A little discipline allows a better coherence of the life in the galaxy and a better immersion. It is essential
News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules
- Thread starter Zac Antonaci
- Start date
They are not buffing Open, they are increasing effect from player playing PP in Open. Don't expect player to gain more with playing Open. It's not gonna happen.
Majinvash
Banned
You do realise though, that this isn't normal behaviour.
I mean you wouldn't walk down the street with a GoPro strapped to your head, punch the living crap out of someone and then post it on the internet would you? Yes this is just a game of course, but thats not the point. I have always said that when it comes to the Elite universe its dog eat dog and you do have to expect stuff like this if you are playing in Open.
Taking it the extra mile and posting videos of doing such things is utterly childish and wrong, like its some sort of badge of honour. That's what FD are objecting to here and rightly so especially when it comes to charity streams and the like.
As stated if you think that is in some way a normal thing to do , then you need to start re-evaluating your life, because it really isn't.
The antics experienced by a minority of streamers and Private Groups is a direct result of Elite: Dangerous not having the proper game mechanics built in to deal with players wantonly attacking other players for "no particular reason".
What Elite: Dangerous really needs is a galaxy that makes sense. Crime and punishment. Law and order... and chaos.
Look... Elite needs to keep its teeth. Playing in open should mean that you are taking risks associated from the unpredictable behavior of other players. The game needs this and it need it badly. There is certainly a place for PvE and I'd be all for an "Open PvE" option where the only consequence for breaching those rules would be something simply like being banned from that game mode for a limited period of time (1 month, 3 months, 6?).
The real "cure" for "griefing" needs to be in-game mechanics. If you frequently commit crime in-game then the consequence of those crimes should haunt you even if the bounty against you does not (don't want to encourage bounty farmers). Persons who constantly commit crimes should face consequences: stations in systems where the rule of law is strictly enforced should refuse services to players who are caught frequently breaking the law. This would have the effect of forcing lawless players into the Anarchy systems where, in all good consideration, is where they really belong in the first place. When these "gankers, griefers or whatever you want to call them" do show up in "civilized space" their reputations should proceed the them and, even if they aren't wanted, they should be tagged "Hostile" and open to attacks from system authorities, bounty hunters and other players.
The problem isn't PvP. The problem is the game mechanics that provide no consequences for it. Give players a reason to think twice before engaging in PvP in instances where the context doesn't call for it.
By context I mean: If you are in a conflict zone... PvP shouldn't have any consequences. If you are hunting a player marked "wanted" or "hostile" there shouldn't be consequences. If, however, you are acting like a criminal then... the consequences (in-game) should be that you are treated as a criminal.
What Elite: Dangerous really needs is a galaxy that makes sense. Crime and punishment. Law and order... and chaos.
Look... Elite needs to keep its teeth. Playing in open should mean that you are taking risks associated from the unpredictable behavior of other players. The game needs this and it need it badly. There is certainly a place for PvE and I'd be all for an "Open PvE" option where the only consequence for breaching those rules would be something simply like being banned from that game mode for a limited period of time (1 month, 3 months, 6?).
The real "cure" for "griefing" needs to be in-game mechanics. If you frequently commit crime in-game then the consequence of those crimes should haunt you even if the bounty against you does not (don't want to encourage bounty farmers). Persons who constantly commit crimes should face consequences: stations in systems where the rule of law is strictly enforced should refuse services to players who are caught frequently breaking the law. This would have the effect of forcing lawless players into the Anarchy systems where, in all good consideration, is where they really belong in the first place. When these "gankers, griefers or whatever you want to call them" do show up in "civilized space" their reputations should proceed the them and, even if they aren't wanted, they should be tagged "Hostile" and open to attacks from system authorities, bounty hunters and other players.
The problem isn't PvP. The problem is the game mechanics that provide no consequences for it. Give players a reason to think twice before engaging in PvP in instances where the context doesn't call for it.
By context I mean: If you are in a conflict zone... PvP shouldn't have any consequences. If you are hunting a player marked "wanted" or "hostile" there shouldn't be consequences. If, however, you are acting like a criminal then... the consequences (in-game) should be that you are treated as a criminal.
Last edited:
^This (Just with paragraphs) ..
Which is basically what I said on like page 3 of the thread. The game needs to react to this far stronger (in Open or Solo) to counteract some of this stuff.
As stated though in the context of the thread and what FD are saying though is that if you take it the extra mile, then yeah expect a banhammer.
I mean seriously why would any normal person want to go and disrupt a charity stream on purpose? You have to have something wrong with you in the first place to do something like that.
Griefing has nothing to do with in game mechanics and cannot be stopped by them. That is a lesson learned in 30ish years of online gaming from the first muds to the recent mobas.
It has also absolutely nothing to do with PvP or PvE. Another "historic" lesson.
All that can be done has been addressed by Frontier in this update.
Big thanks for that .. And that's also the only comment necessary here.
Last edited:
^This (Just with paragraphs) ..
There. Fixed it for you so its less headache inducing
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
In my opinion there is no real reason to put a stop to "griefing" by players. I've been interdicted and attacked (I'm gonna boil you up!) by NPCs who had no reason to be attacking me (not in powerplay, not doing missions and not carrying cargo) so I have nothing against players who emulate the same behavior exhibited by these NPCs.
Let these people keep on griefing/ganking. Just make them face consequences that they can't escape with a suicidewinder.
Nice shot, Zac! To launch the topic in one of the most pressing issues simultaneously with shallow newsletter to divert the attention of the audience - good job. Sorry for the interruption guys, but do not forget that the synonym of *Community manager* is *crowd control*. He is doing his job which is not the game design. None of your writings will be red by FD. I’m sorry to say this, I saw a lot of good opinions, but this thread is a simple safety valve.
Last edited:
Just have to say: Love your signature. Iron Man Elite!
This has been discussed.
Npcs follow rulesets. Those rules are set and improved by the devs to be in line with their vision of how the game should feel (and I don't think there's much disagreement that "Anarchy" and "Outer Rim"/Smuggler systems need to feel unsafe vs. the "High Security" homeworld systems needing to feel a lot safer). There might be bugs causing crazy npc behavior and those are ironed out over time. As much to do with griefing as my launcher not working for 2 weeks, which is fixed now -shrug-
And of course, being "demanding", I also expect Frontier to work on game-breaking bugs, improve NPC AI to scale better with combat rating, add some niftier manouvers to "Elite" NPCs (the Fer-De-NotSoElite passiveness in RES has been mentioned somewhere here), remove some of the suiciding interdictions and improve the Crime vs. Punishment for all modes to deliver the best possible gaming experience.
All separate topics from the one at hand.
Last edited:
Just because you *want* answers doesn't mean Frontier have any obligation to give them to you. I want a giant pink space elephant but I'm pretty sure Frontier won't give one to me
Ahh... about that. How about petitioning FD to include a set of neon colours (pink, yellow, green) for the ship paint jobs? Personally, I find the 'vibrant' colours still too muted. The 'elephant' part of that request, though, has at least two possible answers.
Safety valve for what exactly?
Thanks for the Common Sense Post FD.
Seriously if someone knowingly targeted a Charity Livestream, Really how low can you get?
This isn't about PvP people it's about griefing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Griefing
Defending griefing is sad.
Seriously if someone knowingly targeted a Charity Livestream, Really how low can you get?
This isn't about PvP people it's about griefing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Griefing
Defending griefing is sad.
I wouldn't rely on that tbh.
Checking who hopped into Mobius to gank folk is gonna be pretty clear cut I think, while verifying someone combat logged is not so easy.
Last edited:
I think that there are a lot of people that are actually playing the game and enjoying it, rather than posting all the time at the forums. Indeed elite is a great game with a lot of potential. I decided to make my first post in the forums, im not into forums actually, and english isnt my mother language, but i think the game is getting out of hand ...
Now while i may not agree with SDC and the way they handled the matter, they surely have a point, its really simple and i cant see how some people or FD cant seem to get.
Its unfair and to add, not at all immersive, if ppl can influence BSG, and PP when playing in solo or private without even haveing a penalty at influencing. there are posts about consensual PvP, and its exactly this, to be able to fight another group of players in combat zones or in goods hauling when it comes to PP control etc etc ...
I cant see how the game could go on like this maybe there should be 2 different gallactic simulations, one to be Open and one only PVE .
And lastly im dissapointed by a large portion of the community ... there were hundreds of posts full of flame really guys you should chill out, its just a game, haveing your ship destroyed either by pvp or pve its in the game next thing youre going to ask is to pay no insurance and make elite a full arcade game with no consequences, you really need to let the game evolve, its not 1984 anymore.
Now while i may not agree with SDC and the way they handled the matter, they surely have a point, its really simple and i cant see how some people or FD cant seem to get.
Its unfair and to add, not at all immersive, if ppl can influence BSG, and PP when playing in solo or private without even haveing a penalty at influencing. there are posts about consensual PvP, and its exactly this, to be able to fight another group of players in combat zones or in goods hauling when it comes to PP control etc etc ...
I cant see how the game could go on like this maybe there should be 2 different gallactic simulations, one to be Open and one only PVE .
And lastly im dissapointed by a large portion of the community ... there were hundreds of posts full of flame really guys you should chill out, its just a game, haveing your ship destroyed either by pvp or pve its in the game next thing youre going to ask is to pay no insurance and make elite a full arcade game with no consequences, you really need to let the game evolve, its not 1984 anymore.
So, FD finally came right out and said, follow Wheaton's Law or else, bout time.
And of course the folks who make a profession of breaking Wheaton's Law have a problem with that, and naturally try make it out to be something other than it is because, well, it means they'll get in trouble for something they knew all along was something they shouldn't have been doing.
Seems pretty simple to me, but hey, I'm not one of those folks who thinks salt can only be obtained by griefing others, so this literally has no effect on my gaming at all.
I must say, I do love all the 'we're gonna quit, this game will die, we'll sue, we'll get refunds!' comments from a very specific set of players is most amusing, almost a Keystone Kops thing going on there, kudos, you folks are funny! Do, please, quit and demand refunds and sue FD, seriously, do it, I beg you! Watching the news stories will keep me entertained for...oh, wait, there won't any, no one will report on it, no lawyer will take the case, yeah, guess that's not really going to go so well for you folks huh? But you should still TOTALLY do it! Show FD that you won't abide by the rules you agreed to damn it! Stick it to the man!
Can I haz ur stuffz?
And of course the folks who make a profession of breaking Wheaton's Law have a problem with that, and naturally try make it out to be something other than it is because, well, it means they'll get in trouble for something they knew all along was something they shouldn't have been doing.
Seems pretty simple to me, but hey, I'm not one of those folks who thinks salt can only be obtained by griefing others, so this literally has no effect on my gaming at all.
I must say, I do love all the 'we're gonna quit, this game will die, we'll sue, we'll get refunds!' comments from a very specific set of players is most amusing, almost a Keystone Kops thing going on there, kudos, you folks are funny! Do, please, quit and demand refunds and sue FD, seriously, do it, I beg you! Watching the news stories will keep me entertained for...oh, wait, there won't any, no one will report on it, no lawyer will take the case, yeah, guess that's not really going to go so well for you folks huh? But you should still TOTALLY do it! Show FD that you won't abide by the rules you agreed to damn it! Stick it to the man!
Can I haz ur stuffz?
Last edited:
Wow. Just when my diet was becoming relatively popcorn free, along comes this thread. I'm going to look like Mr. Creosote by the time this one has ran its course.
What a ridiculous situation. I bet Frontier are collectively wishing they'd created the game they outlined in the KS/DDF, rather than the shallow, lore-breaking, 4v1 gank-encouraging mess that they've actually given us and which some people are quite rightly enjoying for what it is. Still, had to hit those launch dates for the shareholders, right? Nothing wrong with a bit of placeholder, yes?
The sad thing is that even before the first alpha code was public there were people reading the DDF and watching David Braben's conference presentations and saying, "You know what, Frontier? This might work. It's a good, original set of proposals. It's unique for a multiplayer game of this nature, but you seem to be on the right track. But it's not going to be easy to implement. And if you fail to get it just right and balanced, Bad Things are going to happen."
Guess what? They failed to get it right and Bad Things happened. And now we have Frontier representatives having to post ridiculous mealy-mouthed "clarifications" backed up by unenforceable threats of non-specific actions. What a sad, sad day for this franchise.
You're reaping what you've sown, Frontier. Best of luck sorting it out. In the meantime...
What a ridiculous situation. I bet Frontier are collectively wishing they'd created the game they outlined in the KS/DDF, rather than the shallow, lore-breaking, 4v1 gank-encouraging mess that they've actually given us and which some people are quite rightly enjoying for what it is. Still, had to hit those launch dates for the shareholders, right? Nothing wrong with a bit of placeholder, yes?
The sad thing is that even before the first alpha code was public there were people reading the DDF and watching David Braben's conference presentations and saying, "You know what, Frontier? This might work. It's a good, original set of proposals. It's unique for a multiplayer game of this nature, but you seem to be on the right track. But it's not going to be easy to implement. And if you fail to get it just right and balanced, Bad Things are going to happen."
Guess what? They failed to get it right and Bad Things happened. And now we have Frontier representatives having to post ridiculous mealy-mouthed "clarifications" backed up by unenforceable threats of non-specific actions. What a sad, sad day for this franchise.
You're reaping what you've sown, Frontier. Best of luck sorting it out. In the meantime...
Last edited: