Proposal Discussion Solution to griefing?

[Siggi]

The solution to this griefing issue seems relatively simple, but that might be me being a newb. But I'll stick my neck out anyway.

Might not players be given a fixed option of going defensive/aggressive in loadouts, such that a ship can be maxed out in one or the other so far as to almost completely counter its opposite?

Eg, a player could choose to load his ship to the exclusion of the other such that a totally defensive ship would have almost zero offensive capability, but would be virtually impregnable to attack. And a totally offensive ship would be massively destructive but able to withstand very little damage.

As a pure trader I would buy the best shields, defensive turrets and whatnot. Anyone attacking me would not only find his weapons very ineffective against my shields but would also be met with very effective return-fire from my turrets.

As a pure psychopath I would buy the best guns and be able to quickly destroy anyone short of a pure trader. But would be highly vulnerable to any kind of return fire.

As it is now a player can max out both types of capability. I'm proposing that a player should be able to utilize both types of mounting points to the exclusion of the other.

Maybe this is already possible? If so ignore everything I've said.

 

[kanthoney]

Wouldn't that make the game rather dull?

 

[Commandr Sam]

I think the idea of the option of fitting an extra shield generator module onto a hard point may work?

 

[Siggi]

Wouldn't that make the game rather dull?

Not for those who find it dull to be constantly wiped out by psychopaths. It might for those who get their pleasure from behaving unrealistically by wiping out other players purely for 'sport'.

 

[Iain M Norman]

FD have mentioned more than once a rock, paper, scissors style mechanic to ship builds.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Might not players be given a fixed option of going defensive/aggressive in loadouts, such that a ship can be maxed out in one or the other so far as to almost completely counter its opposite?

I reckon this is how the stealth mechanics are eventually supposed to work - something like removing your Sidewinder's shields, fitting stealth engines, supercruising about applying minimal engine power and maybe sneaking right past the patrolling Asps without a fight. Although some of the basic mechanics have been implemented (heat, buttoning up etc.), my guess is the real design work will be done as part of supercruise interdiction.

 

[bamber]

It hasnt been implemented yet but all loadouts have a mass and the ships have a maximum load they can carry if you look at the various outfitting screens

I would guess that you will not be able to build the perfect cobra you will be too heavy, but you could buy an extremme defense or extreme offense ship. So you can have super guns but no armour or super armour and a tiny gun etc

You'll have to make the choice and the compromise

 

[Siggi]

If I had the option I would fit my ship with shields only, such that any attacker, even one with guns only, would find me totally invulnerable. But I would have zero offensive capability. Or I'd have a mixture of shields and return-fire-only auto-turrets, such that an attacker would find my shields hard to crack and would be met by effective return fire. But I'd have zero offensive capability.

Those should be options for those who have zero interest in killing non-offensive players.

 

[Bromley86]

That's just going to the other extreme though. Here I am, pleasantly pirating away in an area where pirates should be operating and along comes this ship which I can't put a dent in. This is not fun.

Think about how it would work in SP. No griefers there, but cargo runs would just be boring.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

This is what ED main designer Sandro says about solutions:
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=147803&postcount=138 sociopathic behaviour in context of the game
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=454783&postcount=37 regarding PVP and criminality

 

[NoirWolf]

Not for those who find it dull to be constantly wiped out by psychopaths. It might for those who get their pleasure from behaving unrealistically by wiping out other players purely for 'sport'.

Of course the person who wants to alter the game so people play how he wants isn't a closet psychopath who cannot fathom the notion of "beta test".

 

[Dynamo]

Where can I buy these extra shield modules and weapon turrets?

I want to turn my Lakon-9 into a mobile defence turret, fly into a combat zone (federal distress for example). Turn on shields and turrets, and slowly drift around, letting my auto turrets destroy the fighters, while they can't harm me. Easy money!


A better solution is to update the forum software to delete all posts containing the word "grief".

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Where can I buy these extra shield modules and weapon turrets?

I want to turn my Lakon-9 into a mobile defence turret, fly into a combat zone (federal distress for example). Turn on shields and turrets, and slowly drift around, letting my auto turrets destroy the fighters, while they can't harm me. Easy money!


A better solution is to update the forum software to delete all posts containing the word "grief".

Trust me, you DON'T want to do that Turrets attract NPCs like honey attracts flies. They are mostly met to shoot down rockets.

 

[TheSpackman]

I like the concept of a very tough or a high pew pew ship that compromises in other areas to achieve it's primary role, but not to extremes where a ship becomes almost invincible. A bit game breaking.

I thought that being able to lean heavily to one side or the other for any given ship was the plan anyway?

Anyway - grief being dished out in beta seems mainly down to the fact you are all playing an incomplete game so I find another "how to stop griefing" argument a bit moot.

It's all good feedback for FD I guess. Know they are doing the right thing for the punter and all that.

 

[Siggi]

That's just going to the other extreme though. Here I am, pleasantly pirating away in an area where pirates should be operating and along comes this ship which I can't put a dent in. This is not fun.

Think about how it would work in SP. No griefers there, but cargo runs would just be boring.

But you would have plenty of randomized NPC ships to pirate against. And plenty of human-controlled ships who didn't want to give up all offensive capability.

The percentage of players who don't want offensive capability would not be huge, in my opinion. They should be accommodated such that they can play their way in an MP environment without having to be subjected to the depredations of scumbags who get their pleasure from playing in a totally un-realistic manner (killing for no other reason than sport).

 

[Zvanya]

OR. Simply institute some of the features relating to groups, police protection, and such iterated in the DDA which will make this a non issue.

Sometimes I wonder if people starting and responding to threads like this have even READ the DDA. Doesn't seem likely.

 

[Gwydion]

As there isn't an agreed upon definition of "griefer" I don't see how any solution can work. Tbh the idea of being "virtually indestructible" is abhorrent. Sounds incredibly dull, why not just have an invulnerability button you can switch on and off.
Even though I'm not a fan of pvp, and won't actively engage in it, I don't call "gameplay pvp" griefing. I also don't consider pvp'ers are psycopaths, they simply like a more competitive style of gameplay that isn't inherently bad.

On the other hand, those players who sit outside a station and shoot everyone coming in or out are just incredibly sad little people.

 

[Elden]

All these talks are a bit meaningless.

First - invincible lakons will put your trading to an end even more effectively, then psycho-pirates. See that flat markets?

Second - area is saturated with players. few systems instead of thousands. you wont see those guys in such quantities.

Third - Police and bounty system. It was there in preveous games, so why do you think it won't be there in this one?

And fourth - Realism. Invincibility is not a valid sci-fi element. In no way.

 

[Siggi]

And fourth - Realism. Invincibility is not a valid sci-fi element. In no way.

And killing people for sport with no real consequences is realism? At the very least, those who choose to engage in such behaviour should, upon the eventual destruction of their ship, be either permanently dead (with loss of EVERYTHING they had) or deemed to have been captured and imprisoned for life (with loss of EVERYTHING they had). Then they can start from scratch again.

It's actually my overall point. Who, in real life, would get away with buying a car, armour-plating it and going out onto the highway to shoot the drivers of other cars from their window? They would either end up shot dead by the police or imprisoned for life.
FD really do need to get a grip on this whole issue of griefing and make it IMPOSSIBLE for players to do it and enjoy it. I've got nothing against players choosing to be pirates, but the consequences for that choice need to be REALISTIC, not some kind of game-balanced because "hey, maan, we got a right to enjoy the game too. Our way. By killing other players for no reason at all (heh...but we call it piracy, even when we're not trying to steal your gear, we just kill you)".

And yes, I choose to think of ED as a sim, not a puerile blaster. Was I wrong?

 

[Zalamael]

As a pure trader I would buy the best shields, defensive turrets and whatnot. Anyone attacking me would not only find his weapons very ineffective against my shields but would also be met with very effective return-fire from my turrets.

Stopped reading at this point. You want to be almost invincible against attackers, yet deadly at the same time with a turret that requires no skill to aim on your part?