Open letter to Frontier

[Jockey79]

The group owner is unable to add or remove people due to the group, presumably the size caused the functionality to bug out.

That is not what I was referring to.

I keep seeing "Mobius administrators" could not add / kick anyone.
As there is no such thing as "administrators" in the group system FD have put forward, the only person who can add/ kick is Mobius himself.

So why do people talk about anyone other than Mobius himself when talking about adding / kicking - unless someone other than Mobius is using his account for the purpose of administration?

I mean, on their own forums I get it, as they can set all the admins they want there. But in game, there is only one highlan.... Mobius.

 

[Jack Schitt]

And as only the group creator can add or kick from the group, there is no "administrators" for the group.
People can phone Mobius and ask him to login and kick people for whatever reason, but there is no "administrators" who can do it.

There are multiple administrators of the Mobius forums, any of whom can respond to reports. What they do after that I'm not privy to, maybe they just act as proxies and pass the info on. I apologise for any confusion, but will leave the OP intact lest it look like revisionism. Just mentally delete the 's' if it worries you.

 

[KaizoMK]

/mod hat off



This is the sort of nonsense which doesn't help anything.

Combat logging is an exploit. FD have said so.

A few players going against a gentleman's agreement in a private group, that no pvp should happen without both parties accepting, is NOT an exploit. That's just a few players not following the preference of the group owner.

Yea I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you anymore.

 

[Slopey]

Yea I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you anymore.

So why is this at 500+ posts and counting????

 

[xondk]

It is also not up to a business to decide what is morally right or wrong.
All FD have to do is enforce the rules equally to all players.

Once they step outside of that, once they start to say who is playing the game "morally" and who isn't, what is "right" in game and what is "wrong", it opens up a whole bunch of problems.
And to be quite frank, I'd rather my service providers remain neutral in all things and not start to pick and choose moral of the month.

What do you mean by enforce the rules equally to all players? I'm not sure I quite follow in that aspect of it.
It is a moral question, because there will always be players that feel "their" fun is ruined if it isn't possible to grief other players, they are very well aware of what they are doing, and they enjoy doing so.
The thing in my mind is that the small number of players can affect a massive amount of people, and they do enjoy this fact. At that point it ceases to become a moral question, should a small group have power over a larger group? well you can argue it is a moral decision if you think that is right or not, but it doesn't make for a good game if one group has a significant advantage over another.
But if you were referring to applying all things equally in terms of a consequence system, then yes, I absolutely agree, consequences are what make games great, a game without consequences really feels off, and there should be consequences for 'everyone' including the griefers, just as there should be consequences for pirates for stealing from targets and getting away with it, of which there is really any of late, more then enough systems to jump to and sell your stuff, and system forces are silly weak, but hopefully as the devs have talked about this will change with 2.1, what exactly will be there we don't know, but crime/punishment/consequences are going to change.

 

[Soliluna]

Doesnt mean by definition, but it tends to gravitate, on average, that way. Based on previous increases in AI difficulty, where most of the complains on the forums came from Mobius/Solo players. For the record, I can probably be called 'PvE player' myself as, while I play in Open, I dont go looking for PvP.

I think it's pretty agreeable that PVE players are not as good as PVP players for the most part, at any game. This is probably because PVP players are constantly honing their skills among other humans who (in games) are typically a lot more difficult and unpredictable than the A.I.

 

[KaizoMK]

So why is this at 500+ posts and counting????

Because arguments tend to break off into tangents and become other arguments, which I'm super guilty of, considering I tend to see the symptoms and look for the real problem instead of arguing about nothing.

 

[Lestenio]

Mobius isn't the same as FD...if a player transgresses in Mobius the it's up to Mobius to fix it. It is sadly, the way things are done because the rule sets are different.
I don't think you guys understand how much FD, as a games company, have allowed you to enjoy the game as you currently do.
If they start choosing sides in all of this between Solo / PG / Open then it'll really get messy and will hurt the game as a whole.
If Mobius wants to continue then the player base needs to flag the bad guys to get them out asap and it's the same for FD who equally have to rely on player reports about cheating.
It's "who" is currently causing the problems, when things were fine before, that are the problem and once known then they can be ejected.
This happens in all games, this one was very lucky until now tbh.

Despite sitting on different sides of the fence, we probably share some of the same views. What we differ on however is I don't think this is up to möbius to fix. Simply put, no private group should be that size. But there is, and there is only one.

There are probably hundreds of small groups with a few hundred or so members in each. Möbius has 20k and as such it shouldn't be treated as a simple group. It has grown beyond that. Proving better admin tools is fine if there are hundreds of similar sized groups, but there isn't. Instead a sizeable chunk of players have joined one specific group seeking an alternative to open, it's hard to ignore that there is a need for the PvE experience they are seeking. And it shouldn't be up to an individual to provide it and give up his playing time to administer it.

 

[KaizoMK]

I think it's pretty agreeable that PVE players are not as good as PVP players for the most part, at any game. This is probably because PVP players are constantly honing their skills among other humans who (in games) are typically a lot more difficult and unpredictable than the A.I.

I would argue that large-scale PvE is much much harder than PvP'ers would lead you to believe, but I would agree that the skill cap required for PvP in ED is MUCH higher than the one for PvE.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
but hopefully as the devs have talked about this will change with 2.1, what exactly will be there we don't know, but crime/punishment/consequences are going to change.

If you are talking about the proposed changes being talked about by Sandro on the forums, then these are not slated to land with 2.1. In fact, there is no timeframe for their introduction, or even any guarantee that they will come at all.

 

[Jack Schitt]

One solution might be to kick players who have been inactive for 6 months or less depending on how many it removes but I hear that players can't even leave the group. Is that true?

The "inactive kick" has been suggested but as others have pointed out it may cause problems with players who only play infrequently. Maybe automatically kicking players who've logged into other modes more frequently is a solution, but again it means setting an arbitrary cut-off point and there are always people who fall just the wrong side of the cut-off. And at the end of the day being a member of a private group shouldn't affect how one can play the game elsewhere, as long as the rules are obeyed while in the group. It has to be all or nothing.

I've also heard that people can't leave manually either until this bug is sorted out, but it's not something I want to test. Knowing my luck I'd be the one who could get out but not get back in again...

 

[Asp Explorer]

I've also heard that people can't leave manually either until this bug is sorted out, but it's not something I want to test. Knowing my luck I'd be the one who could get out but not get back in again...

Hmm - I can test that. I'm a member of the group - but I don't believe I've ever actually played in it. I'll give it a whirl - it might free up a place for someone who'll make better use of it than me.

Nope - bad server response, it just dumps me back to the main menu.

 

[xondk]

If you are talking about the proposed changes being talked about by Sandro on the forums, then these are not slated to land with 2.1. In fact, there is no timeframe for their introduction, or even any guarantee that they will come at all.

Those yes, no timeline, was more referring to the fact that the new mission/npc twiddling being done with 2.1, and factions in that regard was mentioned to going to have consequences.

 

[Bill Clement]

What do you mean by repercussions? They were thrown out of the group as far as I know. How could one know in advance what is going to happen?

How could they not know? An entire page of some ned bigging up the sad puppies avowed intention to kill other players in all available environments was a public statement of intent. Aleksej, if you give a group a public platform to announce their intentions, if that group then acts on their intentions and then you publically endorse their behaviour by confirming that theiy did absolutely nothing wrong according to your company's rules? It suggests that either you are naieve to the point of gullability, or that you have engineered the situation for your own purposes. I don't believe FD are stupid or gullible, which kind of leaves the other possibility. The cynic in me suspects that FD are likely to use the forum as a weather guage, either penalising private groups heavily and fully endorsing the PvP mentality- after all, it's Elite Dangerous, right?- or using it as justification for heavy penalties for griefing and ganking.

If anyone else thinks I'm right, could those of you with strong opinions on the subject address the issue at hand instead of going around in circles trying to bring in the same old PvP/PvE arguments?

 

[Jockey79]

What do you mean by enforce the rules equally to all players? I'm not sure I quite follow in that aspect of it.

People keep defending and justifying Combat Logging.
Frontier made it quite clear, that is cheating - no exceptions.

There have been people in this thread saying they play in Mobius and will "combat log" if another player engages PvP with them.
I expect Frontier to enforce their rules, equally - no exceptions, no excuses.

I've also made the remark, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Which I stand by.

It is a moral question,

Which in my opinion is nothing to do with Frontier.
They make / enforce rules, why they make them is up to them - but taking sides due to "moral" reason and not for rule enforcement would be disappointing.

The thing in my mind is that the small number of players can affect a massive amount of people, and they do enjoy this fact. At that point it ceases to become a moral question, should a small group have power over a larger group? well you can argue it is a moral decision if you think that is right or not, but it doesn't make for a good game if one group has a significant advantage over another.

But that is the game Frontier have made and are promoting.
They made it quite clear, they accept "griefing" as part of the game and does not break the games rules.

But if you were referring to applying all things equally in terms of a consequence system, then yes, I absolutely agree, consequences are what make games great, a game without consequences really feels off, and there should be consequences for 'everyone' including the griefers, just as there should be consequences for pirates for stealing from targets and getting away with it, of which there is really any of late, more then enough systems to jump to and sell your stuff, and system forces are silly weak, but hopefully as the devs have talked about this will change with 2.1, what exactly will be there we don't know, but crime/punishment/consequences are going to change.

Oh the crime / punishment system needs a major rework imo. But not being a programmer myself, I have no idea how to do it, or how long it would take.
So all we can do is try to enjoy what we have and hope for the best.

Well see what happens as each December rolls around and they put their hands out for more money for another season DLC.
I for one, wont be parting with my money so easily next time. Once bitten twice shy as they say.

 

[Kristov]

I have to ask to this because while, yes, Mobius is at least slightly partially responsible, but also responsible in believing in other people, that they want PvE without getting overrun by so called "PvP'ers" that aren't looking for a challenge but just easy targets.
However, those that did it, invading Mobius specifically to disrupt it, are significantly more to blame, they decided that for fun to go into a private group and disrupt those there.

That behaviour is not something that I think should be defended, regardless of them being able to mechanically can or cannot do something, they chose specifically to go into a known PvE group and attack people, that is deplorable behaviour, immature behaviour at the very best, why are people defending this behaviour? I don't really understand this. Because they have a "right" to behave as they want? yet that doesn't count for the mobius members? if they want to play as they do in a private group? how does the attackers have any more right then the mobius members? Mobius affects no one but those that are part of it, but these people decide to push what they want onto others? and they get defended?

What was done wasn't right, I've never said otherwise, I continue to refer to the people who did it as slimeballs, as that's the only thing I can call them that won't get me in trouble.

None the less, this wasn't the first time, it wasn't the 5th time even, it's happened over a dozen times previously, and nothing has been done to address that. People slipping in once or twice, ok, yeah, that'll happen, address the problem. But when it happens the 5th time and nothing is done to address it? The 10th time and nothing is done to address it? When you KNOW the bad guys are coming but you do nothing to prevent that, repeatedly, the fault lies on you at that point, especially when it is in your power to stop them. Mobius doesn't vet the applicants, it's not that difficult, it takes a few moments of your time. He has 20,000 people he could ask to help with that as well, making it a total no brainer. I did it myself, solo, for a league with 10,000 active players, every single player had to be vetted to make sure no one was duping or doing other assorted things we didn't allow. It took me a bit of time but not all that much, and that was quite literally 20 years ago when I didn't have Facebook, Google or Youtube to use as a quick check as we have today. Mobius needs to stop being passive on this, simple as that, or it will just continue to happen over and over again. He already lets people access his account to add/remove people, so what's the problem with getting some of those same people to spend a little time to vet the applicants?

What was done this time, and every previous time, utter and total , personally, if I ran the show, I'd ban their asses and I'd ban the units they are part of who knew of the acts beforehand but didn't stop them, and it would prevent it from reoccurring as no unit would want everyone to be busted for a few giggles. I'm a hardass though, I don't mess around with people who can't play nicely with others, even in pure PvP games, there's no excuse for such behaviour, ever.

It's FD's show however, and none of their rules were broken. They do NOT approve of the actions, they did make that clear, but since no rules were broken, they can't actually step in and do anything about it. They are kind of stuck in this situation, rules apply to them that people simply keep ignoring or don't know about, which sucks and they don't like it but they are stuck with it. That said, it's really not their place to police private groups either, I'm a hardass, I've got a habit of ignoring things I KNOW I should do and doing what I prefer to do. Then again, I ran a league, not an entire game, so it's a little different situation, I was final authority and the rules were subject to change whenever the hell I felt like it, which most of my players liked as I'm not forgiving of griefers, exploiters, or hack users, at all, no warnings, no second chances, you do it, you get the boot, end of story. Doesn't go over as well for a game company in the UK as for a private citizen in the US...EU laws, they do make things interesting at times don't they?

 

[Jockey79]

Hmm - I can test that. I'm a member of the group - but I don't believe I've ever actually played in it. I'll give it a whirl - it might free up a place for someone who'll make better use of it than me.

Nope - bad server response, it just dumps me back to the main menu.

Do you think we took the "Hotel California" joke too far, now the server wont let people leave, lol

 

[xondk]

You clearly did not see the community manager Zac on Reddit, here let me help;
.

Missed this, as far as I read he is saying exactly what I said, namely they are not doing anything that 'breaks' the game code, not doing anything they aren't allowed to do mechanically, this is what I stated.
Griefing "in itself" isn't against the rules, because any such rules made against griefing would then become a struggle when people argue what exactly is griefing, it doesn't say "Griefing is fine go ahead and do it" or even "Griefing is fine"
Just because there aren't explicit rules against something doesn't mean it isn't disruptive behaviour, but as mentioned in many similar threads, making rules or changes that would not harm PvP as a whole, and only harm griefers, is something no game, stance or not on griefing, has managed to do. The best solutions found so far, is a solid consequence system, that affects everyone, enriching the game and over time making griefers dig themselves a hole.

And that the groups are set up so that mobius is the one controlling the group, and have the tools to play how they want with who they want.
This does not mean that anyone did anything wrong, but it means it is in mobius' hands to make sure these people are not in the mobius group, as in they have the power to remove misbehaving people, which was what was done.

So yeah, the statement seems very neutral on both accounts, not blaming or saying anything, but instead stating what is and what isn't possible. So how you got that to griefing is fine, I do not get.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Do you think we took the "Hotel California" joke too far, now the server wont let people leave, lol

Quite possibly

This is a backend issue though - I'd have to open a support ticket to get FD to remove me from the group, and as they are already working with Mobius on it, that would just be a waste of their time.

All it means is that players will have to keep an eye out for hollow triangles and not blindly fly in straight lines until this is resolved - or go solo. Or go Open

 

[Loetmichel]

By the way, am I the only one expecting a huge ragestorm coming from Mobius when the new AI hits? I get the impression that the average Mobius player might be more succeptible to 'npc-griefing' than Open players, as players in Open have to be more alert in general. Right now the anger of Mobius players is at PvP cmdrs but thats only because the AI doesnt pose much of a threat. Once AI learns to boost properly and 'submit and boost' isn't a fix-all for every pve situation things might get ugly over there, and they may have to learn the basics every Open cmdr already has to know. Interesting question: once AI becomes (close to) as dangerous as human players, how many of the Mobius guys who do not ragequit will chose to stay in Mobius? After all, most of the 'griefer-anxiety' is greatly mitigated by some basic skills, and once you've learned them Open isnt nearly as scary as some make it out to be...

You dont seem to get why most people (in my experience) play in PvE group: they want to have interaction with other players that are like-minded. They dont want to be Content to players that think its fun to fire on the helpless.
Its not about being killed in general. Its the reason behind the combat. Players that choose to kill others (that dont like that kind of gameplay) for their fun are simply players i (and many others) dont want to interact with at all.
If one gets killed by an NPC: well, thats just RND. They cheat anyway to be good, so its basically a bad dice roll. Nothing to rage about.

But Players CHOSE to kill other players. The game doesent demand _any_ player to shoot on a single other player. you can do any action/occupation ingame to and with NPCs. Thats exactly why Solo is as viable as open.
SO ever player that kills other players does that knowing that he is not forced by the game to that but doing it on their own decision. Which makes killed players rage a lot because it was simply the killers choice to have fun on the expense
of others. THATS what causes the rage. not the few mil in rebuy.