Multicrew trolling - it works!

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
But all of these things that the trolls have done, the formation of SDC, things like that were all fully expected. Not one damn thing they have done right from the very beginning is any surprise what so ever. Not nice things, yes. Bad for the community, yes. Anti social, and drive players away, absolutely. Surprising and unexpected? Not in the least. Going into any kind of design...you always plan and design for the known, and expect some level of unknown, and be able to respond on the fly in an effective way.

But, you only consider the notion that FD should feel compelled to remove the chaotic elements of the galaxy. What if their plan is to leave them in as part of the E|D experience? Why should a game that doesn't stop a player from going on a murder spree, stop them from misusing ammo? How is FD supposed to know when that press of the Heat Sink bind, is an attempt at trolling? Poor behavior is nothing but a player problem, one everyone should be aware of and plan ahead for. Just as much as FD should.

P.S. I will remind you that FD have given us all tools to control our in game experience. We should be diligent in their use.
 
Last edited:
So...FDev created a new feature solely to play with other people. Spent months on development.

that feature allows zero consequence trolling.

FDev are 100% ok with this and don't plan on fixing it. Which will probably kill the feature dead, if the Reddit thread about this is any indication.

The official response: take responsibility for your actions. Apparently that shouldn't apply to the people who made the feature and left us without the tools to protect ourselves from trolling, however. Only to us.

Honestly, what...Who MAKES these decisions?

Wow, what a thread. More than once I've suggested that FD are blind or naive when it comes to metagaming but I never thought I'd see it laid out in black and white like this. It's almost embarrassing.


The thing is, if you look back at what your CEO was saying during the early promotion for this project, cooperation and trust was supposed to be core to most activities within the game, with direct PVP a rare and contextual event. In the absence of any in-game mechanisms to modulate those activities it very quickly became evident just how off the mark that vision was. You were warned of this pre-launch, then you saw it with your own eyes post. Did you learn nothing about gamer behaviour in the years since?


Well obviously, but since the only tool you've given MC CMDRs is a switch that says "Randoms off / Randoms on" it makes it pretty difficult to determine which track those joining crewmembers are going to go down until they start firing off all your munitions or launching your own fighter against you.

Was that really a core part of the Multi-crew design? Assume trust but wait for the attempted knife in the back? And what of the possible in-universe responses? Report them to the EFP for transgression? Inform the local faction so they get a reputation hit? Treat self-inflicted ship damage as a reportable crime? No, just another out-of-universe Kick/Block function. Sad.


Which "folk" are these? If it's the folk doing the "trolling" then you and I both know that's a meaningless statement. Whereas if it's the folk being trolled then what you're effectively asking is for them to take responsibility for the potential actions of others, while not giving them sufficient tools to do so in a selective way. Turning off SCBs in the middle of combat in case a Random decides to fry your ship is ridiculous.


Well duh. Honestly, I can't tell at this point whether you are astonishingly naive or actually trolling us yourself. If anyone else on these forums had posted that last sentence there would have been a dozen follow-ups encouraging the poster to "man up", "grow a pair", "git gud" and a whole bunch of other choice clichés.

I don't normally stoop to dissecting developer posts like this but I almost can't believe I'm seeing this weasel-wordy stuff coming from the Lead Designer.

At least the later posts talk about the possibility of further options, and integration with the mythical karma system which I guess is something. Maybe. Still, in the immediate future I'd expect your telemetry to show a rapid fall-off in Open MC, as players realise their only choice is to risk sabotage or to lock down so much of their ship's systems as to make MC increasingly pointless for both commander and crew. It may find a home in Private Groups, but as a game element designed to bring people together it'll be hard to spin it as a major success if that's what happens.

I literally don't know how to end this with a pithy comment. I'm still shaking my head at the bizarreness of the whole thing.

+rep for both of you, i still don't believe what i'm reading from lead designer of the game, it's as if they are discovering the issue of bad player behavior in game right now..... after more than one year of multiple example and videos of pure trolling near space stations, CG, combat log, abuse of imbalanced ships and weapons...
Looks like the bad behavior gamers took the lead of designing this game, funny isn't it?
 
But all of these things that the trolls have done, the formation of SDC, things like that were all fully expected. Not one damn thing they have done right from the very beginning is any surprise what so ever. Not nice things, yes. Bad for the community, yes. Anti social, and drive players away, absolutely. Surprising and unexpected? Not in the least. Going into any kind of design...you always plan and design for the known, and expect some level of unknown, and be able to respond on the fly in an effective way.

People like the OP, and other groups that troll the game is why I mostly stick to games that are hosted on private servers.
Full control over the idiots.
 
Sandro, I understand Elite is a sandbox, but in real life we could see who's coming to our sandbox to play, whether we want to invite her/him or not. We could try protect the sand castle we built. Even if we don't, we could just pull the creep out of it.

Trolls and no-lifers are unavoidable, part of the nature, esp. on internet with virtual or hidden identities. We should have the tools to avoid this and protect ourselves in game. I've read many good suggestions - from the permission list to reputations. I hope you guys will have the time to build this.
 
Hello Commanders!

Final thoughts for the day.

To reiterate: we're not against implementing safety features for helm, assuming they work and fit into schedules. This has been raised a number of times in a reasonable manner, is something of interest to us, and if and when we have workable tweaks, we'll let you know.

However, I personally don't feel that ruining other folks game experience is a good or valid way to prove a point. To me it's no different to trolling for fun. Of course, opinions will differ, but I can't help feeling that it's ultimately not a great way to support the game.

One question, Sandro: why was control delegation not left entirely up to the helm as a way for us to control risk and customize the crew experience? Was it thought that many players would restrict crew access to the point of making MC frustrating and unengaging or something?
 
People like the OP, and other groups that troll the game is why I mostly stick to games that are hosted on private servers.
Full control over the idiots.

Also why I tend to play single player games, and in ED, I am way out in the black in private groups. I deal with enough ats in real life, no need to deal with them in ED as well.
 
Unfortunately Sandro there are people who play this game simply to sabotage it. [...] They dont care about the game or the community, they just want to break it. The game for them is the trolling.

Sandro, the people who do this are not looking to "support the game". [...] I'll say it again. Wishful thinking isn't enough. This phenomenon has to be understood, and designed for. Elite is being hurt quite a bit by the fact that bad actors have free reign.

But people who are going to troll are not likely to be moved by this. [...] We have the lead game designer combating this issue by saying he is disappointed with it and it is not a good way to support the game...and those who are inclined to troll and going to what? Say Hallelujah Brother Sandro! I've seen the light, and repent and change my wicked ways!
Glad to see some folk get it. I've taken to reading Sandro's posts in the voice of "high" Kryten from the Red Dwarf episode Demons & Angels. It's the only way to make any sense out of this. "The poor wretch; he has a faulty gun! He's accidentally shot me five times! Oh how I love him!"
 
Hello Commanders!

Final thoughts for the day.

To reiterate: we're not against implementing safety features for helm, assuming they work and fit into schedules. This has been raised a number of times in a reasonable manner, is something of interest to us, and if and when we have workable tweaks, we'll let you know.

However, I personally don't feel that ruining other folks game experience is a good or valid way to prove a point. To me it's no different to trolling for fun. Of course, opinions will differ, but I can't help feeling that it's ultimately not a great way to support the game.

Its has proved a most valid point,

I had theorized and raised concerns many times in beta because I saw this coming, yet it takes action to bring these matters to light and get response and somewhat of a commitment

I encourage the OP to enjoy the game in the manner she wishes, for what ever reason or agenda she wills.


perhaps more will follow suite, a big enough outcry from "victims" may expedite a solution.

I PM'd some SDC & NaCL members shortly before the end of beta 5 with a list of ideas that I had compiled of items for their "operations" consisting of things reported during beta but not addressed.

it's 2017 and it's the internet, realistically, asking people to play nice is not a substitute for design forethought.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I get the feeling that Frontier completely forgets that this game is supposed to simulate a society where action have - you know - something called "consequences".

"We give option A to players, we don't want to limit the way they use it."
Yes, but in a realistic scenario if I invite someone in my ship and I see him wrecking havoc, I will make sure to have some degree of control to prevent damage, or make him pay for what he did.

Psychology 101: rewarding a behavior will ensure that it is repeated, and in this case not punishing it is close enough to warrant the same effect.

It's like the rules against speeding in stations created 5% hull Eagles that suicide into you for lulz: it makes 0 sense in-universe, but if you combat log when this happens they are quick to blame you.
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone let someone they don't know onto their ship? (In MultiCrew or RL?)

If you are that stupid....

This was actually a large driving force behind the design decisions for muti crew, and was largely the expectation that people were supposed to do just that. With the tools and options as it was implimented, having a prominent way of making your ship wide open...yes the vision was meeting new people, instant drop in drop out anytime anywhere fun with randoms.

- - - Updated - - -

Sandro, I understand Elite is a sandbox, but in real life we could see who's coming to our sandbox to play, whether we want to invite her/him or not. We could try protect the sand castle we built. Even if we don't, we could just pull the creep out of it.

Trolls and no-lifers are unavoidable, part of the nature, esp. on internet with virtual or hidden identities. We should have the tools to avoid this and protect ourselves in game. I've read many good suggestions - from the permission list to reputations. I hope you guys will have the time to build this.

The problem is, people would use those tools, and it would further limit the already bare bones skeleton things a crew member can do. Yes, things like a karma system, rating system, granular permissions set by the helm are great ideas, and an absolute necessity, the problem is, unless the players are already trusted friends, jumping into a gunner role with severe, but sensible limits on strangers, is not going to be too fun for the crewmember, and a lot of people aren't going to bother spending a month grinding karma so they can get barely above minimal things to do when they can spend that time flying their own ship.
 
Why would anyone let someone they don't know onto their ship? (In MultiCrew or RL?)
Indeed it seems crazy, and quite a few people said as much when MC was first mooted. But according to the developers one of MC's purposes was to encourage players -- including those not already befriended -- to team up for multiplayer cooperation. Between a lack of access controls and the bad reaction to the credit reduction I can't see it having the desired effect at all.

Edit: just noticed the quick black blur of a ninja disappearing back into the night...
 
Jerks will be jerks. There will be jerks in online games. This will not change. Game developers do care about this, if their platform is overrun with trolls or other antisocial players it harms their brand. The question is what can or should they do about it?

"Can" is the easiest to answer. Like every other game developer, other than just shrugging and doing nothing FD has only two choices. The first is that they can try and build in consequences or the ability of the community to "self-police". This is the most common approach, because it requires least in the way of ongoing involvement. Sadly, it rarely works as well as the developers (and the non-jerk playing community) would wish. There will always be too many loopholes, too many quite ingenious trolls guaranteed to eventually find them, for any such "technical" solution to truly work. This brings us to the second choice. The game company - FD in this case - takes an active role. They amend their ToS to effectively say "We decide what is acceptable behaviour on our platform and there's no appeal. If we don't like what you're doing, we'll sanction your account for it." and then they make those sanctions sting. Not "shadowbans", but total suspension of the account for a potentially extended period, with evading that suspension by playing on an alt account being grounds for both getting a permaban. This has its downsides too. No matter how rigid the criteria the developers abide by there will always be accusations of capriciousness, abitrariness or of "undeserved" bans. It requires active monitoring, it requires dedicated staff to respond to player reports and it requires active and ongoing PR.

Unfortunately there is no middle ground between these two approaches. If a game company is doing neither, they are doing nothing.

What they "should" do is much more open to debate. There are multiple equally valid arguments either way. Just bear in mind, when reading Sandro's posts and levelling accusations that FD "don't care" that this is the stark choice FD face, and unfortunately for the game developer in that situation there isn't really a "good" choice to make.
 
Unfortunately Sandro there are people who play this game simply to sabotage it. You only need to look on youtube and the videos some people post (this happens with most games and online interactions). They dont care about the game or the community, they just want to break it.

The game for them is the trolling.

Slightly off-topic: For the same reason it is naive to put the future of the Kahina storyline into the hands of players... because she's not at all going to be shot down for teh lulz, no way!
 
Sandro, the people who do this are not looking to "support the game". Even those griefers and trolls who truly enjoy the game will not curtail their activities for such reasons. Allegiance had an amazingly dedicated playerbase, but some of the veterans treated it as their private play pen, and took great pleasure in putting new arrivals "to their place", and never felt any obligation to be welcoming or even a little less horrible.

They were repeatedly told, and it was proven that such behavior was driving away 80 - 90% of the new arrrivals we could lure into the game. They were annoyed when it was hard to get a game going due to low numbers, but they never, ever stopped their behavior. They just made remarks, just like here, about how "it's just a game" and "they just need to grow a thicker skin" (this is the clean version).

I'll say it again. Wishful thinking isn't enough. This phenomenon has to be understood, and designed for. Elite is being hurt quite a bit by the fact that bad actors have free reign.

I was saying that over a year ago, and the general sentiment on the forum was "People need to stop being douches, it's not Frontier's fault they have mental issues."

Lo and behold, nothing's changed over a year later.
 
If folk are going to troll each other, there's a limit to how much protection we can (or should) put in place. (...)
To some degree, folk have to take responsibility for their own actions. There's no mechanical upside to this unpleasant behaviour, so I see this as different from say, crime, because the game actively encourages criminal behaviour; when folk complain that the justice system is not fair enough, we say "OK", how can we address the balance and make it fairer.

This is the single worst PR move since NMS, and the most disrespectful ever to the ED community. I had to reset my password, because I only posted here once, just to leave this comment.
 
Slightly off-topic: For the same reason it is naive to put the future of the Kahina storyline into the hands of players... because she's not at all going to be shot down for teh lulz, no way!

i think this is why Fdev dont allow a player run dynamic economy in ED. Look what happened in Eve online.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom