

 

[Jypson]

Random Rambling Time!:

1) Griefing: Apparently we can't all agree on an acceptable definition of 'Griefing' which is interesting in itself. I tend to agree with the comparison to pornography, tough to nail down, but obvious with proper context. The general feeling is that purposefully causing another human being grief, for the sake of causing grief, is griefing. Causing grief in of its self doesn't necessarily make you a 'griefer' as we all make mistakes sometimes. I've gotten angry at someone before and said something mean, on purpose, to hurt their feelings. I soon regretted it and apologized. I quickly empathized with their feelings and knew I was wrong. However, if my goal in life is to lord over, put down, or be mean to people during normal every-day interactions, well, I guess you could make an argument that I'm a griefer for doing so. And you wouldn't be wrong. Intentions are harder to nail down, but for the person experiencing the hardship, intention isn't always important. Empathy I think is a big part of it. If you are unable to empathize with the people you interact with, that, I think is a different issue all together.

I have a friend, doesn't play Elite Dangerous, but enjoys games that are PvP-centric like Starcraft and Rocket League. He's a very good friend, kind, loyal, loving father and husband, BUT, he can not enjoy a game unless it's against other humans. The need to compete against other humans doesn't make you a griefer. Competition isn't griefing. The thing is, he wants to compete, not just dominate and belittle. To dominate or belittle others for the sake of dominating others, that kind of sounds like griefing to me.

2) Roleplaying (RP): I love RP personally, I think it's a great outlet of imagination and emotion. I agree that you should be able to RP as you like in game. If you want to RP a Bounty Hunter and attack ships with bounties, feel free to do so! However, think for a moment, do you attack NPC's and humans alike? Or do you attack humans exclusively? If it's humans only, why? Roleplaying, and then attacking humans only is an interesting dilemma. How do you RP attacking humans only? Let's muddy the waters further. If you RP a predator like a 'Reaver', do you attack every ship you see, or humans only? If it's RP, what is the difference between a solid contact and hollow contact? I'm not asking for a response, or justification, just be honest with yourself.

3) Open: Just like 'griefing', the definition of Open doesn't seem to be agreed upon either. Does Open = 'PvP, deal with it'? I don't think so. Does Open = 'PvE, leave me alone'? I don't think so either. Does it mean Open to all? I would think that sounds reasonable. That means no one 'owns' open. PvP, PvE, RPK; it's all there. Do any of those activities take precedence over another, I would argue no, because I interpret Open means Open for all I think. Personally speaking, I prefer to be around civil and polite company, and would prefer Open be a civil and polite game mode, but I don't own Open. I know others that want Open to be 'anything goes', but they don't own Open either. I've read a lot of 'if you don't like PvP, go to Private Group (PG) or Solo.' Ok, but I could write the very same thing. If you truly want PvP interaction, why not join/start a PvP PG? Just imagine a PG of PvP-centric players competing! Wouldn't that be heaven -on- Earth...er' Elite? My point is, Open doesn't seem to belong to anyone, PvE-PvP-etc. I personally never go into Open, because I have no desire to. Some people only want to play in Open for whatever reason, more power to you. Open is Open, it's your choice to play Open, no one is forced to play Open. Open is Open to all.

Anyway, sorry to ramble on for so long, just had to let it out I guess after perusing so many threads about the latest incident.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Right. Peer as in, no more authority or priority over any other peer. Node neutrality, if you will. That includes cherry picking. What you're suggesting undermines the principle of neutral peer behaviour when one starts discerning one kind of peer over another, which is also circumventing the game's networking protocol. I'm not up on the subject, but that sounds like it's going into the territory of breaking ToS or EULA. That is also way out of scope of the discussion. We are talking about in-game here, are we not?

Again, if one wishes to discern the kind of player they encounter, that's what Group play is for.

It's exactly the same as fully loaded combat ships pew-pewing traders or n00bs in Sideys. That is cherry picking. That is discerning one peer over another.

It's impossible to circumvent the games networking protocol - as that is dependent on the stack provided by the OS, which in turn depends on the drivers for the hardware involved.

Group play is indeed for groups.

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Ramming is a pathetic tactic. Id like to see the people who do it hunted down and their final moments shared on YouTube

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

...snip...

That's a nice level-headed way of putting it. I would only add that when referring to a PvP type of server, the general understanding is "PvP is permissible and happens sometimes", more than "PvP is the only thing that happens". And that is the reasoning behind a statement like "don't like PvP? Don't play Open" because if one cannot deal with the eventuality of PvP (fair or otherwise), then that is not the place for them to be. I think of it like a bit like Carl Sagan's thing about evolution, like destruction is the rule, survival is the exception.

It's exactly the same as fully loaded combat ships pew-pewing traders or n00bs in Sideys. That is cherry picking. That is discerning one peer over another.

It's impossible to circumvent the games networking protocol - as that is dependent on the stack provided by the OS, which in turn depends on the drivers for the hardware involved.

Group play is indeed for groups.

What? The data pertaining to the kind of ship and the player input would be inside the data packets in that neutral peer environment, which the protocol is blind to considering before connecting them to each other.

 

[vindicator jones]

I put this in my other thread, but I think pertains nicely to this topic also. Problem with how things are right now, there is no real negative effects to griefing. Players who kill players for no reason get slapped on the wrist, which gives them no incentive to change.

Anyway, this is from my other thread..

To those who came here and started talking about Open vs Solo, this is not what this thread is about. This thread is about balancing player actions in open.. Period. If you dont like the idea of there being consequences for killing players for absolutely no reason other than the kill, then it just goes to show the kind of player you are. Saying this is elite dangerous seems to be some kind of excuse, the problem is, its dangerous for traders, but nowhere near dangerous enough for pirates, so if you really believe this is elite dangerous, then you will welcome the higher risk that comes from killing defenseless traders for absolutely no reason. And if you dont welcome it, then to me, your a coward to come here talking about being this a dangerous galaxy and that if your playing in open, you just have to put up with it.. If this is a dangerous galaxy, then it makes more sense that illegal activities will be heavily punished. I have no problem with pirating, blockading or even killing traders that do not comply with demands.. but arbitrarily killing a player for no good reason is a d*ck move.. period.. If you dont like that, stiff...Thats your issue. this thread is about balancing gameplay in open.. NOT about Open vs Solo.

I have no wish to hamper pirating, I want there to be pirates, and I want them to profit from their chosen gameplay style, I want a living, breathing universe in open where everyone has to think about their actions, and accept the consequences for those actions. And the reality is, there is little to no consequences for players griefing on other players.. thats a fact.. and that needs changing.. End of story.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Sorry, but that is not how (most) network protocols work. Spend 5 minutes with Elite, a hub, and a sniffer and you'll see everything you need. There is no exotic stuff going on.

 

[Elethiomel Zakalwe]

Right then. First up I'm making some unsubstantiated assumptions here: 'Ramming' has become a viable method of 'killing' a CMDRs ship (though not the CMDR, of course). Apparently this is a preferable method on the grounds that local (to station) enforcement agencies don't deem this a sufficient 'crime' to warrant the local station opening fire upon the rammer. On this assumption the 'rammee' has only three options: wake out, combat log, or open fire: the game is biased in favour of the 'rammer' in that options one and two mean the rammer has effectively 'won', whilst option three gets the 'rammee' a bounty on their head, and attracts the unwelcome attention of the local enforcement agency.

I went and did the 'Hutton Run' today, just because, and I did so in open play. I took a ship I could afford to lose on the expectation that all could have been lost if I'd encountered a 'griefer'. Now you should understand that I am using this somewhat derogatory term simply because it is a shorthand we all understand, however you should also understand that I knew I was entering potentially dangerous 'airspace' (space-space?), and accepted the risk. If I had been ganked well, I could always have gone in solo or private right?

The only trouble with this argument is that IRL, only the very naïve don't know where the 'dangerous' airspace is, whereas in 'Elite' the 'griefers' roam about, pretty much at will, causing mayhem as they like.

It's our problem, and one we have allowed to grow: either we become a more cohesive 'race' and actively seek to form wings of vulnerable/invulnerable craft prior to going pretty much anywhere, or we begin to 'block' players (assuming that mechanic works in the way I'd expect), leaving the 'griefers' to a Galaxy that only contains griefers. To listen/read their acclamations that all they want is a PvP world, you'd imagine this would in fact be a result they crave. But I suspect not.

There are parts of the [IRL] world today where 'griefers' are a part of everyday life. They call themselves by innocent sounding acronyms, (or perhaps we supply the acronyms). And there ARE individuals and groups making the trek to be a part of the , well I don't actually know what to call it, so let's call it action. The vast (and I do mean VAST) majority are meanwhile desperately trying to get the heck out of Dodge. The rest of the (again IRL), world is meanwhile struggling to come to terms, and wrestles daily with what should/can be done. For the most part, the world remains divided, but rest assured, long term, the aligned world (i.e. not the 'griefers') will prevail, and it is not likely to pretty, nor is it something we are likely to be proud of.

To the 'griefers': do you really, REALLY want to be identified as being of the same morality as the IRL griefers to whom I refer? Of course you don't: 'It's only a game' you cry. Yes it is. But one to which you bring your own IRL morality. And as of this moment in time, your IRL morality blows. HARD.

Nuff said.

There's nothing "desperate" about any of this. You can go to solo any time you like. If you play in open it is either because you understand and accept (indeed, even relish) the risk, or because you are a moron. If anything the game should be less forgiving. People should be locked to the mode they first play in.

 

[Khelder]

There's nothing "desperate" about any of this. You can go to solo any time you like. If you play in open it is either because you understand and accept (indeed, even relish) the risk, or because you are a moron. If anything the game should be less forgiving. People should be locked to the mode they first play in.

Perhaps many of those playing in Open expect a higher standard of play than is currently being displayed by certain individuals. You can think of them as morons if you wish. Or you could keep the insults to yourself.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

Sorry, but that is not how (most) network protocols work. Spend 5 minutes with Elite, a hub, and a sniffer and you'll see everything you need. There is no exotic stuff going on.

I wasn't disputing what is possible with networking tools or protocols. You were talking about an entirely different league of player behaviour that takes action outside of the game. And to take it to that degree is, as I see it, very sour berries.

 

[Kerrash]

I understand this is an emotionally charged topic folks, but please keep to the subject of the OP; that is the morality of ramming as a tactic for causing grief.
Please avoid the cheap attacks and inappropriate language, thank you.

Frontier Moderation Team

 

[babelfisch]

Ramming is a valid tactic outside of no fire zones. Around stations the speed limit will get him a wanted status. If he flies under the speed limit you have enough time to dodge him. I don't see the problem.

 

[Khelder]

Ramming is a valid tactic outside of no fire zones. Around stations the speed limit will get him a wanted status. If he flies under the speed limit you have enough time to dodge him. I don't see the problem.

Ramming as a tactic in combat isn't really at question here I think. If you're slowly ramming people around a station that they had specifically gathered at, after a ridiculously long journey, for a non-combat purpose, purely to gain satisfaction out of their 'grief'... then I think there is a problem there.

Whether you can or should be able to avoid such attacks is not relevant. And, as the OP said, the only real method of countering the attacks (other than continually dodging or logging off) is to attack them which puts the victim at fault in the eyes of the system.

 

[Layne Vakarian]

I started this, so I'd better clarify:

When I went along to Hutton Orbital I went in open. I knew it was a potentially risky move. The added danger of going to an acknowledged 'hot zone' actually made the game-play much more interesting/exciting. If I had been destroyed by another player where would the fault be? Certainly not with the player: I could have avoided him/her by going solo, or in a private group. If I had the ship and the skills I might even have considered going along as close support against the attacking players. All good.

The E : D galaxy is very dangerous. I get interdicted by NPCs all day long, and I never question their morality: it's a machine. I have been attacked by other players at other times and places and I've run, and I've fought. Because of my current RP I've mostly lost. Am I complaining? No. Being blown away by another player IS marginally more annoying than experiencing the same fate at the hands of a NPC, but it is the nature of the game.

My problem is that the game currently does not require any context for the actions of aggressor players. If you like, I cannot see/understand/be part of the aggressors RP because it's a purely random encounter. If the other players RP is that he's a rampaging psychopath out for causing as much mayhem as possible fine. But I don't know that.

The Hutton Orbital 'incident' grew into some fine RP for all: convoys to bring a measure of security against the aggressor players. All good again.

If the game doesn't develop a mechanic to label the manic shoot-anything-that-moves, on a Galaxy-wide basis, then these players aren't part of the wider RP sim. They are just 'griefers'. If on the other hand I'm suddenly engaged by 'Scoundrel Blackheart' the scourge of the spaceways, well known and reported (GalNet) mass murderer with a Bounty in the millions on his head then great. I can either run like heck or deploy hardpoints. And presumably such a player is very, very good in order to have lasted so long, so: kudos.

At the moment though, this type of player, whether using 'exploit' such as ramming, or doing it the old-fashioned way, is in effect just a sociopathic moron. No, I'm not labelling you (whoever you are), I'm trying to make the point that the game doesn't recognise your chosen playstyle, so what, exactly are you getting out of it? There's not coherence, no balance.

If and when the game recognises you for what you are, you'll be a feared (and no doubt, in some circles, revered), adversary: watch your six! But until then?

Think about it.