In what way is griefing a good thing to have in a game?

[Bitmanipulator]

A way of setting an accumulating bounty on "griefers" would be fun.

 

[Morbad]

What utter tripe, the person you just described hasn't created a character. That would involve communication to the other player to express your mindset

I didn't describe anyone, nor does creating and portraying a character require one to communicate that to anyone else, other than via the character's actions.

My mindset isn't for most people to know. That doesn't make me any less of a person. Same goes to the characters I create and portray. Some may be chatty and verbose, but to imply that they all need to be, or that those that are not are somehow less valid, is complete nonsense.

Roleplaying is taking on the role of someone other than yourself. If the role you've assumed is a character that is disinclined to talk to others before shooting them, then having them talk to others before shooting them is a flagrant breach of character.

NPCs are more communicative.

Which often makes them even less plausible as characters.

 

[Dietger]

The definition is very simple. A player who gets pleasure from impacting negatively the game of another, ideally and commonly without danger or reward. Just for the SnGs. Lack of empathy is what we call it in real life.

I would agree to this. But yet there are those who take offense getting attacked in CGs. While others accept CGs as PvP possibilities .... So am I "grieved" when I am grieving lol???
As long as folks can't accept aggressive play stiles, we face a problem.

 

[Iskariot]

In what way is griefing a good thing to have in a game?

In no way. Griefing is always considered to be negative. I never saw a definition in which griefing was defined as something positive.
You know this, of course.

Your question is not a useful question.
The problem is in determining what is griefing and what is not griefing.
In a multiplayer situation a confrontation between players can be unpleasant for one or some of them, but that does not automatically make it griefing.

For me Solo solves everything. I don't do multiplayer, not in Elite, not in any game I own. I never will.
And the reason is not just the griefing. I also do not wish to be confronted by ridiculous behaviour, avatars of people hopping around ridiculously and stuff like that. When I play a game I want to be sucked in by that universe. I want to be immersed.
Other humans in my game kill my experience. I don't want them. I don't need them. The only thing I need is a good AI.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Cool, about time someone asked the tough questions in the OP...

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

Sandro likes it and it keeps the forums ticking over; win win

 

[Dietger]

Whether a player is griefing or not would also depend on said player's intent, would it not?

I've watched numerous livestreams in the past of a certain player - in order to try to understand them better - who deliberately set out to search for guaranteed weaker players whose ships would 100% be vulnerable to attack. Said player was winging up with their chums whilst doing so and they were obviously out with the express intent of griefing.

And grief they did perpetrate, big time.

Absolute.

A griever wants to harm you, destroying your game experiences. A classic. While I can attack players in weaker ships inside the game logic simply be apposing them, context matters.

 

[Jukelo]

There are two answers to your question.

First, the indirect benefit of having it in the game: fixing what you call griefing would put an undue burden on all player interactions.
For a start, griefing is ill-defined and depends entirely on the victim's perception of the event. Fixing griefing in general would entail asking everyone what aggrieves them, and addressing all those conflicting and probably mutually exclusive concerns. Some will say griefing is being attacked by a stronger ship for no reason at all, while some actually relish that prospect. Some think griefing is manipulating the BGS in solo to affect everyone negatively (again, what what is negative will be entirely a matter of perception) while fighting other players via the BGS is what keeps many playing. Some have also made the argument that trying to oppose a CG is griefing, because in their view CGs are ultimately a positive thing and need to succeed. The only possible outcome would be to remove the multiplayer component of Elite Dangerous entirely - not just the pew pew, but even the meta aspects of it like the BGS.
Still, if for some reason we decided that only one definition of griefing is right (that is, ganking for no reason) and dismissed everybody else's grievances, how would we even fix just that while not affecting all the so-called legit opportunities for player conflict? The game pretends to a degree of believability, you can't strictly limit and police player interactions because the reasons why another player might want to shoot you dead are countless even before we get to the only one true reason that matters: because they want to shoot other players, in a game that advertises shooting other players.

The second benefit of having it in the game is very simple: it adds a sense of dread. You know that, at any moment, you might lose your ship to a psycho. This colors the whole experience in a beneficial way since NPCs provide so little risk and challenge when you are just minding your own business and not looking for trouble. This isn't Euro-truck simulator, this is Elite: Dangerous, a game supposed to take place in a cut-throat galaxy, griefers are simply the cut-throats in it.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

It's something that has always perplexed me. I'm all for pvp with someone who's up for it but not ganking people who just want an open mmo experience without some idiot hell-bent on ruining the game for people. Ganking ruins ED in my opinion. You can't do CGs in open as you'll invariably qet these guys exercising their right (as decided by fdev) to anti-social behaviour. I'm of the belief these guys likely lack the courage for confrontation in real life and so enjoy the tingle they get from being a keyboard warrior. I don't get what it's supposed to add to the game? So can someone explain why ED benefits from a small subset of players being encouraged to actively attempt to make another's game experience unpleasant?

Please note - this is a GAME. I've heard the 'space is a dangerous place' sort of argument but it isn't space. It's a video game. I've also not seen a rebuy screen from a ganker since my lowly days of flying an un-engineered Cobra mk3 so i'm not embittered by some recent altercation.

It would be good if someone from FDev could advise what they see as the benefit of allowing it. I know there will be a raft of 'tough guys' with their usual responses to this kind of question. I'm just going to ignore them.

You mean, "In what way is another player being able to attack you a good thing to have in a game?" Specifically, a game in which we fly pretend spaceships with shields, guns, sensors and a thousand other SF tropes typically found when spaceships attack or are attacked.

 

[Dietger]

There are two answers to your question.

First, the indirect benefit of having it in the game: fixing what you call griefing would put an undue burden on all player interactions.
For a start, griefing is ill-defined and depends entirely on the victim's perception of the event. Fixing griefing in general would entail asking everyone what aggrieves them, and addressing all those conflicting and probably mutually exclusive concerns. Some will say griefing is being attacked by a stronger ship for no reason at all, while some actually relish that prospect. Some think griefing is manipulating the BGS in solo to affect everyone negatively (again, what what is negative will be entirely a matter of perception) while fighting other players via the BGS is what keeps many playing. Some have also made the argument that trying to oppose a CG is griefing, because in their view CGs are ultimately a positive thing and need to succeed. The only possible outcome would be to remove the multiplayer component of Elite Dangerous entirely - not just the pew pew, but even the meta aspects of it like the BGS.
Still, if for some reason we decided that only one definition of griefing is right (that is, ganking for no reason) and dismissed everybody else's grievances, how would we even fix just that while not affecting all the so-called legit opportunities for player conflict? The game pretends to a degree of believability, you can't strictly limit and police player interactions because the reasons why another player might want to shoot you dead are countless even before we get to the only one true reason that matters: because they want to shoot other players, in a game that advertises shooting other players.

The second benefit of having it in the game is very simple: it adds a sense of dread. You know that, at any moment, you might lose your ship to a psycho. This colors the whole experience in a beneficial way since NPCs provide so little risk and challenge when you are just minding your own business and not looking for trouble. This isn't Euro-truck simulator, this is Elite: Dangerous, a game supposed to take place in a cut-throat galaxy, griefers are simply the cut-throats in it.

This summaries the complex very well. It explains Frontiers stance on the matter.

 

[Jmanis]

Killing players, Ganking players != griefing.

Now, I'm all for a robust discussion about the lack of effective defensive modules beyond "TANK TANK TANK RUN AWAY!" in the game, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

[PS4gamer]

Firstly, what is the definition of "griefing" in this context? How does it differ from gameplay? Is ganking gameplay or not?

Secondly, players can choose to play among other players, or not, depending on their acceptance of the possibility of encounters with other players that they may or may not find enjoyable.

as proved in this post ^^

FD themselves don't have a problem with griefing at all, it's totally fine by them and that will never change.
The best thing is never to play in open, just stick to solo or join Mobius and play with like minded adults and not attention seeking children.

 

[JohnRoberts]

trying to kill people for no other reason than to be anti-social.

You are being presumptive and judgemental about other people's motives. Many commanders doing this at CGs are of the opinion that if you go there in open, you are a willing participant in running their blockade. I've done some blockade running, and it is both fun and exciting. I've lost a couple of ships doing it, but I learned how to get better at blockade running, and got though far more often than not.

Finally, if you think they are cowards who would run from a fair fight, you know where they are, and by all means take the fair fight to them. Indeed, take the best ship you can, and tip the field in your favour.

 

[Roberto]

As someone who's recently been ganked/griefed/whatever you want to call it a couple of times, after a longish break from the game… I don't think it (assuming we can even agree on a definition) should be banned. It'd be nice if attackers bothered with *some* kind of communication pre- or mid-"gank", but hey.

The extreme power disparities resulting from the advent of engineering/Guardians tech are… unfortunate IMO. But the horse has long since bolted from that stable (and I can understand why FDev went down that route).

Also, plus ça change on the forum, eh?

EDIT: I think FDev could and should do something about the interdiction game. When it's virtually impossible to win (as the defender), it seems pointless having it.

 

[Zarek Null]

The definition is very simple. A player who enjoys impacting negatively the game of another, ideally and commonly without danger or reward. Just for the SnGs. Lack of empathy, or bully mentality is what we call it in real life. Hence, inevitable in an environment that allows it in a gameworld.

That’s a good definition, and it made me realize how bad the griefing actually is.

There are actually players out there that intentionally make first discoveries of celestial bodies. In doing so, their name becomes permanent emblazoned on the galaxy map. Once this happens, *none* of the *thousands* of subsequent players arriving later will *ever* be able to put their name on that same body. This is a crushing disappointment. Other people want to have their name on the galaxy map, but now they can’t. The misery of disappointment this creates multiplies by the thousands of players that experience it for each one of the hundreds of thousands of celestial bodies already discovered, and note also that this misery perpetuates *forever* (name-claiming is permanent). A gank hurts for a moment, but name-claiming hurts *forever*, times a thousand.

Now for the first discoverer, there was little risk in permantly and exclusively claiming the planet or star. They may have even done so using an exploration ship with a highly overpowered frame shift drive, that people just starting would have no chance of out-jumping. And the first discoverer *loves it*. I have never seen an explorer express empathy for the way they bully others by spamming the galactic map with their name while others are powerless to ever change it.

I’m sure you agree, exploration griefing negatively impacts the game both in scope (creating hundreds of thousands of griefing “monuments”) and duration (forever). It gives one person the selfish enjoyment of name exclusivity at the expense of thousands of innocents people that may have travelled for hours (even days) only to be bitterly trolled by the uncaring first discoverer.

The other issue here is the anti-social behavior involved. First discoveries are often made by a lone explorer, that never bothers to even try communicating with others in order to ask whether *they* would be ok with the planet or star being permanently named claimed by this explorer. Even though the explorer’s action will impact everyone else, forever, they fail to initiate any meaningful discussion in advance and instead force their decision on the rest of us, with no questions asked. This is tyrannical, unfair, unbalanced and highly disrespectful.

In the name of compassion, empathy and good morals, I implore you all...please stop making exploration discoveries, because cyberbullying bullying hurts.

 

[DaveB]

Some turds wash up on even the prettiest beach. ED is no exception.

 

[Jukelo]

That’s a good definition, and it made me realize how bad the griefing actually is.

There are actually players out there that intentionally make first discoveries of celestial bodies. In doing so, their name becomes permanent emblazoned on the galaxy map. Once this happens, *none* of the *thousands* of subsequent players arriving later will *ever* be able to put their name on that same body. This is a crushing disappointment. Other people want to have their name on the galaxy map, but now they can’t. The misery of disappointment this creates multiplies by the thousands of players that experience it, and note also that this misery perpetuates *forever* (name-claiming is permanent). A gank hurts for a moment, but name-claiming hurts *forever*, times a thousand.

Now for the first discoverer, there was little risk in permantly and exclusively claiming the planet or star. They may have even done so using an exploration ship with a highly overpowered frame shift drive, that people just starting would have no chance of out-jumping. And the first discoverer *loves it*. I have never seen an explorer express empathy for the way they bully others by spamming the galactic map with their name while others are powerless to ever change it.

I’m sure you agree, exploration griefing negatively impacts the game both in scope (creating hundreds of thousands of griefing “monuments”) and duration (forever). It gives one person the selfish enjoyment of name exclusivity at the expense of thousands of innocents people that may have travelled for hours (even days) only to be bitterly trolled by the uncaring first discoverer.

In the name of compassion, empathy and good morals, I implore you all...please stop making exploration discoveries, because cyberbullying bullying hurts.

Back when I was an explorer, I used to maintain a kill-on-sight list of all those who had claimed a system before me as I knew I couldn't rely on Frontier to do the right thing and ban them.

Alas I think they all double-griefed me by hiding in Solo as I have never met one of them

 

[Noctover]

It's something that has always perplexed me. I'm all for pvp with someone who's up for it but not ganking people who just want an open mmo experience without some idiot hell-bent on ruining the game for people. Ganking ruins ED in my opinion. You can't do CGs in open as you'll invariably qet these guys exercising their right (as decided by fdev) to anti-social behaviour. I'm of the belief these guys likely lack the courage for confrontation in real life and so enjoy the tingle they get from being a keyboard warrior. I don't get what it's supposed to add to the game? So can someone explain why ED benefits from a small subset of players being encouraged to actively attempt to make another's game experience unpleasant?

Please note - this is a GAME. I've heard the 'space is a dangerous place' sort of argument but it isn't space. It's a video game. I've also not seen a rebuy screen from a ganker since my lowly days of flying an un-engineered Cobra mk3 so i'm not embittered by some recent altercation.

It would be good if someone from FDev could advise what they see as the benefit of allowing it. I know there will be a raft of 'tough guys' with their usual responses to this kind of question. I'm just going to ignore them.

Firstly, killing people for whatever reason is not "Griefing", its playing the game they want within the ruleset.

Secondly, their is solo, PG, the "block key" and a million ways to avoid being killed if "100% safe open space" is your thing.

Thirdly, when was the last time, outside of the player threat; you actually felt a challenge or risk in this game?

If PVP was consent based, it wouldn't be PVP it would just be duelling. Without the unknown factor when running into another player this game would be truly boring; knowing that he would "ask" me first before engaging me.

Eve-Online is one of the longest standing MMOs going, one of the most successful and also the most brutal. Anyone will engage you in that game, for any reason, and unlike ED when you die; you lose everything....In ED you have it easy.

You said it yourself, its a GAME, and players can do whatever they like in the game. If you log into Open; you do so willingly knowing the risks. If that person decides to blow you up in this GAME he/she has not "ruined" your experience, they have granted the experience you knew possible when logging in. If they derived pleasure from engaging you then he/she is playing the game the way THEY want to have fun the same way you were presumably playing your way to have fun.

Its a very entitled attitude that a players game choices that interfere with yours should be disallowed; they paid the same money as you did.

 

[Bashy81]

It's something that has always perplexed me. I'm all for pvp with someone who's up for it but not ganking people who just want an open mmo experience without some idiot hell-bent on ruining the game for people. Ganking ruins ED in my opinion. You can't do CGs in open as you'll invariably qet these guys exercising their right (as decided by fdev) to anti-social behaviour. I'm of the belief these guys likely lack the courage for confrontation in real life and so enjoy the tingle they get from being a keyboard warrior. I don't get what it's supposed to add to the game? So can someone explain why ED benefits from a small subset of players being encouraged to actively attempt to make another's game experience unpleasant?

Please note - this is a GAME. I've heard the 'space is a dangerous place' sort of argument but it isn't space. It's a video game. I've also not seen a rebuy screen from a ganker since my lowly days of flying an un-engineered Cobra mk3 so i'm not embittered by some recent altercation.

It would be good if someone from FDev could advise what they see as the benefit of allowing it. I know there will be a raft of 'tough guys' with their usual responses to this kind of question. I'm just going to ignore them.

It's the Wild West out there. Everyone has a gun (except the odd Nun or Quaker missionary. Er, I mean 'explorer'.
and even some of those have a cannon hidden under the habit) and among strangers you never know who's gonna use it. It adds a tension to encounters, a reason to bother talking and a temptation against character when people are antagonistic. It adds piquancy to all things, as even dozens of hours of monotony can be broken at any moment without warning. Id sooner remove ship-progression than the possibility of being 'griefed'.
[I spent my first year in the game almost entirely in Solo, and iirc have never attacked anyone who didnt shoot first, or at least interdict me.]

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I blow up random people because the people I'd like to blow up are usually attacking my player factions BGS or Powerplay in solo and private. All that's left to blow up is the people doing their own thing or other PVPers.

I guess because of that. It all depends if you want to be a bad guy or not. A criminal/murderer in the game.

Its fun, but if they were to really leave it that way. I'd like to see them go in depth with how a criminal works against other players like they did with the BGS and Mining update. Those have functionality and they feel like a "career" with in depth mechanics built around it.

SDC had a really good write up about this.