Griefing: Is it?

[Khelder]

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?

We seem to be changing tack a little here.

Personally, I don't think the commanders using the slow-ramming 'tactic' around the station recently deserve your comments. For the ones who choose to willfully attack without exploiting mechanics, I can completely understand that. And you've made an excellent point I think. I've said before that a heightened AI response to such commanders would fit the roleplaying and make it a little more challenging for them. But having a way for them to be recognised for what they are trying to achieve, I would think that would go a long way too. Of course, CODE seems to have managed it as a group without specific features in the game, so congrats to them.

Unfortunately, that still leaves the players who aren't really roleplaying. They're just looking for things to shoot... pew pew. It's probably not going to make all that much of a difference to them.

 

[Layne Vakarian]

We seem to be changing tack a little here.

Somewhat, perhaps. The general opinion seems to be clear on the subject of ramming. It's an exploit. It's unfair. Players don't have a response that works in the context of the game-mechanic: returning fire gets them shot at by the Station. Other options diminish their gaming pleasure.
I wanted to expand on the morality of 'griefing' in general: 'I'm attacking you because I want to, I may have RP reasons, I may simply be doing it right here and now, because I can', may be reasonable, but as the game doesn't provide any means of labelling such an aggressor in a persistent and Galaxy-wide fashion, such a player is almost by definition a griefer. I personally wouldn't want to destroy your ship: it just seems mean. So why would anybody else?

 

[babelfisch]

Somewhat, perhaps. The general opinion seems to be clear on the subject of ramming. It's an exploit. It's unfair. Players don't have a response that works in the context of the game-mechanic: returning fire gets them shot at by the Station. Other options diminish their gaming pleasure.
I wanted to expand on the morality of 'griefing' in general: 'I'm attacking you because I want to, I may have RP reasons, I may simply be doing it right here and now, because I can', may be reasonable, but as the game doesn't provide any means of labelling such an aggressor in a persistent and Galaxy-wide fashion, such a player is almost by definition a griefer. I personally wouldn't want to destroy your ship: it just seems mean. So why would anybody else?

But players have a response to low speed ramming. It's called flying away faster than the guy who wants to ram you. If he is limited to 100, every ship in game can run at least twice as fast.

 

[Lupis]

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.

Yeah greifers can just slink away to a new instance losing any mob and reeking havok on a new instance.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Ramming has not been a common practice since ancient times. So...seriously? And the goal of a good modern day naval commander is not to come to close quarters.

Not quite true....

[video=youtube;joO3p5gRdD0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joO3p5gRdD0[/video]

 

[Zorronov]

Once again...isolated incidents do not make ramming a common practice. Claiming that it is a common practice is absurd!

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

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.

It's not unlawful at all. My router is nothing special but in a P2P game it can log all the connecting IP address. I as the bill payer for my broadband have the implicit right to ban any IP address from connecting to my computer - It's called network security.

I have the right to do this to which ever IP address I choose and there is nothing in the world anyone can do about it. Simple.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Griefing is simply this:

Attacking another player without any profitable return except your own satisfaction.

Piracy = Attack in order to gain goods
Bounty Hunting = Attack in order to attain money
Blockade A station = Prevent people from reaching their destination (yes, that I think is a reasonable goal)
Trading = Deliver P from A to B and gain profits
Etc

Griefing 1: Exploit game mechanics to hurt other players for emotional satisfaction (station ramming for example)
Griefing 2: Block landing pads for lulz (bad gamedesign, they should either forcefully undock you iff you do not go into hangar or put you into hangar)
Griefing 3: Shoot people because you are bored (And no, a hauler VS a battle fitted Anaconda is not PvP becaus eit's no "versus" involved, it's an execution)

MOST actions wwhere player have a REASON to shoot people in the face are perfectly ok, it IS in OPEN. But all actions need proper consequences on BOTH sides of the fence.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

It's not unlawful at all. My router is nothing special but in a P2P game it can log all the connecting IP address. I as the bill payer for my broadband have the implicit right to ban any IP address from connecting to my computer - It's called network security.

I have the right to do this to which ever IP address I choose and there is nothing in the world anyone can do about it. Simple.

Another reason why they should move away from P2P solution and add a cheat guard.

 

[lenna]

Another reason why they should move away from P2P solution and add a cheat guard.

I believe the game is already at least partially Peer to Peer but IPs/MACs can be spoofed with sufficient knowledge.

 

[BigPappa]

I wonder about those that go into Open without a prey mindset. Everyone in Open can be considered prey. You have to decide on your choice of play...hunted or hunter. Then understand the idea of failure of your decision.

Of course we can all hide in various other modes to feel safe... but why let the "predators" have all the fun?

It's perfectly acceptable gameplay in ED for folks to interdict you for no reason at all and blow you up... and it's also perfectly acceptable for those same folks to feel the wrath of everyone they've ever bullied that are now standing unified as one...

So with that said... if anyone here would actually have an interest in let's say a "Peacekeeper" type player group, I would love to hear from you or simply visit the Paladin Consortium site.

http://inara.cz/wing/286

Fly safe!

-Big Pappa
Paladin Consortium Wing Commander

 

[Valan]

Does it need a wing to counteract this or a ship set up to counteract the ram and turn the tables?

 

[xondk]

My thoughts on griefing.

Griefing is attacking a person/or people with the only intention of annoying/harassing ruining their ability to enjoy the game, for example interdicting and destroying people at random with no intention of actually pirating them.
Rule of thumb I use is if someone is not interacting at all with people, then they are likely griefing if they are attacking people.

Ramming is a valid tactic to kill people, that some people decide to use for griefing, obviously the fine they get from ramming is not keeping them from doing it, as such I would suggest that there is added a timer, so that say, if someone rams someone and destroys them, they get bountied, if someone rams someone repeatedly, it is considered aggressive actions, a simple timer could keep an eye on it?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Quite a lot controversies are in this thread.

All matters are of perception and subjective interpretation.

One player may enjoy blowing other players up for the purpose of emotional satisfaction. This constitutes fun and valid gameplay for said player.

Another player may insist that blowing other players up for emotional satisfaction is illegitimate and "griefing." Because said player does not enjoy blowing players up for emotional satisfaction, tries to voice their opinion and claim that players that enjoy blowing players up for emotional satisfaction are somehow inferior to other instruments to happiness.

However, both parties are pursuing the intrinsic happiness, merely that instruments they utilize are different and can come in conflict with one another. Also it is subject to moral judgment. Everyone tries to justify their own instruments to obtain this intrinsic sense of happiness, and are equivalent in that sense.

In real life, societies have established norms and standards and morals to judge people in the sense of determining what is the "proper" or "appropriate" way of seeking happiness, and prohibit certain other instruments to happiness. It's often understood as a necessary evil, or compulsory violence. I don't think it's necessary for the OP to exercise even further violence. And if the OP does try to justify his stance, then OP is admitting to exercising violence, or perhaps "disturbing other members of the community for his emotional satisfaction." Which becomes hypocritical.

Every individual exercise a default level of violence to sustain their existence, but to take a step further and begin judging other people in a "moral" sense is quite a step up from the inevitability of exercising minimum violence.

In game, FD is said society, and it seems to be very lenient and allow a large array of instruments utilized by players to pursue happiness.

Yes, hacking/cheating/exploiting are instruments to happiness, but they are instruments FD prohibits, or at least try to prohibit.

Basically, the point is that we should stop utilizing morals to judge one another, but instead accept and tolerate the wide array of instruments to happiness and focus only on what the current setting (society) allows or disallows, then come to term with it.

State what is allowed and what is disallowed with evidence, moralizing doesn't do much other than generate unnecessary emotion that will cloud logic.

Nothing can be intrinsically immoral, since morality is a concept created by human-kind.

TL;DR:

OP, gain perspectives on your own "morality" before judging other people's morals. Maybe it will make you seem much less narrow-minded.

 

[Anopheles]

For some players griefing seems to mean 'being made to feel a bit sad briefly'.

 

[Layne Vakarian]

Assume for the sake of argument that I have the resources, ships, and ability to take on and defeat you in combat at will, and finances such that I can laugh off the occasional defeat even in a maxed-out Combat Anaconda.


Now again, for the sake of argument, imagine that I've decided that my RP in this game is to be a vigilante, and my chosen target is you. I am going to destroy your ship. And then I am going to destroy it again. And again. I am never going to allow you to leave your home-station's no-fire zone. I am going to follow you around the galaxy, and every time you venture into open, I am going to blow you out of the sky. Eventually, you will face the insurance screen knowing that you're back to a free sidewinder. Assuming that you didn't give up and go play something else instead in the meantime.
What you are feeling now is the 'emotional' response players have when they encounter a 'griefer'. There is no point to my vindictiveness. In the overall tally of the victories I have amassed becoming Elite, you are insignificant. I don't want your cargo. I don't want to talk to you. I can afford the paltry 'fines'. I can afford to self-destruct to clear my bounties if the pesky npcs get in the way of my avowed intent to ruin your day. Your attempts to have fun in your own way are being thwarted by a single minded unwillingness to allow you to do so.

Good luck being a pirate in Mobius

Do you get it now?

Sadly, I think you don't.

 

[Jukelo]

Assume for the sake of argument that I have the resources, ships, and ability to take on and defeat you in combat at will, and finances such that I can laugh off the occasional defeat even in a maxed-out Combat Anaconda.

For the sake of argument, the game mechanics make it very hard for you to do these things, and very easy for your victim to avoid you.

I am going to destroy your ship. And then I am going to destroy it again. And again. I am never going to allow you to leave your home-station's no-fire zone.

Stations have very powerful weapons. If you are in range to shoot somebody exiting the mailslot (and if you're not, then all the victim has to do is face the other direction and boost away, the conda isn't the fastest ship out there), you are well within range of the station's gun. Station fire stings. A lot. Even for combat condas, and the conda isn't the fastest or most maneuverable ship in the game, so you'll stay under fire for a long time. It's not just an 'occasional' defeat you'll suffer. Every time you blow up your target, you'll also lose your conda. And if by some miracle you survive, your shields will suffer from attrition, meaning the next time you try it you'll die for good (remember, jumping back to supercruise no longer recharges shields instantly), leaving your target free to just respawn and get out of there before you can do it again. Leading to the following...

I am going to follow you around the galaxy, and every time you venture into open. I am going to blow you out of the sky.

No you wont. You don't know where the target is since there is no way (apart from friending somebody) to actually track a target across the galaxy, and instancing makes it even less likely that you'll ever meet a specific player.

What you are feeling now is the 'emotional' response players have when they encounter a 'griefer'.

But of course, as I demonstrated, nobody feels that emotional response since this scenario just doens't happen thanks to the game mechanics preventing it.

 

[Layne Vakarian]

I did say 'for the sake of argument'. I have no intention of ever doing this. The purpose of the exercise is to invite the reader to imagine how they would feel were they to find themselves in this scenario. That the scenario itself is ludicrous, and difficult-to-impossible because of the way the game works is beside the point. The point is to try and understand the 'emotional response'.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I did say 'for the sake of argument'. I have no intention of ever doing this. The purpose of the exercise is to invite the reader to imagine how they would feel were they to find themselves in this scenario. That the scenario itself is ludicrous, and difficult-to-impossible because of the way the game works is beside the point. The point is to try and understand the 'emotional response'.

And I'm pointing out your appeal to emotion is clouding logic.

 

[Buglet]

Just for the sake of argument, Gluttony, say for instance that one day real society started to accept that it is okay for a man to beat a women (there are societies in the world where this is already the case). According to your logic, if society were to think that beating women was okay then we all must agree that beating women is an acceptable instrument of happiness. Is this to say that it's right to beat women? If you moved to, say, Saudi Arabia (where it isn't against the law for a man to beat his wife) would you automatically assume the frame-of-mind that beating your wife is a moral act? I'd wager not.

This demonstrates that morals are not just a social construct, but instead something rooted deep within the individual human psyche. Some would argue that morals is what sets the human mind apart from animal minds.

In the same instance, if FDev were to say that needlessly killing players is alright, does that mean it is? I mean, the Saudi government allows men to beat their wives, but does that make it alright?

They're two extremes, but as you can see morals cannot merely be decided by those who create the society. They are individual. The issue that arises is that less-moral players will happily "grief" others and, when flagged for the lack-of-morals, they hide behind the scapegoat of "FDev says it's okay", similar to how the more brutal demographic of the male Saudi population who beat the wives hide behind the scapegoat of "the government says it's okay".

I'd argue that neither acts are at all "okay". The simple description is that the less moral of the players have found a loophole in the system that allows them to exercise their not-so-friendly route to happiness.