Multicrew trolling - it works!

[Siobhan]

Love it!

Almost love seeing all the people whining about you doing it rather than working out what needs to be done to combat it. Reminds me so much of EVE back in the day!

Because what needs to be done is to not be open or MC. Kinda defeats the point of having it.

 

[Madrax573]

Because what needs to be done is to not be open or MC. Kinda defeats the point of having it.

If that is the only thing that comes to your mind when something like this happens then Solo or PG is for you.

However if you actually think "ok, this is a thing how can we implement something that making this give correct consequences for said actions" then you are potentially improving the game for everyone from now on. And in the long term if more people thought like this then ED will become a fully fleshed out universe that allows bad things to happen (we don't want it to be hello kitty online) but give appropriate consequences for said actions.

Just whining 'open is broken, I can't deal' is just that. Whining.

 

[kofeyh]

You have found very diplomatic words to describe this problem, I hope this doesn´t make it too complicated to understand for the simple minds around here. Sometimes action speak louder than words, even more so if said person isn´t to be reached with words.

We can already disable modules if that's a concern. One cannot demand functionality of a system, then demand it not function because of "bad people" and be taken at all seriously.

People asked for more ways to use Multicrew; the developer, quite rightly, enabled this. Someone is always going to run with scissors. Always going to stuff an appendage into a wall socket. You can either build a system that has some flexibility and thus has some risk, or you lock it down so nothing can happen - which is going to make the feature obsolescent.

Frontier could potentially provide an option to elect which parts of the ship are able to be controlled by another commander? This is fine, and I see no problem with that. So I'd imagine the constructive approach is to request it. Politely.

But, as always, it's the host commander's responsibility for crew actions, it's their ship. If they can't plan and won't consider risk and refuse to engage with their crew, who actually has the issue in that situation, do you think?

The OP can do, what they can do, because CMDRs are inherently lazy and have spent far too long attempting to obviate all responsibility; something some apparently are learning the hard way.

 

[Charles Erika von Hackbeil]

Love it!

Almost love seeing all the people whining about you doing it rather than working out what needs to be done to combat it. Reminds me so much of EVE back in the day!

I´m not sure how it helps when someone with, obviously greater, experience in the game abuses flawed mechanics simply to troll. And on top of it, flags it as "advanced bug reporting".

That´s just cynical and doesn´t serve a purpose.

We can already disable modules if that's a concern. One cannot demand functionality of a system, then demand it not function because of "bad people" and be taken at all seriously.

People asked for more ways to use Multicrew; the developer, quite rightly, enabled this. Someone is always going to run with scissors. Always going to stuff an appendage into a wall socket. You can either build a system that has some flexibility and thus has some risk, or you lock it down so nothing can happen - which is going to make the feature obsolescent.

Frontier could potentially provide an option to elect which parts of the ship are able to be controlled by another commander? This is fine, and I see no problem with that. So I'd imagine the constructive approach is to request it. Politely.

But, as always, it's the host commander's responsibility for crew actions, it's their ship. If they can't plan and won't consider risk and refuse to engage with their crew, who actually has the issue in that situation, do you think?

The OP can do, what they can do, because CMDRs are inherently lazy and have spent far too long attempting to obviate all responsibility; something some apparently are learning the hard way.

While I agree with you in general, I don´t in this special case. There are many many commanders out there who haven´t done the +2000 hours like we have, still learning about the game. Seeing Terminatrix abusing this advantage in know how will hardly bring enlightment to the ships helm she multicrewed with.

I´m ok with someone acting as a "bad person" in a game. But it becomes a differnet story when you carry this out of the game and try to put reason in it afterwards by calling it "bug reporting". This is a layer not accessible by said commander when the trolling happens.

So this is not the bad person mode, this is just bad sports.

 

[K-Rose]

Well this thread exploded overnight...

What I will say in response to Sandro is, it's fantastic that you're willing to look into adding the controls, but why has it taken so long for you to respond?

We asked for this control many times, we said this is what would happen. You don't know that this guy has actually gone out and done this, but it's taken a "Trolling" forum post for you to consider changing it.

I just feel a bit peeved that myself and others put a fair amount of effort in the Beta forum talking about how this would be beneficial & required, but were ignored until it came into Live and it started getting abused.

 

[kofeyh]

Because what needs to be done is to not be open or MC. Kinda defeats the point of having it.

Frontier can consider building a simple rights system where you can delegate which modules can be used by whom. Regardless, the ship's CMDR can actually simply disable modules such as SCB and HSL so they are unable to be used; crew cannot enable/ disable modules.

The method to control access, albeit rather coarse, already exists. Really that should be entirely sufficient. It seems very evident that this isn't really a problem with rogue crew, it's hosting commanders who simply haven't thought about what they are doing.

Frontier can't fix that.

 

[Vandaahl]

Is this a surprise to anyone? If yes, if you keep your front door open, your house will be empty and your dog pregnant.
Why? Because kiddo's can.

--> Mobius, problem solved.

Frontier can consider building a simple rights system where you can delegate which modules can be used by whom.

Or they can consider building stuff that really matters. Or you can MC with people you actually know and trust.

 

[JonLuis69]

Frontier can consider building a simple rights system where you can delegate which modules can be used by whom. Regardless, the ship's CMDR can actually simply disable modules such as SCB and HSL so they are unable to be used; crew cannot enable/ disable modules.

The method to control access, albeit rather coarse, already exists. Really that should be entirely sufficient. It seems very evident that this isn't really a problem with rogue crew, it's hosting commanders who simply haven't thought about what they are doing.

Frontier can't fix that.

It's like you didn't even read the thread...:O

 

[Jack Schitt]

I see we've clearly reached that point in the thread where people are seeing it on the front page, reading the OP and a half dozen responses, counting the number of pages, drawing a conclusion on limited information and going straight for the Reply To Thread button. I bet a lot of them haven't even read Sandro's contributions, just assuming that the thread is 500+ posts of whining about the OP's activities.

To be fair to the OP at least they managed to get a developer response, albeit a wishy-washy one, as a result of their actions. Which is more than happened when these concerns were raised during beta.

 

[kofeyh]

Well this thread exploded overnight...

Mate this is a bit of an over-reaction. We know what can happen. So does Frontier. The community asked for more crew control. They now have it. You can't really get bent out of shape because the developer presumed commanders could at all be remotely responsible for their own ships. As it stands, we can turn stuff off until actually needed. Which to me seems pretty much to cover most scenarios for the time being.

The OP is simply illustrating a trend within the playerbase. It's actually amazing how many people apparently leave crap on and then invite complete strangers onboard and have no concept of any risks of doing so. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. Is the OP's actions entirely honourable? Probably not. But it is pretty trivial to stop; disable SCB/ HSL until required.

Frontier can potentially make that a little more convenient, but there's not really anything beyond an improvement to delegation needed.

 

[Saxon Kili]

MC is what it is ... for now, fit your ship accordingly.

 

[kofeyh]

Or they can consider building stuff that really matters. Or you can MC with people you actually know and trust.

Yes mate, but clearly the game is being played by people who are so used to obviating all responsibility. I absolutely want Frontier to ignore this sort of confected outrage and actually focus on stuff that needs genuine attention.

But if a noisy bunch of people are going to scream for the developer to take on yet more responsibility for them, then I'd prefer the outcome was sane. No?

 

[Soopyyy]

MC is what it is ... for now, fit your ship accordingly.

With Nerf bats?
About the only thing that wont hurt the owner

 

[Vandaahl]

I see we've clearly reached that point in the thread where people are seeing it on the front page, reading the OP and a half dozen responses, counting the number of pages, drawing a conclusion on limited information and going straight for the Reply To Thread button. I bet a lot of them haven't even read Sandro's contributions, just assuming that the thread is 500+ posts of whining about the OP's activities.

What makes you, assuming over assumptions any better then?

 

[kofeyh]

It's like you didn't even read the thread...:O

I read enough on the first page, to understand what was going on; I don't have the inclination of reading 20+ pages of confected outrage based on people being lazy and belligerent, rather than realising they can actually solve the problem as it stands, as is.

Can the developer improve the mechanics? Sure. Is there any actual problem to solve, beyond people ignoring risk and expecting the developer to solve responsibility? Nope.

 

[Imo]

I kicked a crew member soon yesterday who obviously tried to cook my ship by continous fireing shield cells.

 

[Vandaahl]

But if a noisy bunch of people are going to scream for the developer to take on yet more responsibility for them, then I'd prefer the outcome was sane. No?

Problem is, would these people understand the solution to their problem? If you can't understand the MC mechanism, then a 'simple' role based auth system isn't going to help them.

 

[JonLuis69]

I read enough on the first page, to understand what was going on; I don't have the inclination of reading 20+ pages of confected outrage based on people being lazy and belligerent, rather than realising they can actually solve the problem as it stands, as is.

Can the developer improve the mechanics? Sure. Is there any actual problem to solve, beyond people ignoring risk and expecting the developer to solve responsibility? Nope.

[haha] Indeed...read the thread dude...

 

[K-Rose]

Mate this is a bit of an over-reaction. We know what can happen. So does Frontier. The community asked for more crew control. They now have it. You can't really get bent out of shape because the developer presumed commanders could at all be remotely responsible for their own ships. As it stands, we can turn stuff off until actually needed. Which to me seems pretty much to cover most scenarios for the time being.

The OP is simply illustrating a trend within the playerbase. It's actually amazing how many people apparently leave crap on and then invite complete strangers onboard and have no concept of any risks of doing so. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. Is the OP's actions entirely honourable? Probably not. But it is pretty trivial to stop; disable SCB/ HSL until required.

Frontier can potentially make that a little more convenient, but there's not really anything beyond an improvement to delegation needed.

Hmm not sure if you've misunderstood/misinterpreted me, it is only text after all. I completely agree that it's kinda trivial to be using someone's Heat Sinks.

But the fact still remains that we asked for the option to select which modules should be usable by the Gunner.

I'm an avid Miner, I said again and again that if I have a Gunner I want him for defence. I don't want my Gunner to be dealing with defending my Anaconda, and all the mining things as well.

We made several threads & posted in the multicrew feedback thread about this and we didn't get one response.

The only time we get a response is when a thread like this comes up, it's disappointing.

 

[kofeyh]

Problem is, would these people understand the solution to their problem? If you can't understand the MC mechanism, then a 'simple' role based auth system isn't going to help them.

If people can't recognise they can just disable modules when entirely unneeded, then I suspect the concept of role based permissions is probably an amusing thing to ask for. But it would improve the mechanics to be able to delegate. It's a good QoL improvement.

But as usual, it's one of those 20+ page threads that was solved (essentially) on page one, and the rest is simply belligerence and an example of forum grinding.

But the fact still remains that we asked for the option to select which modules should be usable by the Gunner.

Sure. You'll see that I mentioned this was a good QoL improvement. Frontier was asked repeatedly by many of the same people now complaining, that the Gunner be able to do more. Well, they now can. Apparently that's not always working the way people just assumed it would.

If I had a penny for every time a group demanded something, got it, then complained about it, I would probably have many many pennies. Frankly, if people find it hard to turn modules off, then I worry for the complexity level of delegation, but I digress.

The thing of it is; if people aren't thinking about modules at all, let alone to potentially turn them off, then will they think about delegation? Maybe. But given the tenor of responses, my confidence on the percentages of people who would do that, certainly before being burned, is quite low.