News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules

Yeah context it's a nebulous definition.

Which is why Frontier have arbiters of justice. They decide on whether the specific context of the situation warrants disciplinary action. Really, lessons should be learned from history. I don't know if you've heard of it but there is another space game called EVE Online which has been going for more than 10 years. They have tried to define what is and isn't allowed very specifically without the use of context and every time they have someone has done something against the game rules and used an argument designed to use cracks in their attempt at an all encompassing definition to excuse their actions.

Therefore if one is to learn from history, specifically EO's, it would make sense for a games company to basically state a fairly rough definition with an additional clause stating that they will decide on a case by case basis and their decision will be final because that is a catch all which avoids rules lawyers from trying to be "smart". As another wise individual said earlier in the thread (paraphrased): play by Wheaton's Law and you'll be fine. Don't and you *may* well gain the attention and ire of Frontier.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

One positive thing about this thread is that I've never given so much rep in a thread before. There are a lot of well reasoned arguments from a lot of people.
 
if they stream in open they should accept the consequences. Just my two eurocents.
Cool. That's basically the same as Zac's original two eurocents:

In addition, running a livestream in Open does invite the potential for players to approach and impact your gameplay […]
So now we have four eurocents. Keep this up and we'll have enough for a Mars bar in a couple of weeks.

That's a move in the right direction. Now FD, please make it easier on yourself and your support staff in the future and think about at least providing a framework for players to set group specific rules themselves. Please allow group moderators to set hard coded, no PVP ruleset, so that we don't have to rely on players to follow a verbal agreement. This way workload for Frontier support staff will be diminished when it comes to issues similar to mentioned in the OP. Yes, this requires some work to be done by Frontier programmers and will take time, but this is the kind of issue that will come back to bite you if not addressed in some more permanent, in-game manner.
Agreed. There was a time when I believed that the mechanisms outlined for the game's design, coupled with the three equal modes, would negate the need for PvE flags or any other granular rules. Events of recent weeks, and the community's responses to them, have shown that no longer to be the case. The underdeveloped in-game mechanisms are wholly inadequate for dealing with antisocial and/or PK activities even within Private Groups. I'm not quite ready to join the rallying cry of those who demand a full PvE Open mode, because I know in the current climate it would utterly destroy Open play and Open play deserves better, longer term treatment. But for maintaining the integrity of Private Groups? PvE toggles would clarify the groups' rules and make life easier for both the admins and FD Support. Frontier need to swallow their collective pride and implement this now if the game is not to be dogged (see what I did there?) by repeat performances.

Now cue half a dozen people asking, "But how will this be implemented? Magic bullets? Magic shields? Magic trigger disablers? Any of those will break my immersion in a game that already has a hundred and fifty immersion-breaking things that I happily ignore." You know what? I don't care. Let FD decide on the mechanics. I just want to see group admins given the tools they need to pre-emptively deal with PKing, not just some airy-fairy promise that Support will help if things go south. Support should have better things to do with their time.
 
This clarification is a welcome one but, if it's not followed through on, can do more harm than good. Pardon me for speaking metaphorically, but FD is like a new high school teacher who has no control over their classroom. If you say you're going to do it...do it, or lose the respect of the whole class.

It is entirely possible that they have 'followed through' already. Or that they will do shortly, without further comment: they are under no obligation to make public announcements about sanctions they take against individual players who transgress the EULA, and might well consider it best for all concerned to keep such matters private.
 
It is entirely possible that they have 'followed through' already. Or that they will do shortly, without further comment: they are under no obligation to make public announcements about sanctions they take against individual players who transgress the EULA, and might well consider it best for all concerned to keep such matters private.

Quite true. But do you really think they will be able to keep it private? Well...we'll see.
 
Quite true. But do you really think they will be able to keep it private? Well...we'll see.

FD do make use of the ban function both full account ban and banishment to the ghost server, but they are a nice company and they don't make a fuss about it publicly.

To find the information you need to use google-fu and read the comedy bleating of the banned, some of the bans are multiple account bans for the same CMDR.

I can't post a link as the relevant forum has information on cheating (which is why the banned people posting there were kicked out).
 
Last edited:
Just on this point.

For me I would much rather Frontier fix the above by improving ED's group management system rather than threats of bans that may or may not be carried out.

Sure they're not exclusive and Frontier may be working on improvements, but the way I see it people have been asking for better group management for over a year and it just hasn't happened. If it finally does happen it'll turn out SDC have caused some temporary butt hurt (where the outrage was waaay out of proportion compared to the actual damage) in exchange for some much wanted permanent improvements to the game.

If fixes happen yes you could argue that they happened despite SDC but I can;t help feeling tht in the end this is just a game, and as such the end can justify the means.

I do feel we almost need groups like SDC, players really need to push the boundaries of the game in all sorts of ways points to act as a catalyst for improvements.

Some things may not be fixable but if the preferred solution to players pushing limits is to ban then you're removing what essentially is a driving force for improvement.

David Braben himself in Lave Radio ep 100 said that players do the same thing over and over and it's frustrating because there's a bunch of undiscovered stuff out there, it seems your average player does not push the framework of the game. If no-one's pushing to breaking point then the game is just not gonna evolve.

Except that SDC aren't pushing anything in gameplay terms. They acted like jerks, they're on this thread defending their 'right' to act like jerks. FD just gave fair warning that they haven't granted anyone the 'right' to be a jerk.
In game play terms all they've done is blow up spaceships, something every player does at some point. They're not particularly creative in the way they do that, just bringing more and better armed ships to the happy slapping event than the victim has. It's how they did this that has upset our community; they haven't respected the simple, clear rules we all agreed to play by. We all know that's what happened, to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Their contribution to the group management issue is adding to the workload, bringing the need to deal with griefers lying their way into a private group to the fore. It's an unnecessary additional complication for the devs to have to deal with- if they weren't acting like jerks the team could concentrate on the issues they were working through before.
They're not a driving force for improvement, they're a drogue on progress, forcing development time and assets to be squandered on combating griefing that could be much better spent on almost any other aspect of the game.
Is there some game play mechanic that you believe they and only they have discovered? Some aspect of the game framework they've pushed to breaking point? Lying your way into a private group isn't a hard thing to do, in any walk of life, nor is picking on someone weaker than yourself, nor is disrupting a public event for your own purposes. None of these things have anything to do with our game's mechanics, all of them have a terrific impact on our game's reputation.
Bits, you want this game to be the best it possibly can be. That will only happen if sales remain strong and the development team are allowed to work on the game itself. If sales start to drop and they have to waste time inventing in game counters to people acting in an anti social manner, then the game won't get the chance to evolve into what we all want it to.


There are many, many depths to this game, but as long as the same blinkered people keep looking in the same place with the same preconceived idea's then they will only find the depth they are looking for.
We are all pushing the limits of the game to find out where it lies but the majority are looking in a far wider area.

Quoted for truth. There are many aspects of the game that we haven't investigated; many players never will. That isn't a bad thing, as long as they're enjoying the game they absolutely should be allowed to play it their way. At the same time there are many players who are trying out new things, looking to see the effect their actions have, on PP, the BGS, their progress, their relationship with other player groups or whatever else holds their interest. These are all things we can do without going out of our way to grief our fellow players.

Cool. That's basically the same as Zac's original two eurocents:


So now we have four eurocents. Keep this up and we'll have enough for a Mars bar in a couple of weeks.


Agreed. There was a time when I believed that the mechanisms outlined for the game's design, coupled with the three equal modes, would negate the need for PvE flags or any other granular rules. Events of recent weeks, and the community's responses to them, have shown that no longer to be the case. The underdeveloped in-game mechanisms are wholly inadequate for dealing with antisocial and/or PK activities even within Private Groups. I'm not quite ready to join the rallying cry of those who demand a full PvE Open mode, because I know in the current climate it would utterly destroy Open play and Open play deserves better, longer term treatment. But for maintaining the integrity of Private Groups? PvE toggles would clarify the groups' rules and make life easier for both the admins and FD Support. Frontier need to swallow their collective pride and implement this now if the game is not to be dogged (see what I did there?) by repeat performances.

Now cue half a dozen people asking, "But how will this be implemented? Magic bullets? Magic shields? Magic trigger disablers? Any of those will break my immersion in a game that already has a hundred and fifty immersion-breaking things that I happily ignore." You know what? I don't care. Let FD decide on the mechanics. I just want to see group admins given the tools they need to pre-emptively deal with PKing, not just some airy-fairy promise that Support will help if things go south. Support should have better things to do with their time.

On that last part- in a private group, if such measures are in place to prevent members breaking the agreed rules, then the break in immersion can only come about when someone attempts to break the rules they agreed to play by. If a person suffers a break in immersion brought about by their own actions, I can't really say I'm feeling much sympathy for the liar at this point... :D
 
Last edited:
I WANT people pushing the boundaries and testing the limits of the game, I want this encouraged not suppressed because ultimately that's how the game gets better.
If players killing newbies in LHS 3447 is a problem don't threaten bans on grounds of "harassment" or "non-consensual PvP", fix the bloomin' game.
I do not like the concept of fixing in game problems with out of game solutions, such solutions are bad solutions and can be a way to avoid addressing the actual issues.
And that happens we all as players lose out.
In the end you can fix broken or poor game mechanics/systems or you can threaten people with being expelled from the game. As someone who wants this game to be all it can be, I prefer the former.

This is something that is quite frustrating, and really far from the first time this has been used as reasoning, in so many, many games.
"We are doing this to prove how broken the game is so it gets fixed!"
And then when something surrounding said issue is fixed they take credit for it being fixed.

Almost as if people don't believe bug reports or similar don't get fixed, as if they don't believe that there are a lot of issues that yes, should be fixed, but they are only a problem if people "chose" to abuse said issues.

Say for example, the whole thing with ramming before the speeding limit was implemented, but even speeding didn't fix it because some people find other "issues" to abuse with same excuse, and here's the thing, people could just decide, "Not" to do those things, and it wouldn't be a pressing issue...file a bug report and it will get fixed eventually, it "might" get fixed a bit sooner if people intentionally abuse it to annoy people, this is true, but this is not a good thing, because said people could easily have chosen not to do so. So the defence of "I am doing this so the game gets fixed" really is more of an excuse to behaving the way they want to then actually helping the game.
 
Last edited:
You may also want to rethink your stance on this as this goes against the fair use act which can and very likely will result in legal action should you decide to do that.

If people don't want to be attacked, then all they have to do is to stay in solo mode, I did not buy this game and it's extension at full price to get banned because FDev is bowing in front of care bears that can't assume that they are playing a game with PvP interactions. If I want to kill someone in game, there is no TOS or whatever to stop me from doing it, and if they do so, well, then all they have to do is to refund the people that they screwed.

You are both quite funny people with the "class action" and "demand a refund" and what not. Legal flair worthy of Saul Goodman himself. Frontier has their backsides covered pretty well with TOS / EULA and the terms are pretty clear and logical. Promoting your point of view, or your interpretation of terms and condition in order to support your claims doesn't make your claims real and sustainable. This is not a soap opera, courts of justice do not operate in a way you see on your telly, sorry to disappoint you. As much as it could be entertaining. Sadly they have to follow the reason and logic in their interpretation of civil contracts. And these, I hate to disappoint you, are unfortunately against you in this case.
Thank you for making me laugh though. Well done.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

If people don't want to be attacked, then all they have to do is to stay in solo mode, I did not buy this game and it's extension at full price to get banned because FDev is bowing in front of care bears that can't assume that they are playing a game with PvP interactions. If I want to kill someone in game, there is no TOS or whatever to stop me from doing it, and if they do so, well, then all they have to do is to refund the people that they screwed.

Don't worry, you won't be banned (or maybe you will, who knows what the support decides if they need to take your case under consideration). You just won't see other players, apart from that business as usual.
 
"Oh my god, I can't go troll people over and over, please rename your game etc."

Now that is what I call a crybaby.

Stop twisting things to justify your behaviour.

You want to kill people over and over again? You have got open play. That's what you want after all, you want people to play in open. Then stop being a hypocrite by infiltrating a private group to have fun.

And here is what Frontier is acting against: you got into a group, you were kicked out, you make another account to circumvent the block.

You could have been kicked out because you eat strawberries. It doesn't matter, Frontier already said they won't enforce the group rules for them. However they will enforce actions against this kind of circumvention.

You need to know when to stop.
 
What gets me is that the people who are now going 'they can just go play Solo!' are the same people who were complaining about Solo/PG players a few days ago for being able to affect the BGS. Which is it guys? Do you want more people in Solo or fewer?
 
So basically, you are lowering your pants for people that are unable to assume the fact that they can be killed by other players. You should basically rename the game Elite: Mostly Harmless, that's the least you can do seing on how it's turning right now, but hey, all big game devs always turn their backs to the minority of players to listen to the majority of crying care bears.

You are missing the POINT completely, I will explain it for you.
Players set up a private group with very detailed rules
Players join said group knowing full well the rules
Said players break the rules and get removed from the group

This is not turning there backs on the minority of players this is enforcing the content of the game.

For some people this is very difficult to understand.
 
You are missing the POINT completely, I will explain it for you.
Players set up a private group with very detailed rules
Players join said group knowing full well the rules
Said players break the rules and get removed from the group

This is not turning there backs on the minority of players this is enforcing the content of the game.

For some people this is very difficult to understand.

He understands the point he's just trying to deflect the thread into an utterly fabricated victim act by screeching "waaaah F-Dev are trying to take our PvP away".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Y'know, there's a planet-sized piece of irony here that is rather amusing.

Basically it's this : when people click "yes" to the EULA to Play Elite Dangerous, they are effectively joining a private group...

It's a group of all the players who've chosen to play a game governed by a certain set of rules laid down by that game's creators.

Ingame, when someone joins a private group, they are signing up to abide by a certain set of rules laid down by that private group's creators.

To sign the EULA and then claim that ingame private groups deserve less respect than that EULA is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

If someone breaks the rules of an Elite Dangerous private group they've signed up to and is kicked out of that group as a result, then they'e already forfeited any right to claim they're being unfairly treated, because in order to be kicked out of an ingame group, such a person has already signed the game's EULA. :rolleyes:
 
It's good that this was announced. The contents of this announcement is one thing. The fact that Froniter staff can read the posts, all the vitriol from all the people who don't want to follow clarified rules and are outraged by FD's statement is another great thing. Maybe FD will get a better understanging what type of personalities they are dealing with, why current in - game systems are not working to FD's advantage and maybe they will be able to find ways to address the issue at its source.
 
I've only seen two players on the server during the whole time I have been playing ED. Where is everyone?

I can see where attacking a player over and over again can seem like harassment, but this is Elite. David or Ian didn't worry about players being attacked in a stand alone game like Elite in 1984, and most times you started out "harassed" until you got lucky and advanced. Maybe there should be another server created just for players to experience a real life space sim. As in life not being fair.

I am sure the game experience would be more enjoyable, than moronic bots attacking you with no shields....:rolleyes:
 
It's absolutely amazing that a fair few people on this thread completely miss the point Zac made.Those kicked from private groups but regain access by creating a new commander should be punished. Remember folks, open is strict PvP, private is open but may have rules, solo is closed. :)
 
Last edited:
its good to hear there are guidelines in place, but frontiers results in policing combat loggers to date means that its only if a livestream or chairty event gets really interrupted a very small amount of players will be dealt with but the vast majority of lower prioritieis infringements are likley to be ignored.

Id like to hear more from frontier when they actually complete their publicly stated goals and objectives not so much what they plan to do 50% never sees the light of day anyway
 
its good to hear there are guidelines in place, but frontiers results in policing combat loggers to date means that its only if a livestream or chairty event gets really interrupted a very small amount of players will be dealt with but the vast majority of lower prioritieis infringements are likley to be ignored.

Id like to hear more from frontier when they actually complete their publicly stated goals and objectives not so much what they plan to do 50% never sees the light of day anyway

Combat logging as you've said is a really minor side issue, I hope FD stay focused on real problems (such as the ones described in the OP) and don't waste valuable time and resources on trivialities.
 

Goose4291

Banned
Infiltrating a private group to grief and cause harassment should be handled in a manner as advertised.

Attacking players who happen to be twitch streaming in open should not even be considered in such a manner.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom