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.
While I'm with you in spirit, there's no way any programmer can stop or filter abject stupidity. If people want to disrupt a certain aspect of the game for lulz, there is no way to stop that except banning all the people from PvE.
I'm a proud Mobius member, but I don't play in that group unless I have my rebuy covered. Playing in PvE is no guarantee of safety in a game with "Dangerous" in the title.
People who chose not to play in open know how to 'deal with the game' perfectly well. By not playing in open...
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.
they might... you might... i might after having to read this thread...
I would hazard a guess that if this was in 'merica lawyers would already be contacting the mobius members for a class action... LOL
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.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.
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.
A couple of weeks ago. https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/379
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.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.
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.
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.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...
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?![]()
You are misunderstanding what they say.This very week Sandro explicitly and literally said that regardless of the changes they are considering, 'griefcondas killing newbwinders' (his words) will continue to be allowed, with the only consequences being in-game. Its really simple: if you think that is 'griefing', griefing is allowed by FD and will continue to be allowed. I'm perfectly fine with it, but to each his own.
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.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...
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.
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.
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.
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.