Multicrew trolling - it works!

[sovapid]

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.

The method you describe isn't coarse, it is pointless. Why bother equipping a SCB if you are going to have it disabled?

Most of the time you are using one, you are in battle and want/need it to take affect ASAP. In fact, one of the engineer mods is to reduce the spool up time of the SCB.

 

[kofeyh]

The method you describe isn't coarse, it is pointless. Why bother equipping a SCB if you are going to have it disabled?

If you need SCB to fly between stations and during any potential event outside of a CZ or Hazardous RES site, I'd probably question the ship build.

Most of the time you are using one, you are in battle and want/need it to take affect ASAP. In fact, one of the engineer mods is to reduce the spool up time of the SCB.

Sure. However where is this actually happening? If you turn these modules off, then the only place it can happen, is in the RES or CZ, when they are enabled again; and if one's crewmate is doing this, instead of their job, why are they still onboard? I'm all for improvements, but it's not Frontier's responsibility to think on behalf of commanders.

Again, I have said multiple times delegation would be a process improvement. In the meantime, risks can be reduced by disabling modules when not actually required. Again, it's pretty evident commanders just turn everything on and leave it on and never think about it.

 

[Soopyyy]

Actually, the only time I use SCBs is outside of combat to regen shields faster. Using them during combat does more damage than what just letting them fail and taking hull damage does...

 

[Powderpanic]

I am surprised that so many people are bent out of shape by this exciting new feature.

I have been told very recently that the way to overlook all the short comings in this game is to use your imagination.
If you don't, you are playing it wrong!

So I recommend anyone upset by this new delivery of emergent multicrew content just pretend its a system error or computer virus.

Maybe even a preemptive Thargoid attack!

See, fixed!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have been told very recently that the way to overlook all the short comings in this game is to use your imagination.

If this was very recently, could you provide the quote?

 

[Powderpanic]

If this was very recently, could you provide the quote?

That sounds like a lot of work for me. You did however participate in a recent thread about poor old Bob.

If you really want the quote, the onus is now on you to search for it. I have given you the tools. Good luck brave explorer!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That sounds like a lot of work for me. You did however participate in a recent thread about poor old Bob.

If you really want the quote, the onus is now on you to search for it. I have given you the tools. Good luck brave explorer!

Makes claim, fails to back it up, puts burden on others.

News at 11.

 

[Soopyyy]

To be fair, people often do use the "use your imagination" line to counter dissenting opinion. It's not reserved for ED though, Skyrim communities were really bad for it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To be fair, people often do use the "use your imagination" line to counter dissenting opinion. It's not reserved for ED though, Skyrim communities were really bad for it.

To be fair, anytime I ask for an example, I get nothing. Which is odd, seeing this is a recent and now often occurrence.

I don't rely on paraphrases you see.

 

[Toumal]

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.

I'd rather have a forum user prove a point in a controlled experiment with the intent of raising the issue, than having the issue simmer for a few months until it finally gets unbearable, and/or goes under the radar completely while destroying MC in open.

In other words, you should not shoot the messenger here. He may actually have kicked off something that saves the whole thing.

 

[Soopyyy]

To be fair, anytime I ask for an example, I get nothing. Which is odd, seeing this is a recent and now often occurrence.

I don't rely on paraphrases you see.

I usually just happen upon the comments while scrolling through, roll my eyes and continue on. It happens, its almost always a weak argument against content critical posts and its not reserved for Elite Dangerous. A bit like the "Git Gud" argument but slightly less asinine.

 

[AceFlares]

The sad thing about the OP and others alike is they think they're really frkken clever, but these type of exploiting holes in gameplay via trolling ventures can and have been thought of by a ton of other people who don't care. Having naughty thoughts but not acting on them (well mostly... ) is what grown ups do.

 

[Toumal]

We're looking at some updates to the crime system at the moment, hopefully for the next full update (no ETAs, no guaratees!), specifically with regards to Pilot Federation bounties and ways to limit "sidewinder switch" crimes.

I do hope you think beyond a simple karma level. Because those things can be gamed as well. Here's hoping that you do consider the vast plethora of suggestions that have been offered over the last year or so. Specifically: large bounties for crimes against commanders along with money multiplication / cooperative bounty exploit prevention. This ALSO needs a counter-mechanism to enable (and hopefully even boost) proper piracy. I'm not gonna reiterate the details here, but both are necessary in order to not kill piracy.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Dear Sandro et al,

I don't know if FDEV do this already - I get the impression they don't - but, may I suggest a tweak to your development cycle? It goes like this...

0) A Great Idea is born...

1) Discussions are made about the Great Idea

2) Someone is designated to ask the question: "Is there any way this Great Idea can be used by 'mischievous' players to mine salt?" <-- this person is required to be at these design meetings. It is mandatory to be answered with some thought and honesty.

3) If the answer to (2) above is "Yes, and here's how...", steps should be taken at design stage to mitigate whatever could cause the salt mining.

(2) and (3) should be a loop until (3) is false.

4) Specifications are made and handed to your coders.

5) Code is written and implemented, tested etc.

Now I'm probably being naive here, but if the (2) and (3) loop was followed before Multicrew was implemented in code, perhaps this thread might not have existed?

I can think of some occasions where that (2) and (3) loop might have mitigated;

- Lack of a meaningful Crime & Consequence system
- Starport camping/ganking of players at Starports because it's a choke point and there is no realistic means of preventing such by a player in Open
- Blind spots within starports a 'mischievous' player can stay within and cause trouble to other players inside the starport with impunity
- Strengthened external starport weaponry, but alas forgot to strengthen internal starport weaponry
- Being able to cause untold inconvenience to players by way of Multicrew 'mischievous' behaviour

For starters.

It just appears to me, after roughly three years of observation of FDEV, that FDEV as an entity appear to be somewhat naive in terms of the human race. It does look awfully like FDEV assume the entirety of their customers are happy-go-lucky, jolly, and honourable types who will play well within the 'intent' of the game.

Perhaps by now, you have realised that there is a subset of your playerbase who don't have the best interests of your game in mind, and/or they simply enjoy ruining the intent of the game for other players? If not, then may I suggest you take a good, long look at the history of all the ways in which such 'mischievous' players have employed loopholes and omissions in the Great Ideas of the game you are producing?

Anyway, it's just a suggestion.

Regards o7

 

[T'Kitr]

Yesterday i've joined several ships, for bounty hunting and exploring.

Joining ships and just sitting there, doing nothing and get money for it, perfect for me.
If they ask why i'm not fighting, i said....oh i'm new to the game, need to figure out how everything works. (If they only would check my profile lol)

Now i found the option to deploy SCB's, which i did....oh nice, 3x cell banks.....enough to make the ship overheat.
The CMDR were slightly distracted and worried why all the SCB's are gone.
I said, obviously a bug *gggggg
Finally they figured it was me...but it was almost too late...they had to leave the haz res.

Found it more enjoyable instead of actually fighting.

I then tried to find some exploration vessels.....one were near Sag A.
Oh see, there are heatsinks to deploy.....the ASP CMDR hasn't realized it was me.
Another CMDR was even further away, heading to beagle point......and after my telepresence visit he lost all his heatsinks, i told him he need to restock and left.

What we have learned today?
Multicrew has flaws.....terrible flaws....which needs to be fixed. I might join some other ships today again, coz it was fun to troll innocent CMDR's.

In any thread addressing the question of whether there should be an Open PVE mode, there's usually a great deal of resistance to the idea from PVP players insisting that the game shouldn't be 'fixed' in favour of people who don't want to be subjected to non-consensual PVP: that this is the game working as intended and that It's Called Elite "Dangerous" For A Reason™.

Yet here is a player who's figured out a way to exploit the mechanics to 'troll' other players, and claiming they're simply identifying 'flaws' which "need to be fixed".

TERMINATRIXX: based on this, I would take it that you would be in favour of an Open PVE, for example, since the ability of one player to choose to create a negative experience for another represents a flaw in the game?

 

[Shar]

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.

What a weak responce, its exactly this kind of approch that has got things into the state there in, your game is bieng ruined by griefers and you seem to be dithering about not knowing what to do, sorry but a serious developer wpuld have seen this coming a mile off and taken action, David for the sake of your company get some seriously experienced mmo designers on board because season 2 has been badly designed almost every step of the way and the complete indecisivness of sandros responce should give you a big clue as to were the problems are getting through, and the worst thing of all i'm actually a big fan and usually labeled fanboy white knight and all that, but sorry blind freedy can see there is a problem in the design proccess of this game. I can see myself moving on in the near future because as many have tryed to tell your we are loosing confidence in frontiers ability to deliver a proffesional mmo product.

 

[Kyokushin]

What a weak responce, its exactly this kind of approch that has got things into the state there in, your game is bieng ruined by griefers and you seem to be dithering about not knowing what to do, sorry but a serious developer wpuld have seen this coming a mile off and taken action, David for the sake of your company get some seriously experienced mmo designers on board because season 2 has been badly designed almost every step of the way and the complete indecisivness of sandros responce should give you a big clue as to were the problems are getting through, at the worst thing of all i'm actually a big fan and usually labeled fanboy white knight and all that, but sorry blind freedy can see there is a problem in the design proccess of this game.

400 mld of star systems, 200 ly cubic bubble around 50-80 gankers. They are located on both hemispheres. They have limited time for game, work, school and families

It means around 10 active from 8 to 12 p.m. It means 3 wings.

They are in 2 star systems.
- Shinrarta dehzra
- some CG or some engineers. If they are on CG then they are not at engineer

Really 10 persons terrorised entire galaxy with all parrarel universes?
If yes, then did better job than isis. isis terrorised only one planet.

Problem is like a monster in shadow of children room. If you turn lights on, there is no monster.

In fact there are no gankers. There is a community who refuses any, even simpliest and basic, rules of gameplay and form of self-development.

IF NPC, star, player or whatever destroying their ship, they are not thinking even single microsecond they should a bit learn a rules of a game what they are playing. They want to nerf NPC, stars, players, they want gimballed plasma accelerators, turreted iWin buttons.

I agree with a part of game design. Elite have basic game design mistakes what leads to divided community, such as open/solo/group mode, relogging, rngeers, and mistakes like allowing trolling like in that topic. Design of the game should just not allow that.

 

[kofeyh]

Dear Sandro et al,

I don't know if FDEV do this already - I get the impression they don't - but, may I suggest a tweak to your development cycle? It goes like this...

0) A Great Idea is born...

1) Discussions are made about the Great Idea

2) Someone is designated to ask the question: "Is there any way this Great Idea can be used by 'mischievous' players to mine salt?" <-- this person is required to be at these design meetings. It is mandatory to be answered with some thought and honesty.

3) If the answer to (2) above is "Yes, and here's how...", steps should be taken at design stage to mitigate whatever could cause the salt mining.

(2) and (3) should be a loop until (3) is false.

4) Specifications are made and handed to your coders.

5) Code is written and implemented, tested etc.

Now I'm probably being naive here, but if the (2) and (3) loop was followed before Multicrew was implemented in code, perhaps this thread might not have existed?

I can think of some occasions where that (2) and (3) loop might have mitigated;

- Lack of a meaningful Crime & Consequence system
- Starport camping/ganking of players at Starports because it's a choke point and there is no realistic means of preventing such by a player in Open
- Blind spots within starports a 'mischievous' player can stay within and cause trouble to other players inside the starport with impunity
- Strengthened external starport weaponry, but alas forgot to strengthen internal starport weaponry
- Being able to cause untold inconvenience to players by way of Multicrew 'mischievous' behaviour

For starters.

It just appears to me, after roughly three years of observation of FDEV, that FDEV as an entity appear to be somewhat naive in terms of the human race. It does look awfully like FDEV assume the entirety of their customers are happy-go-lucky, jolly, and honourable types who will play well within the 'intent' of the game.

Perhaps by now, you have realised that there is a subset of your playerbase who don't have the best interests of your game in mind, and/or they simply enjoy ruining the intent of the game for other players? If not, then may I suggest you take a good, long look at the history of all the ways in which such 'mischievous' players have employed loopholes and omissions in the Great Ideas of the game you are producing?

Anyway, it's just a suggestion.

Regards o7

All of this already happens. You can't plan for every eventuality and you cannot have a team big enough to sub-sample an entire player base.

There are two issues being conflated here. One is that Frontier respected the requests of commanders and gave the Gunner role, more responsibility.

The other is the concept of responsiblity.

The elephant in the room is that this is, essentially, self-inflicted. But rather than have a civil discussion that might lead to improvements (and yes the ability to negatively impact another player is a part of this game because, essentially, choice exists) it's degenerated to the usual crap fight.

There is a portion of commanders who would like a bit more granular control, and then the giant wall of commanders who want "something done about greifers" and are apparently entirely oblivious to the self-inflicted nature of the existing improvements to multicrew.

Which was that increased responsibility for the gunner.

It was asked for. Frontier delivered. Apparently people didn't think before asking for it. And are still not thinking when they complain about it.

Those who might just want a basic improvement, will be drowned out. By the same people who helped usher in this mess. It's a bit ironic.

Lastly if Frontier are guilty of anything, it's the level of communication. This? This is litterally a massive crap fight over responsibility. That's it.

The same crap, different thread.

 

[Shar]

400 mld of star systems, 200 ly cubic bubble around 50-80 gankers. They are located on both hemispheres. They have limited time for game, work, school and families

It means around 10 active from 8 to 12 p.m. It means 3 wings.

They are in 2 star systems.
- Shinrarta dehzra
- some CG or some engineers. If they are on CG then they are not at engineer

Really 10 persons terrorised entire galaxy with all parrarel universes?
If yes, then did better job than isis. isis terrorised only one planet.

Problem is like a monster in shadow of children room. If you turn lights on, there is no monster.

In fact there are no gankers. There is a community who refuses any, even simpliest and basic, rules of gameplay and form of self-development.

IF NPC, star, player or whatever destroying their ship, they are not thinking even single microsecond they should a bit learn a rules of a game what they are playing. They want to nerf NPC, stars, players, they want gimballed plasma accelerators, turreted iWin buttons.

I agree with a part of game design. Elite have basic game design mistakes what leads to divided community, such as open/solo/group mode, relogging, rngeers, and mistakes like allowing trolling like in that topic. Design of the game should just not allow that.

Yes nice pile of assumtions based on your own perception but nothing to do with bad design, you make a great mute point.

 

[Soon(TM)]

People tend to forget that multicrew is just a check on a feature list they had to develop before X date.
They had to do it and they've done it, in the worst possible way, but they did do it.

Like it or not, it won't be touched ever again.

This is correct.

At this point all the promised features for Horizons have clearly been rushed out as barebones additions.

FD just ticking boxes to say, "We promised XYZ in Horizons season, we delivered on those promises" - Nowhere does it say what the quality or content of these features has to be.

FD want to move on to a different way of selling their extra content, DB said that Seasons did not work as intended so they are moving to a different model; they cant do this until the Horizons season is finished.

They can get it finished quicker if they rush things; which then allows them to plan the next way to make money out of extra content.

FD is a business at the end of the day, businesses like to make money; FD likes to make money.