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

[Chorda]

There'll always be a set of players who enjoy going after easy targets, and they're a legitimate part of the game. The new chat systems will hopefully reduce their ability to operate without consequence.

It's a pity they never do it in style though, with a raider kit, pirate ship skin, or an avatar that hasn't been dialed to 'inbred French mime'.

 

[Zoltah-Talion]

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.

Woah, you are true metal, aren't you. I just love your avatar. And your sig makes me want to send you a friend request right away, but I'm not into griefing or uncivil behavior, so I'd better not.

I must spend about 98% of my play time in Solo now, trying to keep my word to the PvP set. I kinda miss sitting in dock at Jameson and using the camera to check out other CMDR's ships, responding to the greetings and occasionally striking up friendships. I am by nature on the diffident side, something of a loner, so it was kind of a joy for me, something new/interesting. I will admit I will occasionally switch modes and dip my toe into open, lol. I am also trying to improve my combat/escape skills so I don't have to be so constantly worried about it as I was.

One thing's for sure, this part of the game is here to stay.

I also think that the interdiction mini-game needs tweaking to make evading interdiction more a real possibility.

 

[Riverside]

Just in case it hasn't been posted yet:

Richard A Bartle's 'Players Who Suit MUDs'

An MMO needs the right amount of griefers/killers. Too many & too little are both bad.

 

[lokvette]

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

There isn't one good reason in all the years I'vE been gaming, and I've done a lot off pvp over those years, but welcome to the internet and online gaming. Some people are Tommy tankers and you learn to live with it.

 

[Roybe]

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.

Ganking <=> Griefing.

Please restart your OP understanding that there IS a difference!

 

[DeletedUser191218]

In real life there is no blockade of bloodthirsty gangsters every time you go to a city event

Remind me not to move to your city. If I got attacked by a psycho in real life as frequently as I do in ED I'd never have made it to the ripe old age of 33.

 

[Morbad]

The single biggest modifier of human behaviour is an understanding of consequence.

In ED there simply are no real consequences.

If you want to moderate behaviour within a game to some form of social norm that we would recognise in the real world, then you need to have consequences that modify behaviour.

Yeah, the relative lack of consequences, both for perpetrator and victims, results in some truly bizarre behaviour.

Having crime be flawlessly identified and reported compounds things further...no one tries to avoid being caught and security ratings are essentially binary.

Sadly life in NY/NJ and south east PA is like living in a toxic CG. High chance of a daily bad encounter with someone, I don't know how people tolerate a dangerous part of the country.

Danger is relative and people tend to have different perceptions of the same behavior.

While my wife was finishing off grad-school we rented low-income housing in a rough neighborhood outside of Newark. This was a place where the nearest police station was closed up after it was firebombed, the violent crime rate was an order of magnitude above the national average, and hard drugs were openly peddled on the corner. All the reviews we read of the place said it was a disaster and implied that the neighbours would your pets, eat your children, then ransack your fridge...which was precisely why it was so affordable.

Anyway, we were there for two years. The neighbors generally kept to themselves and were polite otherwise. Never had a break in or a violent encounter with anyone. Did have our dog's crap shovel go missing, but I'm pretty sure that was just some neighbor kids. Of course, I kept to myself and didn't go out of my way to make it look like I had anything worth taking.

Same story any time I've lived in rougher neighborhoods (fairly frequently before purchasing my first home, since I'm a complete cheapskate). Most of the horror stories tended to be seriously overblown and most complaints ultimately boiled down to "these people are poorer and browner than me" or "I don't feel safe while not paying attention while talking on my 800 dollar phone and wearing 2500 dollars of pretentious regalia".

You need your own gang and you're still not guaranteed safety.

I don't expect guaranteed safety (or even believe it's possible), just that the overwhelming majority of people would rather not risk getting shot and/or stabbed for my 10 year old sneakers, or petty entertainment.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

OP. It is the wrong question to ask. Griefing might not be fun aspect when on the recieving end. However ED is a "game" when you fly a space ship with guns on it, with free will. Could there be more in game consequences for griefing/ganking etc. that is fun gameplay to limit or engage griefers and non-griefers alike? Probably a better question, e.g. enhance PvP bounty hunting.

Funnily, I suggested that in the past and received a torrent of abuse for it. It's something I believe would enhance the game and as someone with a combat focus and does actually enjoy PvP I would engage in that gameplay all the time. I just don't like the griefer harrassment.

I'm also totally fine with someone combat logging if they don't want to fight btw. I know people have kittens over it..but it's a game and I'm a 33 year old man. I'm long past getting upset if someone doesn't want to play with me.

 

[FNLWA]

Some people have the most fun at the expense of others. They will defend their actions by spouting nonsense about "freedom" and "just play offline lolol". At the very least those people should be honest about the fact that ruining other people's fun is what it's all about. If you wanted a real pvp-challenge just organize a pvp event or fight club and leave the rest of the world in peace.

If your game has non-consensual pvp there need to be costs, limitations and meaningful consequences or in short: some sort of justice. The C&P update utterly failed in that regard. A mechanic that lets you track down players who attacked other players would be a first step and also allow for REAL bounty hunting. A whole new branch of gameplay right there.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

Some people have the most fun at the expense of others. They will defend their actions by spouting nonsense about "freedom" and "just play offline lolol". At the very least those people should be honest about the fact that ruining other people's fun is what it's all about. If you wanted a real pvp-challenge just organize a pvp event or fight club and leave the rest of the world in peace.

If your game has non-consensual pvp there need to be costs, limitations and meaningful consequences or in short: some sort of justice. The C&P update utterly failed in that regard. A mechanic that lets you track down players who attacked other players would be a first step and also allow for REAL bounty hunting. A whole new branch of gameplay right there.

Again, totally in agreement but i got completely shouted down for suggesting this in the past. It's ALMOST like those same gankers like to blow hard about accepting the risks of playing in open but aren't as keen about accepting the commensurate risks of attacking people unprovoked...but that would suggest cowardice and those guys are all real courageous dudes I'm sure.

 

[Chrystoph]

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.

Lying to me is rude, lying to yourself is pathetic.

A character is the composite of personality, motivations and abilities. Of those, YOU have motivations, and they are to inflict misery on other PLAYERS. It is not role play because you are not assuming a role whereby I mean, you have no motivations because your motivations for attacking is only based on the inability of your target to fight back effectively.

It is merely the ability to inflict harm in a venue where you know you will suffer no consequence for your actions. Calling that role play is like calling the reporting of a fire on the evening news role play.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

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.

Gankers and griefers are some of the most intelligent, social and helpful players in the game.
Your premise is deeply flawed.

A small subset of whiners is the real problem, open is by far the most popular mode after all.

Lying to me is rude, lying to yourself is pathetic.

A character is the composite of personality, motivations and abilities. Of those, YOU have motivations, and they are to inflict misery on other PLAYERS. It is not role play because you are not assuming a role whereby I mean, you have no motivations because your motivations for attacking is only based on the inability of your target to fight back effectively.

It is merely the ability to inflict harm in a venue where you know you will suffer no consequence for your actions. Calling that role play is like calling the reporting of a fire on the evening news role play.

LOL, that is ridiculous, just like your other false equivalence in another thread.

Were you always this unreasonable and I just never noticed?

 

[Han Zulu]

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?

It's not supposed to add to the game, it's a matter of allowing free choice. It took me a while to accept griefing/ganking as well, but now I consider it an important part of the environment. It's like free speech. You have to allow people to have dissenting views to your own, or it's not free speech. Same with this game, to allow freedom to choose game play and blazing your own trail, you have to allow all kinds of game play, even the kind you don't like.

After all, at some point it's hard to decide what's griefing or not. Some cases might be very clear (interdicting and shooting you without warning), but others aren't. Someone bumping into you at a station and your ship blows up, was that a grief or just a mistake?

But this is how I got over it. I consider them as being the reavers from Firefly. They're these characters in the story that are just violent and dangerous, just becuase that's what they are. They fill a roll in the big story of things.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

It's not, but it's human nature.

People do the same things in the real world - well, not quite the same, as none of us have spaceships to fly. But the premise is the same.

It's just how some people are.

 

[DaggerSnake]

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.

I think it's pretty clear that you are specifically talking about players who's intention is to ruin the game for other players. Obvious answer, no that kind of behavior is not good for the game.

If a player is using the game as a tool to provoke a negative response OUTSIDE the gameworld, then they are no longer playing Elite. They just found an unlocked door to allow their real world behavior to go unchecked.

It's not about modes, or PvP or piracy or defending systems or promoting your faction. Those are all motivations that serve ingame purpose and can add great entertainment to all involved. Griefing has nothing to do with playing Elite, it is about people trying to affect real world players in a negative way.

So where's that Karma system that was talked about so long ago?

 

[Mangal Oemie]

...

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. ....

Maybe take this advice yourself? Those who shoot other CMDRs are also just playing the GAME.

 

[Red Rocket]

To answer your question OP Griefing and Frontiers lack on meaningful Crime and Punishment rules are BAD for the game and keep it from being truly great game that everyone can enjoy.
A couple of experiences I have been in.

(case 1) My first day playing Elite in my starter system in get blown up in my Sidewinder and a cmdr seeing my destruction messages me and offers to join his private group,
he recommends me to play only in PG or solo and get out of the starter system.

(case 2) I was doing the Palin mission and landed at the scout ship in solo I did a board flip for material and jumped into open, and when I did there were 5 other ships on the ground.
Two commanders were trying to scan the way point this was just hilarious to watch, commanders watching and giving technical advice on scanning the scout, all having a good time communicating over voice or text when a ship started shooting at the parked ships on the ground. We all scrambled I went back into solo and the fun we were all having was gone.

(Case 3) The update drops with new Guardian fighters and a new puzzle to solve at the new Guardian beacon. I flew a ways outside the bubble in my AspX explorer ship and when I arrive I find 5 other cmdr’s in open checking out the beacon all in small ships, Diamondbacks, AspX, Hauler ? with no weapons or only small laser type weapons. We start taking turns scanning and taking the Key, talking and having a great time. Then In drops a cutter and FDL and starts attacking “Griefing” we all scatter and the enjoyment in gone. Now in solo I flew 12k away and went back into open and it looked dead then laser lights started flashing some poor Asp getting it now, I was done for the night and signed off .

I now have about 50 plus friends and when online line they are mainly playing in PG or Solo also when flying around the bubble in open I rarely find other commanders.
When dropping in on a Guardian site or Dav’s Hope ect. commanders on the ground instantly switch off and into PG or Solo I assume for fear of griefers.

So many times I hear if you don’t want to get Griefed you should just play in Solo or PG, How can this be healthy for the longevity of any online game might as well just sell me an offline version. This game should encourage commanders to come together and enjoy this beautiful game not to hide in solo and be afraid to interact.

 

[Stigbob]

Maybe take this advice yourself? Those who shoot other CMDRs are also just playing the GAME.

It depends on how they do it.

 

[Han Zulu]

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.

Nicely put.

I'm not a fan of being griefed/ganked (who is?), but I agree with you, there's no way to properly define it or limit it.

 

[Camisade]

I think the OP asks the wrong question. Given that one of the game design visions is to allow freedom of action (and players accept this by logging into Open), isn't the real question: "How is the overall multiplayer game improved for the majority of players by the development and deployment of ineffective, if not laughable, responses to those who commit serial, capital, criminal actions?"

Because one might think that FDev has shown, by evolving the C&P features, that they recognize some degree of overall community (and public game perception) harm that just a few, talented and determined, anti-social players, often acting without any game-related sanction or incentive, can wreak upon a disproportionate number of other players, spoiling their enjoyment and occasionally driving them permanently from the game. But then those same developers deliberately (and at ridiculous expense) deploy systems that completely fail to change criminal player behavior (as defined by the game), even in what are labeled high-security areas.

The only logical explanations I can think of would seem to be:
1) FDev is incompetent -- which certainly does not seem to be the case, given the general brilliance of the game; or
2) FDev's design vision includes certainty that unpunished criminal action improves the overall multiplayer game for everyone (including those not inclined toward combat) and, since this is inarguably a business, the game's long-term financial viability.

The second explanation seems like it must be the right one. But it makes no sense to anyone I've asked (among those who've studied the growth and maintenance of healthy (profitable) multiplayer communities since the 1980s, when Kesmai deployed the first graphical MMOGs). I'd *love* to see the designers' thoughts (and metrics, because all public companies track such KPI's) that drive and defend the sustainment of Elite Dangerous's current, non-penalizing system. It'd be educational, I'm sure.