Operation Enigma, breaking the code!

[Jesters09]

You've heard the phrase, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".
Let them be, as least we know where they are or going to be (CG's) and what they are doing.

Take away their home and they will be all over the place as individuals, with no Mr. Pink wolf fang thing to keep them in check.

No offence Mr. Pink wink Wolf Fang thing. ;-)

 

[lenna]

FD created a game in which all sorts of player actions are possible, under the mom of 'Blaze your own trail. Utimate freedom'.

Will you give them credit in equal measure for 'positive' actions performed by player groups as well as 'guilt' for 'negative' actions performed by player groups? When all those players are doing are playing the game and making use of their 'ultimate Freedom'.

Shifting any blame to the makers of the game for perceived 'bad' actions by players of the game is a Really Big Stretch into the realms of the ridiculous. In My Opinion.

It is not a case of shifting blame, any organisation that develops and releases an MMO or Social Networking Environment has certain responsibilities, if they do not fulfil said responsibilities then they could be considered negligent and thus culpable by allowing the consequences to occur.
---
It is a very grey area, and despite the vocal opposition to the negative incidents that happened during the Hutton Incident the actual scope and extent of the problem is a bit of an unknown... The organising group may have a better handle on the situation and perhaps closed door discussions between FD and similar groups to help avoid the less desirable behaviours in the future are perhaps in order.

 

[Ian Phillips]

.... any organisation that develops and releases an MMO or Social Networking Environment has certain responsibilities.....

Very well. If this is the basis of your stance.... please specify what those responsibilites are, and how they relate to the specified game design of 'Blaze your own trail and Ultimate Freedom'

Until you do, allow me to chuckle quietly at the absurdity of it all.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

It is not a case of shifting blame, any organisation that develops and releases an MMO or Social Networking Environment has certain responsibilities, if they do not fulfil said responsibilities then they could be considered negligent and thus culpable by allowing the consequences to occur.
---
It is a very grey area, and despite the vocal opposition to the negative incidents that happened during the Hutton Incident the actual scope and extent of the problem is a bit of an unknown... The organising group may have a better handle on the situation and perhaps closed door discussions between FD and similar groups to help avoid the less desirable behaviours in the future are perhaps in order.

Who said this behavior was undesirable? These players got together to organize dynamic content for the game, that's exactly the goal of any multiplayer game. Players are content.

Edit: Let's be 100% clear. Frontier has been stating that this kind of activity in the game is 100% acceptable and encouraged for 18 months and running. Anyone acting otherwise is simply projecting their personal desires over the real statements and actions of Frontier Development as individuals and an entity to facilitate their personal desires.

This has nothing to do with the health of the game, the betterment of it's design, any implied responsibility or obligation on FD's part, etc... This is a bunch of selfish people demanding that everyone else play the game their way or don't play at all, when the game was never intended to be played any specific way except how it was designed. The game was designed to allow this type of gameplay, therefore it is wholly desired and encouraged by Frontier developments. Their game design, their statements, and their actions for the entirety of Elite: Dangerous' development and history as a purchaseable product punctuates this every step of the way.

 

[lenna]

Preventing (or at least suitably Penalising) any form of deliberate harassment (which "griefing" is) can be ultimately considered at least part of the MMO Developer/Publishers responsibilities. I am certain they do not stop there but that is the only part that is relevant to the topic at hand.
---
We know FD do this to a degree (i.e. Shadow Instancing) but there is a strong feeling by some that perhaps they are not doing enough.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Preventing (or at least suitably Penalising) any form of deliberate harassment (which "griefing" is) can be ultimately considered at least part of the MMO Developer/Publishers responsibilities.

By whom? Someone who doesn't 'like' those actions?

Suppose I don't like the harrassment and stress of having to fly my virtual ship for One and a Half REAL HOURS to reach a virtual outpost in the game. Does that fall under the developers resposibliites to mitigate?

Is that griefing of the players by the developer? Do they have a responsibility to 'not' make the game in such a way?

 

[bootsam]

Its FD's fault for making a game I enjoy and thus can I sue them for failing to mitigate against me not playing my other games? Or can wifey sue for me not taking the rubbish out coz I'm too busy playing or can I sue for splitting my sides whilst reading some of the nonsense posted on these here forums. Or can I sue the mods for failing to post my drivel in a hastily fashion.

I sometimes wonder if Im the only sensible person left in the world and that worries me because I know im a .

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

By whom? Someone who doesn't 'like' those actions?

I'll just point out that these forums you're a moderator in have WAY more rules and regulations, vastly more, in fact, than the game designed by the same company which hosts these forums, does.

So by implication, does FDEV care more about behaviour of participants in these forums than it does participants in it's game?

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Preventing (or at least suitably Penalising) any form of deliberate harassment (which "griefing" is) can be ultimately considered at least part of the MMO Developer/Publishers responsibilities. I am certain they do not stop there but that is the only part that is relevant to the topic at hand.
---
We know FD do this to a degree (i.e. Shadow Instancing) but there is a strong feeling by some that perhaps they are not doing enough.

Was this harassment? No.

 

[lenna]

By whom? Someone who doesn't 'like' those actions?

Suppose I don't like the harrassment and stress of having to fly my virtual ship for One and a Half REAL HOURS to reach a virtual outpost in the game. Does that fall under the developers resposibliites to mitigate?

Is that griefing of the players by the developer? Do they have a responsibility 'not' make the game in such a way?

Depending on the degree of the harassment it can be a "legal" matter (but before that there is the notional social/morale responsibilities aspect). I am not saying anything that happened during the Hutton Incident necessarily falls into that category BUT I am sure none of us are so naïve as to believe that there is not a fine line that may have been crossed (or at least close to being crossed).
---
The Hutton Incident itself may not be classified as harassment but certain behaviours that occurred during (and as a consequence of) it could be.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Depending on the degree of the harassment it can be a "legal" matter (but before that there is the notional social/morale responsibilities aspect). I am not saying anything that happened during the Hutton Incident necessarily falls into that category BUT I am sure none of us are so naïve as to believe that there is not a fine line that may have been crossed (or at least close to being crossed).
---
The Hutton Incident itself may not be classified as harassment but certain behaviours that occurred during it could be.

No. Nothing about players attacking other players in an open PvP game is harassment. Some of it can be unfair, frustrating or even exploitative but it is not, under any circumstances, harassment. You agreed to that when you agreed to the EULA.

 

[lenna]

No. Nothing about players attacking other players in an open PvP game is harassment. Some of it can be unfair, frustrating or even exploitative but it is not, under any circumstances, harassment. You agreed to that when you agreed to the EULA.

You actually can not waive certain responsibilities regardless of what a EULA states... Steam have been caught out on this.
---
An EULA can not be used as a blanket to excuse harassment.
---
There are certain ways of executing PvP in an MMO environment that is considered "griefing" (in the vernacular) and by consequence harassment.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Still have not seen any defintion from you.

You REALLY wouldn't believe the number of times that vague 'legal' reasons have been attempted to be used to justify a stance that someone has adopted.

Dragging "Legal" into a discussion on gaming mechanics just adds to the comedy, and using the "Legal" word isn't a magic wand.

You still have not addresed my question.

Where is the defintion of 'Responsibilites' that you are hanging FD out to dry on?

 

[Jacob Marshall]

It is not a case of shifting blame, any organisation that develops and releases an MMO or Social Networking Environment has certain responsibilities, if they do not fulfil said responsibilities then they could be considered negligent and thus culpable by allowing the consequences to occur.

Utter nonsense 'culpable' 'negligent'..in what way? What happened at Hutton happened in Open; didn't happen in Private or Solo. Pretty soon after Code started it was widely known that Code were there, in Open; as is their right to be.

Knowing this, the CMDR has a number of choices: a) Solo it b) Private it c) go Open and expect trouble and deal with the consequences of your own decision. All modes give the same reward and are part of the same universe; FD have done all they need to cover 'their' responsibility.

Any Group or 'blocker' has as much right to be at that location at that time doing their thing as you do; the fact you don't like their presence at a/the CG in Open is an issue for you and you alone.

Want to discuss some of the actions they may use, then fine I'm sure there's a thread somewhere discussing that aspect of that CG. Want to discuss whether or not a group like that should be allowed to a CG to do their thing? Nope, no discussion to be had there. They're as entitled to be there as you are.

Hutton highlighted plenty of things that do need to be changed by FD, but FD officially ostracising a Group because they're not nice?

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

You actually can not waive certain responsibilities regardless of what a EULA states... Steam have been caught out on this.
---
An EULA can not be used as a blanket to excuse harassment.

It isn't an excuse, the EULA prevents harassment. Other parts of the EULA explicitly state that player interactions occur and may not be desirable, and that this does not constitute as harassment and that you have agreed to such.

Nothing that occurred at Hutton, or indeed 99% of what gets called "Griefing" was, is, or ever will be harassment.

This IS a part of the game, and you will not convince Frontier otherwise, because they made it a part of the game and you agreed to play that game following their rules.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

No. Nothing about players attacking other players in an open PvP game is harassment. Some of it can be unfair, frustrating or even exploitative but it is not, under any circumstances, harassment. You agreed to that when you agreed to the EULA.

Well, let's have a look at the Code Of Conduct for Elite: Dangerous...

No witch-hunts/mob-mentality hunts

1. We do not permit the use of comms in the game to be used for 'witch-hunts' or mob-mentality griefing.

Hmm. Now the question is, what's the definition of 'mob-mentality'? Could player-clusters, like the ones who describe themselves as 'The Code', be classified as being a 'mob' with a 'mob-mentality'?

Let's say that they are. But alas, they're using out-of-game comms (teamspeak) - that's still not breaking the Code Of Conduct for the game. (Unless we play the semantics game and interpret 'in the game' to mean 'whilst playing the game).

No cheating or taking advantage of exploits in the game

1. We do not tolerate cheating of any kind in the game, this includes using automated programs or services offered outside of the game to generate player advantage, altering game code or using cheat codes.
2. We also do not tolerate the use of any exploits or the use of any possible bugs in the game to generate player advantage.
3. Any player caught cheating or taking advantage of any exploits or bugs will be penalise and could face a game ban.

Now this is more interesting, as I believe members of that player-cluster admitted themselves that they took advantage of the 'platform hogging exploit' and another bug to do with shooting enough of the police ships such that no more appear in the game.

It could well be they violated this particular rule one or more times.

Lastly, it could be argued that the "No cheating or taking advantage of exploits in the game" rule is a good answer to those who claim that they're 'merely playing by the rules within the game universe'.

 

[bootsam]

I'd like to sue, on behalf of my insurance company, the NPC Anaconda that nerfed my fully laden T9 and I would also like my 'personal injuries' claim to be taken into consideration as I broke a nail trying to manoeuvre. Lawyers R Us have told me that as the NPC was under FD's influence, as they wrote the game, that my claim for breaking my nail is legally valid. I will consider FD settling 'out of court' for a sum to be agreed.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Well, let's have a look at the Code Of Conduct for Elite: Dangerous...


Hmm. Now the question is, what's the definition of 'mob-mentality'? Could player-clusters, like the ones who describe themselves as 'The Code', be classified as being a 'mob' with a 'mob-mentality'?

Let's say that they are. But alas, they're using out-of-game comms (teamspeak) - that's still not breaking the Code Of Conduct for the game. (Unless we play the semantics game and interpret 'in the game' to mean 'whilst playing the game).


Now this is more interesting, as I believe members of that player-cluster admitted themselves that they took advantage of the 'platform hogging exploit' and another bug to do with shooting enough of the police ships such that no more appear in the game.

It could well be they violated this particular rule one or more times.

Lastly, it could be argued that the "No cheating or taking advantage of exploits in the game" rule is a good answer to those who claim that they're 'merely playing by the rules within the game universe'.

Shooting enough police that they no longer appear is assumed to be a bug by you. People don't just continually run into a slaughter-box they know everyone else has been dying in unto eternity.

Exploits are exploits, they are not harassment. If the invulnerability on the landing pad was a problem FD can fix that, simple as that. This was not a witch hunt, this was an organized event. This was not griefing, nor did it have anything to do with a mob mentality, it was clearly constructed, organized, and carried out.

One big mistake people are making: Community Goal events are not just events to give traders a goal to cooperate on. They are also focal points for the PvP players to attack you. Frontier deliberately creates these situations.

 

[lenna]

Still have not seen any defintion from you.

You REALLY wouldn't believe the number of times that vague 'legal' reasons have been attempted to be used to justify a stance that someone has adopted.

Dragging "Legal" into a discussion on gaming mechanics just adds to the comedy, and using the "Legal" word isn't a magic wand.

You still have not addresed my question.

Where is the defintion of 'Responsibilites' that you are hanging FD out to dry on?

I have already stated it is a "grey" area and to be quite blunt essentially has to be assessed on a case by case basis...
---
Ultimately, the "fundamental" problem is that the penalties to the PC victim and the penalties to the PC perpetrator in the persistent MMO environment of ED are not balanced. This ultimately results in certain PvP activities which may be permitted by game design being viewed as harassment by the victim(s).
---
It is not a case of putting anyone out to dry but pointing out that FD should perhaps do more to address the problems. There are many ways in which this could be done but ultimately something more should be done, giving players the tools to deal with it appropriately would be one way (e.g. Law Enforcement Licenses that have rules of engagement that have to be adhered to in order to keep the license)

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

I have already stated it is a "grey" area and to be quite blunt essentially has to be assessed on a case by case basis...
---
Ultimately, the "fundamental" problem is that the penalties to the PC victim and the penalties to the PC perpetrator in the persistent MMO environment of ED are not balanced. This ultimately results in certain PvP activities which may be permitted by game design being viewed as harassment by the victim(s).
---
It is not a case of putting anyone out to dry but pointing out that FD should perhaps do more to address the problems. There are many ways in which this could be done but ultimately something more should be done.

The player's perspective on whether or not it is harassment is irrelevant. It falls within the game's guidelines, and thus is considered fair play. The only thing that needs to change is the players perspective, since they misunderstood the game.