Thank you Michael Brookes

[Lupis]

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?

Because reasons?

 

[GluttonyFang]

I think it's unrealistic to expect a staff member to announce to the real world that a major community goal as quaint, fanciful and charming as taking scrap metal over a fifth of a light year in supercruise was dog piled by well organised griefers using carefully researched game exploits. Perhaps his comment was intended to praise the community, but clearly it's only further validated the anti social behaviour of a small minority intent on getting their kicks out of ruining the game experience of a large number of individuals. It has to be blatantly obvious that this CG was going to appeal to traders and explorers- the griefers knew there would be plenty of weaker targets to bully, players interested in combat missions are unlikely to sit in supercruise for an hour and a half just on the off chance of meeting a pirate at the other end...

Add in the difficulty of getting defenders or hunting groups into the same instance as the griefers- another exploit that one of their members gleefully boasts about on this forum- and organised player resistance is unlikely. They know this and use it to their advantage.

Consider that their spokesperson, in spite of much rhetoric about combat skills, ran away when faced with a serious opponent. His own actions show he, like his boastful cohort, isn't interested in testing his skill against equally capable or equipped players. But they do want to kill other players. Call it for what it is people- they're ganking n00bs, seal clubbing, griefing, exploiting, or in plain, old fashioned English, they're just bullies. They're not worthy of anyone's respect.

First of all, like I said many times, we are not grievers.

Second of all, if you are referring to me as the spokesperson, I was no where near Hutton the entire time during and after the Operation, so please don't start fabricating nonsense for no good reason. If you are referring to Nonya, he is not our spokesperson, as he made it very clear in his thread that he does not represent the Code in his commentary and merely wished to express his opinion.

Third of all, instancing hinders everyone equally, there's no argument that it favors us over others.

Finally, how would you feel if I told you you're a QQer, carebear, whiner, ignorant, or in plain, old fashioned English, just all bark and no bite and not worthy of anyone's respect?

Please contemplate seriously of your diction before posting.

 

[Bill Clement]

You are griefers, pure and simple. Your denial of your actions doesn't change them. Your posting long, self agrandising justifications for your actions doesn't change them. Your resorting to petty insults doesn't change them. Your actions, not your words, are what you are being assessed on. Taking pleasure from killing other players either less skilled, or piloting less capable ships, is griefing. It is also bullying and anti social, but you can't help but have noticed that- enough people have made the point to you already.

I have no clue what "Please contemplate seriously of your diction" means, but I know what you and your cohorts did, you know what you did and the community posting on your activities know what you did. Since you refuse to acknowledge being a 'griever' or a griefer, perhaps you'd prefer to take on accurate descriptions for each individual action? What do you call a person who initiates a friendly conversation, then interdicts the person they're having a typed conversation with, shoots out their engines, takes the time to type a mocking message, then blows out their canopy? What 'role' are they playing? What kind of game experience are they sharing? If that isn't an activity that delivers a great deal of grief to the victim, what is it?

Perhaps you'd prefer 'mugger' or 'happy slapper'? 'Psycho'? 'Murderer'?

Feel free to contemplate seriously of your diction before replying...

 

[mossfoot]

Frontier explicitely made a rule saying that ramming under 100m/s should bear no consequences. It is obviously fine by them (or are you saying it is impossible to avoid a ship moving at a whooping 100m/s?), and as such not an exploit. Learn to play the game and include its mechanics into your decisions.

Stupid logic. The same kind of argument was used when there was no speed limit at all. If the mechanics allow it it must by definition be okay.

Nonsense.

That mentality was why griefers rammed endlessly in station at George Lucas and the rule had to be put in in the first place - because none of the devs assumed anyone would do that on purpose.

Same deal now. With the rule in place nobody assumed anyone could ram and kill under 100. Just because someone found a way doesn't make it okay or intended. Just creative douchbaggery.

 

[Boff'in]

I think that is part of the problem.

Griefing is inentionally just harrassing other players, or specific players.
as was mentioned about

being....facetious



vs

I am playing the role of a cut-throat pirate and bountry hunter who will attack and destroy other ships.
Which in-light of a blockade WILL destroy any and all ships trying to run that blockade....sadly it's only players who are running the gauntlet.

 

[xondk]

First of all, like I said many times, we are not grievers.

See....here's the thing, if you (or a part of your group) weren't griefing, then people might not complain about it, if people felt the action was meaningful, then they (or at least not as many) would be complaining, and accusing people of being "QQer, carebear, whiner, ignorant" seems to be a defence mechanism, that really only is saying "No you are the one that is doing wrong"

How about considering the possibility that part of your group actually do grief but when confronted about breaking your code they lie to you, or say that people are just whiners/carebears and such.

Consider that maybe not all those that are complaining are in the wrong, or are complaining because they are whining/crying/carebears but actually because part of your group IS griefing people.

Consider that maybe the amount of people that are doing it can be quite big, and those that obey your code are actually a minority? this has been seen before, where organisations have a goal but the majority of its members are just in it to have a group of people to defend their actions.

Course there is also the possibility that you are well aware that you are griefers, and are simply enjoying arguing against the people getting upset, and enjoy slandering them by calling them whiners and such.

This being the internet, all these things are very very possible.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Fold

By your logic your insistence on it doesn't change our view either, please contemplate seriously of your reasoning.

- - - Updated - - -

Fold

We did admit to making mistakes, but that doesn't make us grievers. Grievers are people that go after the joy of other people's suffering, some of our members that didn't follow the code strictly weren't violating them for the sake of grieving, but for the blockade. Of course, we have already taken disciplinary actions against them.

I am not calling anyone "whining/crying/carebears," I am using it as an example to let an user understand the impact of their word and the relativity of their stand.

 

[Jukelo]

Stupid logic. The same kind of argument was used when there was no speed limit at all. If the mechanics allow it it must by definition be okay.

Same deal now. With the rule in place nobody assumed anyone could ram and kill under 100. Just because someone found a way doesn't make it okay or intended. Just creative douchbaggery.

No. Before the ramming near stations update they certainly hadn't thought about it yet, that's true.

But the 100m/s rule was created in the context of a rework specifically aimed at addressing ramming near stations without consequences. Somebody at Frontier sat down and thought very hard about the kind of things that were happening near stationsand came up with new rules to reduce their incidence. And obviously their take on it is that ramming under 100m/s is either easy enough to avoid or doesn't do enough damage anyway to warrant doing anything about it. Or are you calling them incompetent?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since we're paying attention to what the creators of this game have to say about the 'incident'

Thank you Frontier Development

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=38a4287ad3

Thousands of Commanders decided to take on the long, long journey to Hutton Orbital in order to create the Hutton Mug. A total of 2,474,096 tonnes of Scrap were delivered to the station in a one-week period - an achievement made all the more impressive by the fact that Hutton Orbital doesn’t have a large landing pad!


I personally really enjoyed watching how the community reacted to the goal: we had people handing out scrap from their Type 9’s, the appearance of pirates, and of course an attempted blockade. In the end, however, the community won through, with the Hutton Mug being created with an allowance of 30 units. We expect that the mug will be available shortly after the upcoming 1.4 update.

It's official. Community 1 - Code 0

 

[mossfoot]

No. Before the ramming near stations update they certainly hadn't thought about it yet, that's true.

But the 100m/s rule was created in the context of a rework specifically aimed at addressing ramming near stations without consequences. Somebody at Frontier sat down and thought very hard about the kind of things that were happening near stationsand came up with new rules to reduce their incidence. And obviously their take on it is that ramming under 100m/s is either easy enough to avoid or doesn't do enough damage anyway to warrant doing anything about it. Or are you calling them incompetent?

I'd like to know more about how it's being done before commenting.

 

[Rich H]

Thank you Michael, for referring to "The Code" as "Opposition" in your post about the community goal, and not "griefers". It is heartwarming to see a Dev refer to them in a respectful manner.

He also said, "In the end, however, the community won through...", which is interesting as to what may be inferred with regards to his view on some players.

 

[Herik]

He also said, "In the end, however, the community won through...", which is interesting as to what may be inferred with regards to his view on some players.

A good salient point !; -Rep'd you. And this CG. is at least a silver star for the 'player mode' system.

 

[Herik]

First of all, like I said many times, we are not grievers.

Second of all, if you are referring to me as the spokesperson, I was no where near Hutton the entire time during and after the Operation, so please don't start fabricating nonsense for no good reason. If you are referring to Nonya, he is not our spokesperson, as he made it very clear in his thread that he does not represent the Code in his commentary and merely wished to express his opinion.

Third of all, instancing hinders everyone equally, there's no argument that it favors us over others.

Finally, how would you feel if I told you you're a QQer, carebear, whiner, ignorant, or in plain, old fashioned English, just all bark and no bite and not worthy of anyone's respect?

Please contemplate seriously of your diction before posting.

Well GluttonyFang; you're right, we are not allowed to call a 'spade a spade' here; -you are PKer's and obviously one of their spokesmen and from me will get NO respect, so....

 

[Herik]

I think it's unrealistic to expect a staff member to announce to the real world that a major community goal as quaint, fanciful and charming as taking scrap metal over a fifth of a light year in supercruise was dog piled by well organised griefers using carefully researched game exploits. Perhaps his comment was intended to praise the community, but clearly it's only further validated the anti social behaviour of a small minority intent on getting their kicks out of ruining the game experience of a large number of individuals. It has to be blatantly obvious that this CG was going to appeal to traders and explorers- the griefers knew there would be plenty of weaker targets to bully, players interested in combat missions are unlikely to sit in supercruise for an hour and a half just on the off chance of meeting a pirate at the other end...

Add in the difficulty of getting defenders or hunting groups into the same instance as the griefers- another exploit that one of their members gleefully boasts about on this forum- and organised player resistance is unlikely. They know this and use it to their advantage.

Consider that their spokesperson, in spite of much rhetoric about combat skills, ran away when faced with a serious opponent. His own actions show he, like his boastful cohort, isn't interested in testing his skill against equally capable or equipped players. But they do want to kill other players. Call it for what it is people- they're ganking n00bs, seal clubbing, griefing, exploiting, or in plain, old fashioned English, they're just bullies. They're not worthy of anyone's respect.

I'm repping you, -your comment is dead on. And obviously you'll get a lot of heat for it in this thread, I hope others give you rep as well.

 

[Herik]

Since we're paying attention to what the creators of this game have to say about the 'incident'

Thank you Frontier Development

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=38a4287ad3



It's official. Community 1 - Code 0

And there ya go Ziggy...

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

No. Before the ramming near stations update they certainly hadn't thought about it yet, that's true.

But the 100m/s rule was created in the context of a rework specifically aimed at addressing ramming near stations without consequences. Somebody at Frontier sat down and thought very hard about the kind of things that were happening near stationsand came up with new rules to reduce their incidence. And obviously their take on it is that ramming under 100m/s is either easy enough to avoid or doesn't do enough damage anyway to warrant doing anything about it. Or are you calling them incompetent?

Finding a problem hard to fix and still having a loophole is not the same as FD are fine with it.
Otherwise by your logic using cheats and hacks are fine too if FD do not ban the person using them. Also you are saying any player not kicked for network cable pulling also have the blessing of FD until they are banned

IF you choose to ED has more exp!oitable holes than a Tetley t bag. It is on us to play within the spirit of the rules and where there are obvious holes in game design NOT abuse them imo.

This is true in all modes... And as I have said already piracy is a vital role in ED and code potentially have a lot to offer. If their appologies are sincere.........

I do sympathise somewhat with GF as he is trying to put the public face on a group which is bound to attract a certain type of player over and above those who will stick to the rules. Weeding these out is hard and I hope he does it.

 

[goemon]

Third of all, instancing hinders everyone equally, there's no argument that it favors us over others.

this is true, but that's the difference:

"7. Did you know about anchor wings? / 8. Do you know about exactly how instancing works?" (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=182190&page=7)

if you don't know, how an anchor wing works, better ask members of your group. basically it lead to max 25 members of the code in one instance (which are rightfull proud about their knowledge of gamemechanics). now - 25 members, technically 32 are possible in one instance (never met it), so this usage of game mechanics was one of the exploits, to make clear that there were more attackers than defenders in an instance.

now you can say, "but the same goes for the defenders"! but how shall defenders attack attackers, if they never get into an instance with those attackers, at least in more or less same numbers? so, that's were the game mechanics are broken (not by code, but by design), and that's why i consider it as bug-using.

anyways the argument "instancing hinders everyone" is not true at this point. instancing as it does (not) work, hinders defenders more than attackers, who know the game mechanics.

 

[Bill Clement]

You are griefers, pure and simple. Your denial of your actions doesn't change them. Your posting long, self agrandising justifications for your actions doesn't change them. Your resorting to petty insults doesn't change them. Your actions, not your words, are what you are being assessed on. Taking pleasure from killing other players either less skilled, or piloting less capable ships, is griefing. It is also bullying and anti social, but you can't help but have noticed that- enough people have made the point to you already.

I have no clue what "Please contemplate seriously of your diction" means, but I know what you and your cohorts did, you know what you did and the community posting on your activities know what you did. Since you refuse to acknowledge being a 'griever' or a griefer, perhaps you'd prefer to take on accurate descriptions for each individual action? What do you call a person who initiates a friendly conversation, then interdicts the person they're having a typed conversation with, shoots out their engines, takes the time to type a mocking message, then blows out their canopy? What 'role' are they playing? What kind of game experience are they sharing? If that isn't an activity that delivers a great deal of grief to the victim, what is it?

Perhaps you'd prefer 'mugger' or 'happy slapper'? 'Psycho'? 'Murderer'?

Feel free to contemplate seriously of your diction before replying...

By your logic your insistence on it doesn't change our view either, please contemplate seriously of your reasoning.

- - - Updated - - -



We did admit to making mistakes, but that doesn't make us grievers. Grievers are people that go after the joy of other people's suffering, some of our members that didn't follow the code strictly weren't violating them for the sake of grieving, but for the blockade. Of course, we have already taken disciplinary actions against them.

I am not calling anyone "whining/crying/carebears," I am using it as an example to let an user understand the impact of their word and the relativity of their stand.

Again, Mr spokesperson, what would you call someone acting in the fashion I described? What do you imagine an impartial third party would call them? Please, don't avoid a very simple question with more hand waving about your group having rules, or insinuating that your victims just don't understand your motives. And elaborate on this 'disciplinary action'- what does that entail, exactly?

 

[Rauminen]

It's official. Community 1 - Code 0

Thank you Ziggy! +1

 

[GluttonyFang]

Well GluttonyFang; you're right, we are not allowed to call a 'spade a spade' here; -you are PKer's and obviously one of their spokesmen and from me will get NO respect, so....

I hope you are saying that my RP character will not get your respect but not me as a person, because that is not productive in any sense, nor is it called for.

- - - Updated - - -

Fold

I can see how that is a valid argument.

However, if we contemplate that the defenders can disguise as a trader and lure Code pursuers into a honey pot (meaning a pre-existing normal space instance full of defenders), then suddenly we cannot send more firepower into the instance.

Therefore I don't see it as an exploit, but a clever use of the game mechanic to our advantage.