Thank you Michael Brookes
- Thread starter The Wallet Inspector
- Start date
I blame youEDIT : Sorry, misread the post, if it was not you making the claim of starting it
nope, not me, one of the CODE
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=181909
- - - Updated - - -
Redicuulous
Everybody know devs don't buy rounds.
+Rep. I hope they have a good weekend too, they will need it to be ready for next weeks drama!
it's impossible to prevent griefing, and player killing in a game like this is fine with me.
What I don't like is the inadequate response from system security in the game. A few Eagles that shoot at an immortal ship on the landing pad. Who the hell would even shoot at their own stations landing pad anyway.
The game should to mass killings with a measured response. Wings of big, well-armed security ships should show up and relentlessly attack the aggressors until they’re dead or leave. Make killing spree’s dangerous for those attempting it and then I’ll tip my hat to those who do it successfully. A bit of fun. This was just a turkey shoot.
The other issue is those who tried to organize a response could not get in the same instance as the perpetrators anyway. So even an organized player base response couldn’t work.
Nah, they just enjoy killing you and get a laugh out of it, as the game lets them do, or as part of their RP. Nothing to do with love. Though I have seen some youtube vids where rammers are claiming to give "free hugs", so you may be right in some ways
If they were bored to tears in the game, and mad at the CG being ludicrous, couldn't they have just vented on the forum like the rest of us 'normal' people?
If they were bored to tears in the game, and mad at the CG being ludicrous, couldn't they have just vented on the forum like the rest of us 'normal' people?
HA, this is the funniest thing I have seen all day. A good point though, it appears forum complaints achieve far less then ingame actions. As it should be in my opinion.
CODE were appropriately referred to like obstacles, things not people.
Michael Brooks has it in his power to change the design of the game to remove limit griefing... I'd thank him to do that (i.e. consequences for death not making the game unplayable monotonous grinding followed by a massive disappointment when blown up by sociopath bullys...)
-1 Op
Last edited:
I did not see the word "Obstacle". He said something about congratulations to the people in the community goal, despite the Opposition they faced. Oh I did not realise there was a minus rep button
Oh wait, there isn't Also, calling people "sociopath bullies" is really the kind of disrespectful rhetoric I was referring to. At least they never called anyone names, they play the game..
Last edited:
Values acceptable are very vague by nature. I think that there is a lot of cultural background to it. My mother always raised us to do the right thing. She told us much later when we were grown-ups that she would leave some money in the kitchen cabinets, just to see if someone would pick it.
As for what is acceptable and what is not, it all depends on the majority. We almost all live in societies that came out with rules that were acceptable to the vast majority of people. Applying this to THE CODE and the situation at hand, even though THE CODE tries to justifies their actions, it seems the vast majority of players disapprove them, so, what they do would then be considered unacceptable.
Just my thought...
According to Wikipedia:
A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways.
I don't know about you but 4 ships jumping on a single one to be able to destroy it before it could evade, and repeating the whole process for many other players who didn't like it seems like it matches the definition above.
To me, that was clearly griefing. I don't mind losing in a good, one on one fight, but 4 vs. 1? It was irritating that I couldn't do anything to escape. Now, refer to the post made by Nonya of The Code where he starts by stating all the things they learned and used to their advantage and that starts to sound like using aspects of the game in unintended way. For example, he claimed that after you kill a certain number of security forces, none will appear anymore. That seems like a bug in the game to me and an aspect that is unintended.
Last edited:
Actually, I have to disagree with that. The concept of a clean fight only makes sense in sports; in combat, you do whatever you need to in order to increase the odds of your own survival and decrease the enemy's. Bringing more firepower than the other guy is step #1. If you can't do that, then step #1 is to avoid the fight entirely. In ED we do this by going to Solo or Mobius.
Last edited:
Everybody is entitled to his own opinion!
The vast majority of people polled here also disapproved of PowerPlay. Does that make it unacceptable?
Your definition of griefing states manipulation of 'unintended' consequences arising from a game system. I'd put it to you that allowing wings, to give some ships a tactical and numerical advantage over single players, is intended by design, is part of good practice in warfare, and therefore totally acceptable. What the Devs may not have foreseen is the difficulties in formulating a response to bring overwhelming, organised force to bear against 'pirates' in the same instance.
.
Killing a certain number of security forces to achieve local superiority is again sound tactics, and I believe part of the design of the game. Now of course we could also argue that, in the face of a large wing, feeding in one or two Eagles and Vipers at a time, till the system stock runs out, as a response just doesn't cut it.
Last edited:
Hmmm... I disagree that after killing a certain number of security forces would make them stop spawning. I mean, look at St. Louis here in the US when they had those riots. The police was not enough so they called the national guard to restore order. I could understand that eventually, you could kill every single security force ship but soon enough, the Federation would send a large armada to restore order. The chaos that ensued at Hutton Orbital is not something that would have been tolerated in any society. So, I'm more of the opinion that this is a flaw and they exploited it, meaning they used it in unintended way. I could go on with other facts that this guy from The Code mentioned, things that surely took many hours to discover and that nobody else has discovered, flaws and unexpected behavior. That seems like exploiting unintended aspects of the game.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I have no issue in principle with blockades but ramming in the NFZ, using game hacks is inexcusable and landing or respawning or sitting on the only pad for ever at the station. You are committing a rukus at shows loopholes( as well as not getting a major criminal record ) in the game mechanics.
Fix the above and maybe code will be interesting imo
Fix the above and maybe code will be interesting imo
Last edited:
Not only that, but it is wikpedia. Someone could have entered their own definition and linked it
That is why it is a poor source.. For all we know that definition could be edited every 5 minutes.
Last edited:
Not only that, but it is wikpedia. Someone could have entered their own definition and linked it
Sure thing it's Wikipedia. Do you have a better source?
EDIT: You probably don't know Wikipedia very well if you still think that an entry can be edited every 5 minutes...
Last edited: