Research on Griefing - a few excerpts

[Rampant]

For someone so knowledgeable about the game, it seems you've never powerdocked… oh Nvm, Docking Computers lol
I've accidentally killed small NPCs entering/exiting station in a big three, whilst powerdocking. Therefore I got killed by station Stupid, I know, but it's more frequent than you think… ask around

You mean docking computer rams an NPC, which dies, then you get killed by station?

You *know* instinctively that this isn't right, don't you? If it was intended, it would be an absurdity, would it not?

Yes ramming by cops not intended, still the RP possibility for players is nothing absurd.

No I will never agree with that, it is absurd that players are "roleplaying cops" in order to gift you a PF bounty and to make the station fire upon you. You know it's absurd. Everyone also sees it as absurd. I have visions of someone else agreeing with you publicly that it isn't absurd, and my vision then continues to a cut scene where that individual addresses you privately and says - "yeah, we both know it's absurd, but I have your back, buddy, let's just not accept it's absurd in public, OK?"

Also, defining Griefing precisely is needed in order for the Devs to counter it, otherwise they'll punish vague stuff and become unfair and unreliable (punishing the same act for some and not for others).

You may well have a point, but let's not attempt to limit fixing the game with a potential 80% fix just because it isn't 100%, because even an 80% fix is better than what we have currently. And even then, I envision that the 20% would only just be players "getting away with things they might not have" if it was 100%, so it is a good way to go. You are aware that in real life, law is sometimes interpreted "differently" on a case-by-case basis. We don't argue that just because some convictions for "X" weren't right, let's release all the perps who were convicted of "X"...

So you "won't quote from support private messages", eh?
Then I guess your statement is invalid, since said messages are PRIVATE and not PUBLIC or DISCLOSABLE, hence said policies don't exist, or are stuff that FD is afraid of disclosing? I don't know…

What I mean is that I don't want to screenshot a message from Support. People have done it in the past and I don't think there is a rule against it. There might be, but that is not my concern. My concern is just for the text not to be screenshot posted here. You do know that the speed limit was introduced to stop ramming. Right? Well, there is an unintended consequence, that FDev also view as an exploit. Boosting into someone from behind, with the sole intention of self-destructing and hopefully gaining the other player a PF bounty and station opening fire. That is unintended, and FDev will attempt to address this in future with in-game consequence. That's up to FDev...

I just see cheap ripostes and no actual counterargument here…

You mean, just like the post I was tackling???

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

Huh? That makes zero sense, sorry. Yes, ramming people to death was unintentional. They fixed it with the speed limit. No you get killed if you ram people to death. What is currently happening is something else. You cant go around claiming the latter is an exploit, then refuse to provide any evidence for it. If it only an exploit in secret PM communications, it simply isn't an exploit. Its that simple. Its still lame, but until there is actual, open, available communication clearly stating it is an exploit, it is not. Especially in the context of the 'science OP', unverified secret info cannot really be used.

No you don't "get killed" if you "ram someone to death". You *might*, but it isn't certain.

You gain a PF bounty. The station also fires on you. It is possible that you do not die. Like I did not die after I got boost-rammed. From behind. Of course this is unintended, it doesn't take a genius to work this out.

My circumstances were centred around being faced down by multiple FdLs outside the No Fire Zone, so I lined up the high-wake and then approaching the boundary began accelerating and boosting in order to escape being FdL ganked. At the same moment I was boosted into. From behind. By a shield-less sidewinder. I had good SA. All was clear ahead. I was being deliberately careful as well as beginning to go defensive. Got me a PF bounty and hull dropped to 60% as I high-waked. Survived the incident.

Don't care about the PF bounty. Paid that off easy. Also didn't affect my gameplay, so the attempted grief wasn't successful. Let's not lie about it, or lie by association, this was 100% a grief gameplay ploy. The ONLY thing that a player gets out of this is the knowledge that they are messing with someone and the more of an emotional response they get the more successful the grief is. No ifs. No buts. 100% grief play. But, the grief 100% failed. I didn't die, it didn't affect my gameplay and I didn't post on here or anything. Sure, I got this as a consequence for speeding. I could've menu logged and gone to PG, I suppose, to avoid the FdL gank, but decided to boost out instead and run the gauntlet. (Which, again, shouldn't really be a thing just outside stations in a high sec system, but players have perverted the galaxy and lurk with impunity, go figure...

The one thing I contacted FDev about was because this is 100% grief play, and was wondering how they view it and if they were going to tackle it. Also, because of my RL background and experience, I was wondering whether the "KILLED PLAYER X" could be removed from my journal. I don't PvP combat. Not interested.

Turns out that FDev Support are sympathetic and want to look at this with in-game mechanics instead of out-of-game mechanics. In that, there is no secret. I'm pretty station ramming has been commented on by the Team on here.

 

[Goose4291]

Yeah, problem is: there are no "arguments" (intellectual or not) nor "sources" in the post I reply to. And that's exactly what my response points out.
This latest comment of yours simply proves you are trolling and have no interest in civilised responses. This is the lest reply you'll get from me.

I guess while you were sipping brandy and listening to piano jazz in the 'intellectuals' sub-forum you missed the part where he argued context was key and that nebulous definitions like you have used to assert your claims is a logical fallacy, and gave a link to define what this meant via the works of Steven Downes, Canadian philosopher.

But its okay, I'll let you get back to pontificating on the connection between how people act in the real world and how they do when relaxing in a computer game.

 

[Ian Skippy]

No you don't "get killed" if you "ram someone to death". You *might*, but it isn't certain.

You gain a PF bounty. The station also fires on you. It is possible that you do not die. Like I did not die after I got boost-rammed. From behind. Of course this is unintended, it doesn't take a genius to work this out.

My circumstances were centred around being faced down by multiple FdLs outside the No Fire Zone, so I lined up the high-wake and then approaching the boundary began accelerating and boosting in order to escape being FdL ganked. At the same moment I was boosted into. From behind. By a shield-less sidewinder. I had good SA. All was clear ahead. I was being deliberately careful as well as beginning to go defensive. Got me a PF bounty and hull dropped to 60% as I high-waked. Survived the incident.

Don't care about the PF bounty. Paid that off easy. Also didn't affect my gameplay, so the attempted grief wasn't successful. Let's not lie about it, or lie by association, this was 100% a grief gameplay ploy. The ONLY thing that a player gets out of this is the knowledge that they are messing with someone and the more of an emotional response they get the more successful the grief is. No ifs. No buts. 100% grief play. But, the grief 100% failed. I didn't die, it didn't affect my gameplay and I didn't post on here or anything. Sure, I got this as a consequence for speeding. I could've menu logged and gone to PG, I suppose, to avoid the FdL gank, but decided to boost out instead and run the gauntlet. (Which, again, shouldn't really be a thing just outside stations in a high sec system, but players have perverted the galaxy and lurk with impunity, go figure...

The one thing I contacted FDev about was because this is 100% grief play, and was wondering how they view it and if they were going to tackle it. Also, because of my RL background and experience, I was wondering whether the "KILLED PLAYER X" could be removed from my journal. I don't PvP combat. Not interested.

Turns out that FDev Support are sympathetic and want to look at this with in-game mechanics instead of out-of-game mechanics. In that, there is no secret. I'm pretty station ramming has been commented on by the Team on here.

So the tl;'dr is:"No, I have nothing to back up my claim that this case of '100% grief gameplay' is considered an exploit by FD. Good, glad we cleared that up. Its griefing, its annoying, we all agree on that. Its also currently allowed. No need to pretend your opinion as some publicly available fact when it is evidently not.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I guess while you were sipping brandy and listening to piano jazz in the 'intellectuals' sub-forum...

Now, I don't care who you are - that was funny

 

[EvE4evah]

You mean docking computer rams an NPC, which dies, then you get killed by station?

You *know* instinctively that this isn't right, don't you? If it was intended, it would be an absurdity, would it not?

Maaan what a waste of time…
OK, here it goes.
Power docking (which apparently you have never heard of) is to boost through the toaster rack at high speeds coming from afar in order to not give the NPCs any chance of scanning you. It's also very funny, and requires some skill when using one of the Big Three… it also ups a bit your chance of ramming a small ship unintentionally. You do know what will happen, right?
Cutter rams innocent Viper, the latter dies, the former gets killed by station guns.

No I will never agree with that, it is absurd that players are "roleplaying cops" in order to gift you a PF bounty and to make the station fire upon you. You know it's absurd. Everyone also sees it as absurd. I have visions of someone else agreeing with you publicly that it isn't absurd, and my vision then continues to a cut scene where that individual addresses you privately and says - "yeah, we both know it's absurd, but I have your back, buddy, let's just not accept it's absurd in public, OK?"

How did you get away with life up to now with such a lack of imagination and open-mindedness, is beyond me. Yeah, almost all the station rammers are people who want to see you cry salt tears… not all. If I'm against a specific CG (the Aegis ones for hypothetical example, since I love Thargs and hate Mycoid and Guardians), nothing more logical than try to boycott it by making it harder for big haulers to deliver hundreds of tons of cargo. Specially since these culprits can't even respect a proper speed limit. Again, I'll repeat: most station rammers will be griefers, not all.

You may well have a point, but let's not attempt to limit fixing the game with a potential 80% fix just because it isn't 100%, because even an 80% fix is better than what we have currently. And even then, I envision that the 20% would only just be players "getting away with things they might not have" if it was 100%, so it is a good way to go. You are aware that in real life, law is sometimes interpreted "differently" on a case-by-case basis. We don't argue that just because some convictions for "X" weren't right, let's release all the perps who were convicted of "X"...

Hmmm… in RealLife(TM), murder is murder, theft is theft, harassment is harassment, and so on. Griefing is too vague.

What I mean is that I don't want to screenshot a message from Support. People have done it in the past and I don't think there is a rule against it. There might be, but that is not my concern. My concern is just for the text not to be screenshot posted here. You do know that the speed limit was introduced to stop ramming. Right? Well, there is an unintended consequence, that FDev also view as an exploit. Boosting into someone from behind, with the sole intention of self-destructing and hopefully gaining the other player a PF bounty and station opening fire. That is unintended, and FDev will attempt to address this in future with in-game consequence. That's up to FDev...

Again, you have proof?

 

[jasonbarron]

I guess while you were sipping brandy and listening to piano jazz in the 'intellectuals' sub-forum you missed the part where he argued context was key and that nebulous definitions like you have used to assert your claims is a logical fallacy, and gave a link to define what this meant via the works of Steven Downes, Canadian philosopher.

But its okay, I'll let you get back to pontificating on the connection between how people act in the real world and how they do when relaxing in a computer game.

Not only funny, but spot on.

Now, I don't care who you are - that was funny

Agreed

So the tl;'dr is:"No, I have nothing to back up my claim that this case of '100% grief gameplay' is considered an exploit by FD. Good, glad we cleared that up. Its griefing, its annoying, we all agree on that. Its also currently allowed. No need to pretend your opinion as some publicly available fact when it is evidently not.

You forgot to sign your post "Cheerz, sleut"

 

[Rampant]

So the tl;'dr is:"No, I have nothing to back up my claim that this case of '100% grief gameplay' is considered an exploit by FD. Good, glad we cleared that up. Its griefing, its annoying, we all agree on that. Its also currently allowed. No need to pretend your opinion as some publicly available fact when it is evidently not.

Actually, I do.
But you just want to make a case that you want to ignore that evidence, for whatever reason that might be.
I did say that it didn't take a genius to work out that station ramming is 100% grief intended, but then, in the other hand it does require the individual to be honest as well as have at least limited amount of analytical ability.

LOL

Mark H

 

[TheSynopticVision]

It's really sad how you guys slap each other on the back for coming up with "ironic" responses, while still saying absolutely nothing.

I guess while you were sipping brandy and listening to piano jazz in the 'intellectuals' sub-forum you missed the part where he argued context was key and that nebulous definitions like you have used to assert your claims is a logical fallacy, and gave a link to define what this meant via the works of Steven Downes, Canadian philosopher.

But its okay, I'll let you get back to pontificating on the connection between how people act in the real world and how they do when relaxing in a computer game.

1) I am not an intellectual. To be able to construct an argument and to demand the same from the conversation partner does not mean being an "intellectual". It just means being a rational human being. Not being a moron.

2) "where he argued that" -- did he? Do you know the difference between stating/claiming and arguing? He claimed that my definition is "nebulous" and that it's therefore a "logical fallacy". Did he argue why? Did he point out which of the many criteria listed in the definition is wrong? Did he offer an alternative definition? No. That's claiming, not arguing: "This is wrong and I am right because I say so". Exactly what trolls do.

3) a link to a Canadian philosopher. Impressive. I am a philosopher too, funny.

4) If you had the tools to understand what I wrote at least 3 times throughout this thread, you'd realize that I have not pontificated about anything. Once again: I offered some evidence (which can be contested) for the hypothesis that griefers' in-game behaviour can be said to exhibit certain personality traits. Nobody called griefers mentally ill. Nobody said this is a psychological slam dunk. But it simply means that people like you should offer stronger evidence than "I think that X" before voicing your opinion, or at the very least argue in detail why and how these ideas and this line of research might be wrongheaded (as some have tried to do). But no, the best you can do is say "this is obviously academic bull", "I think that X", or make fun without producing any argument.

You know what? Who cares really. You guys are clearly trolls who enjoy hanging out on the forum to make fun of carebears and people playing in Solo, and generally to "mine salt" (and like it or not, to be a compulsive troll and to enjoy seeing people upset does say something about who you are behind the keyboard). Keep doing that.

 

[Rampant]

It's really sad how you guys slap each other on the back for coming up with "ironic" responses, while still saying absolutely nothing.




1) I am not an intellectual. To be able to construct an argument and to demand the same from the conversation partner does not mean being an "intellectual". It just means being a rational human being. Not being a moron.

2) "where he argued that" -- did he? Do you know the difference between stating/claiming and arguing? He claimed that my definition is "nebulous" and that it's therefore a "logical fallacy". Did he argue why? Did he point out which of the many criteria listed in the definition is wrong? Did he offer an alternative definition? No. That's claiming, not arguing: "This is wrong and I am right because I say so". Exactly what trolls do.

3) a link to a Canadian philosopher. Impressive. I am a philosopher too, funny.

4) If you had the tools to understand what I wrote at least 3 times throughout this thread, you'd realize that I have not pontificated about anything. Once again: I offered some evidence (which can be contested) for the hypothesis that griefers' in-game behaviour can be said to exhibit certain personality traits. Nobody called griefers mentally ill. Nobody said this is a psychological slam dunk. But it simply means that people like you should offer stronger evidence than "I think that X" before voicing your opinion, or at the very least argue in detail why and how these ideas and this line of research might be wrongheaded (as some have tried to do). But no, the best you can do is say "this is obviously academic bull", "I think that X", or make fun without producing any argument.

You know what? Who cares really. You guys are clearly trolls who enjoy hanging out on the forum to make fun of carebears and people playing in Solo, and generally to "mine salt" (and like it or not, to be a compulsive troll and to enjoy seeing people upset does say something about who you are behind the keyboard). Keep doing that.

Another post of reasoned analysis, well done Synoptic.
Keep doing that.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

Maaan what a waste of time…

No need for that tone.

OK, here it goes.
Power docking (which apparently you have never heard of) is to boost through the toaster rack at high speeds coming from afar in order to not give the NPCs any chance of scanning you. It's also very funny, and requires some skill when using one of the Big Three… it also ups a bit your chance of ramming a small ship unintentionally. You do know what will happen, right?
Cutter rams innocent Viper, the latter dies, the former gets killed by station guns.

So I have never "heard" the phrase Power Docking before. So what? Maybe better to describe what you mean better next time, in order to reduce the to-fro of posts because somebody else doesn't understand your turn of phrase.

Even though I've never heard the phrase before, that tactic is something I have used in the past, but stopped doing it shortly after the 100m/s rule was introduced. In all the time I used it - Not Once did I collide with another ship with my Anaconda. I used the scanner to provide Situational Awareness. Granted, an Anaconda is a bit smaller than the big 3, but isn't it a bit weird how I can fit my Anaconda in the slot beside one of the the big 3 coming the other way - provided they offset a little toward the green light...

Do you still power dock your big 3 after the 100m/s rule?

My own tactic is to gain Situational Awareness ASAFP, and then know whether I can boost straight away toward the slot from 10km, to know *exactly* at what range to boost down to, and then *exactly* at what range to deploy gear and adjust throttle in order that *just* entering the toast rack occurs at 97-99m/s and then cruising in at between 96-99m/s (depending on *just* how accurately you set the throttle when you deployed gear at the gate range.) If you then get the "scan detected" message I simply hit Silent running for a few seconds while cruising to the pad... Worked 100% for me when I had my (ram-grief) bounty and PF bounty of 20MCr for an entire week of doing a CG that got me in the top 25% of both CGs that week, so my technique worked and it worked multiple times without fail.

How did you get away with life up to now with such a lack of imagination and open-mindedness, is beyond me. Yeah, almost all the station rammers are people who want to see you cry salt tears… not all. If I'm against a specific CG (the Aegis ones for hypothetical example, since I love Thargs and hate Mycoid and Guardians), nothing more logical than try to boycott it by making it harder for big haulers to deliver hundreds of tons of cargo. Specially since these culprits can't even respect a proper speed limit. Again, I'll repeat: most station rammers will be griefers, not all.

HaHaHa - Let's define our terms just "slightly" more clearly.

*You* will *never* be able to ram-exploit *me* on my way *INTO* dock. And let's at least be honest about this. What you are describing is still an EXPLOIT, even if your tactic isn't griefing. I accept that this wouldn't be griefing, but I'd also say with conviction that I'd be immune under the current rules because I fly under 100m/s into the dock. I'd deliver my CG cargo. You'd still lose your ship. You could still, of course, use a team to try to EXPLOIT the mechanic, but you cannot in all honesty shy away from the fact that it is actually an EXPLOIT you are exploiting.

Let's talk the case with so called "blockade" wings of overpowered FdLs - they normally don't "blockade" the CG - at least I've never witnessed them attacking ships going *INTO* a secure station. I've witnessed many times the wings going after ships *LEAVING* the station. This isn't a blockade. The goods or bonds or bounties have already been delivered.


Let's talk about the ram-griefing I've witnessed... on the way *OUT* of station. There is no in game reason to be doing this - like the FdLs attacking ships leaving, the ram-griefer is not blockading, nor do they have any single thing to gain *in the game*. Not a single thing. No credits, no PP merits, no cargo, no mission rewards, no reputation or influence - absolutely nothing except for the loss of their ship and losing credits to the rebuy. It is 100% to do with out of game reasons. Ergo griefing. And no, this is not difficult to define.

If you or anybody else would care to search for Sandro's comments about this - it is undesirable. It is absolutely one of the fundamental reasons that Karma ^TM is coming soon ^TM. You don't need to be a genius to work any of this out - but you do need to be honest about it and not be dishonest by accepting it as "valid", or simply by ignoring it altogether, which is being dishonest by omission.

I have cut-down-edited this quote by Sandro:

Hello Commander nrage!

Discerning naughty from undesirable would really be such a system's prime function.

so, to spitball a little, here are some potential examples:

* Being involved in an occasional starport collision would gain you minor bad karma
* Being repeatedly involved in starport collisions over time would get you major bad karma
* Occasionally disconnecting ungracefully in danger would be fine
* Repeatedly disconnecting ungracefully in danger over time would get you major bad karma


This sort of thing.

.

It can clearly be seen from the careful language written by the lead designer that station ramming is potentially viewed as even more of an exploit than combat logging.

You can get away with occasional disconnect without bad Karma, but you cannot get away with even occasional station ramming without bad Karma.

^^
Here's your proof everyone and no need for me to divulge *exactly* what was said between myself and support about the *utter obviousness* of griefing behaviour through a player's actions and *continued* actions...

...which I keep saying is absolutely obvious from context that humans can discern, that maybe computer coding is difficult to write to detect... Doesn't take genius to discern, but does require honesty.

Hmmm… in RealLife(TM), murder is murder, theft is theft, harassment is harassment, and so on. Griefing is too vague.

Let's not go there. We're talking about bullying behaviour and harassment, which requires a human only a small amount of human experience to detect in order to perceive real bullying or harassment, and human intervention to stop, whereas writing computer code is difficult in the extreme and would probably be prone to further exploit.

Again, you have proof?

See quote above.

All the "proof" you need.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[EvE4evah]

No need for that tone.

Sorry dad. Kisses

So I have never "heard" the phrase Power Docking before. So what? Maybe better to describe what you mean better next time, in order to reduce the to-fro of posts because somebody else doesn't understand your turn of phrase.

Even though I've never heard the phrase before, that tactic is something I have used in the past, but stopped doing it shortly after the 100m/s rule was introduced. In all the time I used it - Not Once did I collide with another ship with my Anaconda. I used the scanner to provide Situational Awareness. Granted, an Anaconda is a bit smaller than the big 3, but isn't it a bit weird how I can fit my Anaconda in the slot beside one of the the big 3 coming the other way - provided they offset a little toward the green light...

Do you still power dock your big 3 after the 100m/s rule?

My own tactic is to gain Situational Awareness ASAFP, and then know whether I can boost straight away toward the slot from 10km, to know *exactly* at what range to boost down to, and then *exactly* at what range to deploy gear and adjust throttle in order that *just* entering the toast rack occurs at 97-99m/s and then cruising in at between 96-99m/s (depending on *just* how accurately you set the throttle when you deployed gear at the gate range.) If you then get the "scan detected" message I simply hit Silent running for a few seconds while cruising to the pad... Worked 100% for me when I had my (ram-grief) bounty and PF bounty of 20MCr for an entire week of doing a CG that got me in the top 25% of both CGs that week, so my technique worked and it worked multiple times without fail.

You're welcome. Yes, I've died to station shamefully, even recently I got stuck in the toaster rack. C-Logging against the mail slot is [big grin]

*You* will *never* be able to ram-exploit *me* on my way *INTO* dock. And let's at least be honest about this. What you are describing is still an EXPLOIT, even if your tactic isn't griefing. I accept that this wouldn't be griefing, but I'd also say with conviction that I'd be immune under the current rules because I fly under 100m/s into the dock. I'd deliver my CG cargo. You'd still lose your ship. You could still, of course, use a team to try to EXPLOIT the mechanic, but you cannot in all honesty shy away from the fact that it is actually an EXPLOIT you are exploiting.
Let's talk the case with so called "blockade" wings of overpowered FdLs - they normally don't "blockade" the CG - at least I've never witnessed them attacking ships going *INTO* a secure station. I've witnessed many times the wings going after ships *LEAVING* the station. This isn't a blockade. The goods or bonds or bounties have already been delivered.

OK here you finally have conceded it might not be Griefing.
Also we agree that the simplest solution is using the speed limit instead of waiting for complex coding

If you or anybody else would care to search for Sandro's comments about this - it is undesirable. It is absolutely one of the fundamental reasons that Karma ^TM is coming soon ^TM. You don't need to be a genius to work any of this out - but you do need to be honest about it and not be dishonest by accepting it as "valid", or simply by ignoring it altogether, which is being dishonest by omission.

I have cut-down-edited this quote by Sandro:

It can clearly be seen from the careful language written by the lead designer that station ramming is potentially viewed as even more of an exploit than combat logging.

You can get away with occasional disconnect without bad Karma, but you cannot get away with even occasional station ramming without bad Karma.

^^
Here's your proof everyone and no need for me to divulge *exactly* what was said between myself and support about the *utter obviousness* of griefing behaviour through a player's actions and *continued* actions...

...which I keep saying is absolutely obvious from context that humans can discern, that maybe computer coding is difficult to write to detect... Doesn't take genius to discern, but does require honesty.

So basically, Sandro is suggesting (like he once suggested adding bonuses to playing in Open lol) that criminal behavior will meet bad karma. Meaning, he's basically assuming it's not an exploit and it's not EULA violating harassment since the player will meet in-game consequences only, no ban, no nothing.

Let's not go there. We're talking about bullying behaviour and harassment, which requires a human only a small amount of human experience to detect in order to perceive real bullying or harassment, and human intervention to stop, whereas writing computer code is difficult in the extreme and would probably be prone to further exploit

Yeah as I've said in previous comments, suicide station ramming can mostly be considered Griefing, specially when reincident. Then I've provided examples of exceptional situations in which it's not necessarily Griefing (countering a CG, for example). What we're lacking in ED Open mode, besides proper C&P, is reasons to fly in Open… real roleplay/progression/objective/asset reasons to risk your ships in Open which would change the mind focus from "I'm being griefed" to "I'm facing risks because of rewards".

Granted, these wouldn't make a considerable part of the community suddenly join Open because those guys enjoy the loneliness of space, the sightseeing, the exploring, or just don't enjoy the multi-player aspect of the game, or selectively enjoy the co-op aspect of it. And that's cool. But many other players would take the effort of learning to protect themselves in Open, many others would stop the griefing nonsense, others would come back into the game, and player retention would improve, with reasons.

 

[TheSynopticVision]

Yeah as I've said in previous comments, suicide station ramming can mostly be considered Griefing, specially when reincident. Then I've provided examples of exceptional situations in which it's not necessarily Griefing (countering a CG, for example). What we're lacking in ED Open mode, besides proper C&P, is reasons to fly in Open… real roleplay/progression/objective/asset reasons to risk your ships in Open which would change the mind focus from "I'm being griefed" to "I'm facing risks because of rewards".

Granted, these wouldn't make a considerable part of the community suddenly join Open because those guys enjoy the loneliness of space, the sightseeing, the exploring, or just don't enjoy the multi-player aspect of the game, or selectively enjoy the co-op aspect of it. And that's cool. But many other players would take the effort of learning to protect themselves in Open, many others would stop the griefing nonsense, others would come back into the game, and player retention would improve, with reasons.

Although this is slightly OT, I want to endorse this. This is very very true. Interventions to reduce griefing (and more or less legitimate accusations of griefing) should target both groups, not just one side. While I almost never fly Solo (unless my connection is really crap), I am not sure what to reply to those who tell me "I fly Solo because I just want to trade and not be interdicted/killed while I do that". Is there an incentive to be in Open, in terms of money, progression, gameplay...? Nope. But what if there were more incentives to be a pirate? What if, on the other hand, trading to/fro an Anarchy system in Open would pay twice/thrice as much as trading to/from an high-sec system? Risk without payout is annoying. Risk with high stakes is fun.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Although this is slightly OT, I want to endorse this. This is very very true. Interventions to reduce griefing (and more or less legitimate accusations of griefing) should target both groups, not just one side. While I almost never fly Solo (unless my connection is really crap), I am not sure what to reply to those who tell me "I fly Solo because I just want to trade and not be interdicted/killed while I do that". Is there an incentive to be in Open, in terms of money, progression, gameplay...? Nope. But what if there were more incentives to be a pirate? What if, on the other hand, trading to/fro an Anarchy system in Open would pay twice/thrice as much as trading to/from an high-sec system? Risk without payout is annoying. Risk with high stakes is fun.

People are very, very, very, very, very much against that idea. Basically it provides financial incentives to do something (play multiplayer) they dont like, often on general principle. I agree high-sec should pay less than anarchy regardless of mode. However, the modes should be chosen based on whether one wants no MP, limited MP or no-bars-hold MP. 'Pushing' people towards a mode they dont inherently prefer is not a good idea IMHO.

Besides, you can already create a 'solo instance' in Open anyway if you know how the internets work. Or someone sends you a script.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

People are very, very, very, very, very much against that idea. Basically it provides financial incentives to do something (play multiplayer) they dont like, often on general principle...

This is true. Before I ventured into Open I was one of those rabid "I don't want to play multiplayer" people. I might have stayed there were it not for having connected with folks on the forums. Now it's my primary mode of play.

I'm glad I changed my mind.

Those aren't the only reasons people stay out of Open - other reasons are less about personality/disposition, and more about things like physical limitations, disabilities, reaction time, etc.

Anyway, I personally think that Open play should be incentivized.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

This is true. Before I ventured into Open I was one of those rabid "I don't want to play multiplayer" people. I might have stayed there were it not for having connected with folks on the forums. Now it's my primary mode of play.

I'm glad I changed my mind.

Those aren't the only reasons people stay out of Open - other reasons are less about personality/disposition, and more about things like physical limitations, disabilities, reaction time, etc.

Anyway, I personally think that Open play should be incentivized.

Incentivized? No. Encouraged? Yes.

 

[Jenner]

You know what? Who cares really. You guys are clearly trolls who enjoy hanging out on the forum to make fun of carebears and people playing in Solo, and generally to "mine salt" (and like it or not, to be a compulsive troll and to enjoy seeing people upset does say something about who you are behind the keyboard). Keep doing that.

Forums are here to express opinions and engage in debate. If we're done doing that in this thread perhaps it's time to close it? Otherwise let's all (not just you) remain civil and respectful of each other's opinions.

 

[jasonbarron]

3) a link to a Canadian philosopher. Impressive. I am a philosopher too, funny.

What's your problem with Canadians, eh?

*some jokes are worth the inevitable punishment*

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Incentivized? No. Encouraged? Yes.

Not to go too far off topic, but how would you encourage folks to fly in Open?

 

[Deleted member 115407]

It's really sad how you guys slap each other on the back for coming up with "ironic" responses, while still saying absolutely nothing.

1) I am not an intellectual. To be able to construct an argument and to demand the same from the conversation partner does not mean being an "intellectual". It just means being a rational human being. Not being a moron.

2) "where he argued that" -- did he? Do you know the difference between stating/claiming and arguing? He claimed that my definition is "nebulous" and that it's therefore a "logical fallacy". Did he argue why? Did he point out which of the many criteria listed in the definition is wrong? Did he offer an alternative definition? No. That's claiming, not arguing: "This is wrong and I am right because I say so". Exactly what trolls do.

3) a link to a Canadian philosopher. Impressive. I am a philosopher too, funny.

4) If you had the tools to understand what I wrote at least 3 times throughout this thread, you'd realize that I have not pontificated about anything. Once again: I offered some evidence (which can be contested) for the hypothesis that griefers' in-game behaviour can be said to exhibit certain personality traits. Nobody called griefers mentally ill. Nobody said this is a psychological slam dunk. But it simply means that people like you should offer stronger evidence than "I think that X" before voicing your opinion, or at the very least argue in detail why and how these ideas and this line of research might be wrongheaded (as some have tried to do). But no, the best you can do is say "this is obviously academic bull", "I think that X", or make fun without producing any argument.

You know what? Who cares really. You guys are clearly trolls who enjoy hanging out on the forum to make fun of carebears and people playing in Solo, and generally to "mine salt" (and like it or not, to be a compulsive troll and to enjoy seeing people upset does say something about who you are behind the keyboard). Keep doing that.

See, here's the problem Synoptic (at least for me) - The way that you express yourself when making a point is insulting and dismissive. It goes beyond the obvious insult of "moron" that you seem so fond of using. It's in your insistence that for those of us who disagree with you, we must play your game of intellectual superiority in order for our counterpoint to have any kind of value. You literally said, earlier in the thread, that the only proper response to your well-researched OP would be an equally well researched response, supported by opposing studies and documents.

If we refuse to play that game, then you counter with accusations like "You don't have the tools to understand", and "You're a moron and an irrational human being". No, what we are (besides being a bunch of 40 year-old men who have somehow managed to make it through life this far without having to ask people like you for instructions)... what we are is a bunch of folks who play a spaceship video game. And that's what you are too. Go ahead and let it soak in.

(Now, would you like to crack open some brews and shoot the poo about why griefers do what they do?)