I think the best solution to all pvp problems would be a pvp flag, easy to enable and disable, that exists in other multiplayer games as well, like swtor. If the flag is disabled, pvp'ers are unable to attack you. Simple and efficient.
Open letter to Frontier
- Thread starter Cowboy Bats
- Start date
- Status
Genuine question..can it not be coded that in these PVE group instances a CMDR fire on another CMDR does no damage?
That makes sense.Although my comment is for people who wants to play in Open and at the same time doesn't want PvP, not for people who doesn't want to play in Open.
I think the real issue isn't people wanting to play in open but not wanting PvP, it is people wanting to play in open but not be exposed to the mindless behaviour encountered there (see e.g. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=233845) That, and the fact that for noobs, there is nothing whatsoever on the menu explaining what 'open' entails. The fix for the latter is a more informative menu, but beyond that, I suspect many will write open off as a lost cause. Telling people they can avoid problems in open by avoiding places where they encounter other players (which seems to be the gist of much of the advice on the subject I've seen) isn't exactly the way to convince anyone that there are positive benefits to playing there in the first place.
Personally, when I've played online games (not always an option with my sometimes flaky internet connection), I've stuck to doing so on servers where I know that such behaviour isn't tolerated - a peer-to-peer 'open' environment seems to be about the worst way possible to design a game if you want to encourage anything beyond random encounters with people you'd rather not play with anyway. I bought Elite because I can play in solo (and possibly in a group, internet permitting), and wouldn't have bothered if 'open' was the only option. I suspect this is true of a lot of Elite customers, and nothing much is likely to change that.
i saw this, laughed and had to comment. You obviously don't understand how things work in America in regards to video games.
Any fool who tried to sue over this event would be laughed at by any lawyer in this country, and that's before they even looked at the rules FD has, at which point they'd not only laugh harder, they'd bill you for wasting their time. None of FD's rules were broken and those are all that matter in this case, it's a video game, the rules of the game exist and we all agreed to them before we could play. That you don't LIKE the rules isn't a legal issue, it's a personal issue that you need to deal with, and your options are pretty damn limited...
A) stop playing
B) accept the rules and abide by them
C) see A or B
We're a little less 'progressive' when it comes to giving rights to people for things they don't actually rights for here in the US, we may have our issues, gods knows we do, but we do make sure the rights we have are protected and we make sure we don't give privileges the same amount of weight as rights. If you think playing a video game is a RIGHT, well, I do believe that's one of those things so many people in the UK take issue with when it comes to the EU, making privileges rights and superseding actual rights in the process...
SDC broke none of FD's rules, Zac was clear on that.
Zac was also clear that he and FD don't LIKE what happened, they did not condone it, they condemned it, LOOK UP THE WORDS! I'm asking the mods in this post to please moderate all the posts stating that FD condones this action please, they are outright lies and fly directly in the face of the statement Zac made.
Oh utter bull patties. It was about as condemning as a three toothed hill-scoggins telling his pre-schooler that smoking is bad while handing him a lighter and a pack of Marlboros.
I've read just now the thread you linked and it seems like it's a bug, and I hope he submitted a support ticket to this issue.
For new players this game definitely has a high learning curve, even for myself. Took me a while to learn how to survive the Open. I think it is perfectly valid for a player to play in Solo and accumulate powerful ships and skills before playing to Open, rather than playing to Open right away and end up like a helpless target. It's all about finding ways to survive.
Last edited:
Simple answer to the tools, pull the plug everytime, they will soon get bored and go back to COD or Battlefield
Granted what people say and what people do are two diffrent things. They clearly don't wanna do anything against griefing and want griefing to keep on being possible, which pretty much is supporting it.
If they really where against griefing they would try to do something about it, not just saying "oh no, how bad" and thats it.
Define griefing...go on, define it, clearly, without anyone else being able to say 'no, that's not what it means'...I'll wait, I'm not really planning on much this weekend...
Let me get this right, you have to apply to be a Mobius member. I respect peoples choices to play like this but then its ok for FD to promote griefers such as SDC, and then FD wonder why people combat log? This has been a problem for a while now the penalty for killing a player should be much much greater than it is. I enjoy piracy when done properly but just killing someone because you can is crazy. If I were players in Mobius I would combat log just to wind the Griefers up
There is no clear definition, but since FD is making the rules for the Game FD defining something as griefing pretty much is griefing. And they did call what SDC did in Mobius griefing, they also said its not against the rules.
And no, I can't define anything with a guarantee that nobody will disagree, ever been on the Internet before?
There is no clear definition, but since FD is making the rules for the Game FD defining something as griefing pretty much is griefing. And they did call what SDC did in Mobius griefing, they also said its not against the rules.
And no, I can't define anything with a guarantee that nobody will disagree, ever been on the Internet before?
That was rather the point, as there is actually a clear legal definition and FD could try and use it, problem is, they'd almost never be able to use it, as it requires intent and without an admission of intent, unprovable. And that's why there's no rule against griefing, but you may notice the rules against harassment and other things, all of which are tools most griefers use. In Elite Dangerous, using them gets you busted, so the griefers are left with few options that don't get them busted, attacking other players and generally getting creative(which FD has taken some stances against).
PvP is part of the game, so they can't make attacking others players against the rules, especially as they've set it up where it's part of some areas of the game, like CZs and Power Play. So, can't make a rule about griefing, too easy to get around that and EU laws are what they are which makes it worse.
I assume most here are grown ups and understand a least a bit of how the world actually works, so why is this so hard to understand for so many? My assumption being wrong is quite possible, could be very few adults, or they simply really have no clue how the world works, which is a rather dreary thought...
You are misunderstanding what they say.
It is mechanically allowed, yes.
Because introducing a mechanic that would prevent someone from attacking another person would affect all the non griefing pvp going on. And no game has made a mechanic that can effectively differentiate between griefing and non griefing, so yeah the problem is going to be dealt with, over time when they add more consequences to the game which they have also stated is in the works.
Its possible to do something in this case of what we defined griefing - give Private groups an option that makes attacking a player impossible. Which they either don't want or don't can do. There is also a case of something being offical against the rules that cannot be prevented: Combat Logging. So they punish player for doing it afterwards. Here they could do it, but don't want to do it, nobody has been send shadowban for griefing.
Thats how they want the game to be and thats fine, but a pro-griefing police is bound to not be taken all that well by all players. How the world works also has no bearing when it comes to how game works.
Last edited:
They can't legally enforce private group rules, as those could literally be illegal and would get FD in lots of trouble, so that's not going to happen and expecting it to is not being sensible at all. NO company does that with their games, private groups in Elite are the same as guilds, units, teams in other games, and their private rules are NOT enforced by the developers, ever, for that reason.
There is no PvP/PvE flag, the game actively allows for and even encourages PvP when playing with others, Open or Private Group, doesn't matter, it's part of the core game. Bounties, CZ's, Power Play, all include PvP in them, and even Mobius' group isn't a PvE only group, it has PvP allowed with consent, except in CZs, where entering one GIVES consent implicitly. That's a big misconception, Mobius is NOT a PvE only group, people ASSUME that but it's not true.
FD doesn't offer a purely PvE option for multiplayer, it was never promised or offered, so why people demand it is beyond me. You want a purely PvE multiplayer online game, they DO exist, you should go play one of those, because that was never the premise of Elite: Dangerous multiplayer. You want pure PvE, FD has given an option, Solo, the same option promised in the KS from day 1, and the only option promised to be purely PvE from day 1.
Mobius' group problem lies in the fact that there is no vetting of the applicants, that's not victim blaming, that's a simple fact. This wasn't the first or even 10th time this has happened after all, and you can't just JOIN the group, you must apply and be accepted by the group's owner. First time or two it happened, ok, stuff happens, no big deal, let it slide, but...hey...man..can you start vetting the people maybe? 10th time it happens, dude, seriously, are you kidding me? You are STILL blindly letting in anyone who requests to join even though it's KNOWN that groups are trying to get in just to PK the members? There's an actual legal term for that, criminally negligent, when you KNOW something bad will result from your actions but you continue to do them anyway. Seems to me that I've heard a lot of people in the EU going off about how the various governments SHOULD have stopped any of the terrorists from getting into their countries since they KNEW they were trying to, and in many cases, KNEW they were there and did nothing about them in the first place. The acts aren't the same, not even remotely close, but the actual ethics and legal standing are exactly the same. Mobius knows this is a problem, he's not done anything to keep it from reoccurring repeatedly now.
Want to be upset with someone, that's the proper target, but no...people want to blame FD because...well...because!
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
I am interested in this as a statement. Which law governs private groups in computer games? I ask as it would make an interesting topic for discussion with my students.
It's the laws that govern the company and it's rules, if they enforce rules in the game, they are 'official' and therefore have to be legal. I know many private groups who's rules aren't going to pass that test, hell, SRM, the unit I've been with for decades, no witness rules, is FD going to punish one of my guys because they were feeling nice and didn't commit murder in a video game when it's not actually called for BY the rules of the video game? What about the groups that espouse racist, sexists or religious stuff? Only way to avoid the problem, all private groups are actually owned by and run by the company and follow the rules the company sets down, which totally negates the point of them in the first place.
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
The UK Companies Act 2006 governs private groups? Tell me more. What section?
I would suggest you start with unwritten contract law and criminal harassment law both UK. I would love to sit in on the discussion too! Also joint enterprise under criminal law even though it has just been reviewed.
In this instance i would suggest SDC are criminally harassing mobeus players (open is fair game) but because Mobeus players have entered into an agreement of "PvE" breaches of that with circumnavigation of the true motives of players and the threats of continuing to harass on theses "official" forums would constitute the harassment through digital medium section of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - cause to distress, unwanted communications, etc. harassment can be of a group too. One could also argue that FDev has some liability/responsibility to its paying customers to prevent harassment, yet they have promoted it, (again fair game in open) but private groups which is a facility provided by FDev should be protected to some degree, and FDev needs to take their responsibility seriously in this regard- better management tools would be a start. The popularity of the private PvE option needs considering and FDev's obligation both legally, and morally to them.
ok now in a RP sense - Elite is a bit like the wild west. But we can't kill these guys because they respawn. So the crime and punishment system needs to be VASTLY improved to deal with simulated acts of TERROR. We need a commitment from FDev to take steps appropriate to deal with it sooner rather than later (and not one of MB's Soontm jobs either - SOON as in monday or tuesday.)
- Status