Thank you Michael Brookes

[goemon]

Trust me when I say this, we try to tell FD what is wrong with their game along with many many other players.

great, that we agree on this! shooting casual gamers is simply the boring, comfortable, riskiless way to play the game? no fun? it's just rping if the code gets out their battleships, and the true hardcore mode is taking a shieldless t6 to eravate on a saturday evening for cooperative gameplay?

___

update:

"the complaint of people who don't want to spend time in learning the game yet wish to be on an identical level as more experienced players" - well, i am complaining, and i'm a "more experienced player", at least that much, that i escaped every attack members of the code had on me, while trading rares - as other in here complaining are, too. maybe you should rethink your idea, that only one group of people is complaining?

 

[GluttonyFang]

No-one is asking for you to be "punished" - just make it less one-sided in your favour when you do your piratey thing attacking weaker trade ships and outnumbering them.

The concept of piracy is that we overwhelm with numbers (not to destroy) and extract cargo via fear. Of course I don't see value in ganking a weak ship that has no interest in PvP.

If you were attacking an equally numbered combat wing of "hardcore experienced players" in equally spec'd ships who spend as much time as you learning to be awesome then no-one would be bothered - but you don't do that do you?

We do, we spend quite a lot of time combating other PvP groups (some friendly sparring, some hostile death match) such as the RoA, BBfA, CS, CTRL. I individually, recently visited the Imperial Inquisition and held sparring matches with them at their home system. A lot of us in Code are very experienced PvP pilots that seek combat with well-known independent pilots that are extremely skilled such as Merah and Skafguard. Of course it's not limited to what I just listed.

As we keep getting told "pirates" look for weaker targets of opportunity they outnumber - because that's what pirates do. The pirate v trader thing is completely stacked against the trader - and that's how you like it.

It is if the traders don't seek protection or approach the situation with their intellect. I cannot tell you how many times we let people pass for telling us a joke, reason with us, or even cleverly stall out/excellently maneuver in a way that would provide enough time for high wake.

- - - Updated - - -

great, that we agree on this! shooting casual gamers is simply the boring, comfortable, riskiless way to play the game? no fun? it's just rping if the code gets out their battleships, and the true hardcore mode is taking a shieldless t6 to eravate on a saturday evening for cooperative gameplay?

We don't want to shoot casual players, but we do wish to interact with them in a pirate RP sense.

 

[goemon]

We don't want to shoot casual players, ...

... only if we blockade a cg (because thats interacting in a pirate way then). "i suggest" you don't set up operations, which include the riskiless shooting of casuals in future, more fun for everybody! cu in the black! fly with risk!

 

[GluttonyFang]

... only if we blockade a cg (because thats interacting in a pirate way then). "i suggest" you don't set up operations, which include the riskiless shooting of casuals in future, more fun for everybody! cu in the black! fly with risk!

Blockade is something pirates do, even in history.

I never set up the said operation, but will intervene in any future operation planning that involves any sort of grieving, which we do not tolerate.

Things were not handled well during the operation and we are improving on the matter as we take feedback from the community, as I have mentioned in the announcement thread.

 

[xondk]

The concept of piracy is that we overwhelm with numbers (not to destroy) and extract cargo via fear. Of course I don't see value in ganking a weak ship that has no interest in PvP.

I have to ask, if your goal is NOT destruction, why would you especially if targetting weaker ships...need to use more then one ship?, though I suppose I can understand a two man combo, one with weapons fit and one with weapon + cargo fit.

the only thing using more people against a weaker target does, is blow them out of the sky faster, or a bigger risk of blowing them up because multiple people are firing on them.

As for them 'running' is an excuse to blow them out of the water?, sorry, but not really just damage them down, follow along interdict again and warn them next time, then maybe second round they won't run? and you get cargo and thus profit?

Add that if you only use one or two ships at the most you can cover significantly more ground then if you have a squad on people, and potentially earn more money, so it seems an odd reasoning.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I have to ask, if your goal is NOT destruction, why would you especially if targetting weaker ships...need to use more then one ship?, though I suppose I can understand a two man combo, one with weapons fit and one with weapon + cargo fit.

the only thing using more people against a weaker target does, is blow them out of the sky faster, or a bigger risk of blowing them up because multiple people are firing on them.

As for them 'running' is an excuse to blow them out of the water?, sorry, but not really just damage them down, follow along interdict again and warn them next time, then maybe second round they won't run? and you get cargo and thus profit?

It's the fear factor in pirating. Having four ships interdict a trader is much more fearful than just one ship. When we are pirating, we target cargo hauling ships. We are pirates, not bounty hunters, we seek out vulnerable targets.

For example, why would you go after a fully shielded Python with weapons rather than going after an unshielded Python without weapons and sometimes with a docking computers if you are a pirate?

Also for disabling the drive and cargo collection are all needs satisfied by having more people in a wing. (Of course we don't want to start by using lethal coercion on the spot, but we do for runners. As for cargo collection, I'm not sure if you are aware, but even collector limpets bug out like crazy in an instance with more than one players and a single player cannot collect on time before police arrives. Even when the police arrives, we need people to defend cargo collectors)

 

[JosiahD]

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...

Yep, actions speak louder than words. Following the Hutton CG we've seen a lot of words of the PR variety as some form of damage control. Now CODE members have to back up those words with actions in-game that are consistent with the PR. Until then, they will 'only be as good as their last game' - which didn't even live up to much in terms of what their blockade actually achieved (ie very little). Personally, I don't think the next opportunity will be any different in terms of what they do to try to disrupt things - a leopard doesn't change his spots. I'd like to be wrong on that.......

 

[GluttonyFang]

Yep, actions speak louder than words. Following the Hutton CG we've seen a lot of words of the PR variety as some form of damage control. Now CODE members have to back up those words with actions in-game that are consistent with the PR. Until then, they will 'only be as good as their last game' - which didn't even live up to much in terms of what their blockade actually achieved (ie very little). Personally, I don't think the next opportunity will be any different in terms of what they do to try to disrupt things - a leopard doesn't change his spots. I'd like to be wrong on that.......

Then we expect the community to judge us base on our action with our next intervention.

 

[Kristov]

No-one is asking for you to be "punished" - just make it less one-sided in your favour when you do your piratey thing attacking weaker trade ships and outnumbering them.

If you were attacking an equally numbered combat wing of "hardcore experienced players" in equally spec'd ships who spend as much time as you learning to be awesome then no-one would be bothered - but you don't do that do you?

Of course if that equally awesome wing were flying trade ships then the advantage would be with you again by virtue of having more powerful kit.

As we keep getting told "pirates" look for weaker targets of opportunity they outnumber - because that's what pirates do. The pirate v trader thing is completely stacked against the trader - and that's how you like it.

Great White sharks attack seals from behind and below because it's the safest and surest way for them to get a meal. In the same manner, pirates will interdict single unarmed trading vessels because it's the safest and surest way to get a meal. You don't complain about the great white using ambush tactics against prey that can't defend itself in the first place, so complaining about pirates doing the same thing is just as pointless.

Pirates did not historically, nor in the real world today, seek out targets that can defend themselves, it's silly to do so. I would expect no person playing as a pirate in Elite Dangerous to act stupidly either, I expect them to go after fat unarmed slow traders, that's where they money is, the least effort required for the greatest return, pure and simple.

The events at Hutton Orbital are a different matter all together, that was not piracy, that was not a blockade(because it's literally impossible to blockade anything in Elite Dangerous, doing so is silly and only favors the blockaders when PvP does occur due to the P2P instancing network setup), it was groups of players who typically play as pirates turning to straight up griefing, per one of their own member's statement because they were mad at FD because they were ignored(serious Gluttony, muzzle your dogs man, Nonya did you guys no favors and I'll bet you Sidewinders to Anaconda's that FD is looking into things due to it, not in a 'fix the issue' manner either).

 

[mossfoot]

Great White sharks attack seals from behind and below because it's the safest and surest way for them to get a meal. In the same manner, pirates will interdict single unarmed trading vessels because it's the safest and surest way to get a meal. You don't complain about the great white using ambush tactics against prey that can't defend itself in the first place, so complaining about pirates doing the same thing is just as pointless.

Pirates did not historically, nor in the real world today, seek out targets that can defend themselves, it's silly to do so. I would expect no person playing as a pirate in Elite Dangerous to act stupidly either, I expect them to go after fat unarmed slow traders, that's where they money is, the least effort required for the greatest return, pure and simple.

The events at Hutton Orbital are a different matter all together, that was not piracy, that was not a blockade(because it's literally impossible to blockade anything in Elite Dangerous, doing so is silly and only favors the blockaders when PvP does occur due to the P2P instancing network setup), it was groups of players who typically play as pirates turning to straight up griefing, per one of their own member's statement because they were mad at FD because they were ignored(serious Gluttony, muzzle your dogs man, Nonya did you guys no favors and I'll bet you Sidewinders to Anaconda's that FD is looking into things due to it, not in a 'fix the issue' manner either).

Pretty much this. Pirates should be allowed to pirate, and pirates aren't into playing fair with their prey. This is cool and as it should be. Some of my most exciting times in ED came in a T6 being intercepted by pirates (Code and otherwise). Sometimes I escaped, sometimes I didn't. It added something great to the game.

But Hutton Orbital was a different matter, and an unmitigated PR disaster. They can spin it, rationalize it and promise change all they like, but it comes across about as genuine as your average political campaign - which is to say, not at all.

It also no doubt points out different personality types within the Code. Those that genuinely do believe as GluttonyFang would like us to believe (and as I'd like to believe), and those that are just in it for the lulz and the player tears that power their spaceships.

 

[Privata]

If you dont like CODE , just make your antiCODE team and star a war

 

[Kristov]

If you dont like CODE , just make your antiCODE team and star a war

Before the HO incident, I'd been watching CODE streams and videos because I was interested in joining them possibly, I've been the XO of a pirate unit for 20 yrs, but the unit isn't playing Elite, we're playing MechWarrior Online, which is the genre our group started in. I had a less than flattering opinion after watching some of the streams, and I've discussed that with Gluttony already so he can take action on that end, but the HO incident totally turned me away from CODE as a unit I would be interested in joining, especially combined with both the posted reason for their actions at HO on redditt and Nonya's post here, no way, I won't be part of a unit that exploits and griefs, simple as that. Nor shall such a group get my respect, I won't deal with them at all and if I see known CODE members, I'll drop to Solo, I don't deal with exploiters and griefers when the game gives me the option to totally bypass them and their .

I already stated, pirates are a good thing for the community as a whole, but groups like CODE aren't pirates, their own statements make that quite clear, no matter what Gluttony and Arcadius say now.

 

[JosiahD]

Then we expect the community to judge us base on our action with our next intervention.

Indeed. Although the damage is already done in the eyes of many. Next CG that comes along that offers CODE and other groups a chance to try another coordinated blockade - how many players do you think will bother with open for it instead of slipping straight over to private group or solo? The game's mechanics already prevented any blockade from being effective and all Hutton has done for CODE, in my opinion, is drive even more players to use the available tools to further circumvent any future attempt. In my opinion, the actions of a few at Hutton further vindicated Frontier's design re the modes and was detrimental to any future attempts by CODE or any other group wishing to blockade. You're going to have a lot fewer targets in open next time around - and I'm gessing that is bad for 'pirates' who only target other players.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Indeed. Although the damage is already done in the eyes of many. Next CG that comes along that offers CODE and other groups a chance to try another coordinated blockade - how many players do you think will bother with open for it instead of slipping straight over to private group or solo? The game's mechanics already prevented any blockade from being effective and all Hutton has done for CODE, in my opinion, is drive even more players to use the available tools to further circumvent any future attempt. In my opinion, the actions of a few at Hutton further vindicated Frontier's design re the modes and was detrimental to any future attempts by CODE or any other group wishing to blockade. You're going to have a lot fewer targets in open next time around - and I'm gessing that is bad for 'pirates' who only target other players.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Bill Clement]

Before the HO incident, I'd been watching CODE streams and videos because I was interested in joining them possibly, I've been the XO of a pirate unit for 20 yrs, but the unit isn't playing Elite, we're playing MechWarrior Online, which is the genre our group started in. I had a less than flattering opinion after watching some of the streams, and I've discussed that with Gluttony already so he can take action on that end, but the HO incident totally turned me away from CODE as a unit I would be interested in joining, especially combined with both the posted reason for their actions at HO on redditt and Nonya's post here, no way, I won't be part of a unit that exploits and griefs, simple as that. Nor shall such a group get my respect, I won't deal with them at all and if I see known CODE members, I'll drop to Solo, I don't deal with exploiters and griefers when the game gives me the option to totally bypass them and their .

I already stated, pirates are a good thing for the community as a whole, but groups like CODE aren't pirates, their own statements make that quite clear, no matter what Gluttony and Arcadius say now.

Repped for truth. I'm still trying to get a straight answer from Gluttony. Arcadius is doing some great fan boying, but as it's not him doing the griefing, it's hard to take his impression of what's going on seriously. I'd like to think the best of Code, too, but once bitten, twice shy!

Indeed. Although the damage is already done in the eyes of many. Next CG that comes along that offers CODE and other groups a chance to try another coordinated blockade - how many players do you think will bother with open for it instead of slipping straight over to private group or solo? The game's mechanics already prevented any blockade from being effective and all Hutton has done for CODE, in my opinion, is drive even more players to use the available tools to further circumvent any future attempt. In my opinion, the actions of a few at Hutton further vindicated Frontier's design re the modes and was detrimental to any future attempts by CODE or any other group wishing to blockade. You're going to have a lot fewer targets in open next time around - and I'm gessing that is bad for 'pirates' who only target other players.

Again, very true. I hadn't even considered solo before- why play solo in a community game? And then I met my first griefer...

Thank you for your input.

I want to thank you for yours. I suspect there are more than one of you using the Gluttony account- the writing style changes quite dramatically depending on the time of day!- but it's a good effort all the same. You keep on banging out the party line, don't answer any questions directly, keep turning the conversation back on the other side. Well played, team. I guess I'm not going to get a straight reply out of you, but hey, at least you're keeping the threads going. That suits both sides, don't you think?

 

[GluttonyFang]

I want to thank you for yours. I suspect there are more than one of you using the Gluttony account- the writing style changes quite dramatically depending on the time of day!- but it's a good effort all the same. You keep on banging out the party line, don't answer any questions directly, keep turning the conversation back on the other side. Well played, team. I guess I'm not going to get a straight reply out of you, but hey, at least you're keeping the threads going. That suits both sides, don't you think?

If you want, I can request for an IP check up from the support team on the forum. I'm the same GluttonyFang.

I would like to repeat that I have read your commentary and is taking in the input.

As for your other half of the comment, Nonya is entitled to his own opinion, it does not represent the Code nor any decision of the Code.

To my knowledge, we are not exploiters nor grievers.

Edit:

If you have any questions, please re-state them here as you can see I'm slightly busy with everything and I could have possibly missed out on something.

 

[Excalibrates]

Great White sharks attack seals from behind and below because it's the safest and surest way for them to get a meal. In the same manner, pirates will interdict single unarmed trading vessels because it's the safest and surest way to get a meal.

Difference is that the shark gets a meal. A "pirate" (more like "terrorist") destroying a ship for shizzles doesn't get anything back - just an easy kill.

Genuine "piracy" in Elite adds something to the game - both sides get something out of it and continue on their way. Terrorism and wanton ganking has rewards for just one party.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

The problem is that a third party, if completely stripped of any moral aligning, would just say that two opposite parties clashed and there was a conflict of interest.

I'm not avoiding the question. The situation is very simple. The community sees their interest of completing the CG hindered by Code, and Code sees its interest of blockading the CG hindered by the community.

That is all there is to the situation, a third party wouldn't have any leaning toward anyone if it is truly relatively objective.

The section I highlighted makes no sense at all Mr Fang.

Your blockade was nothing more than a method to hinder/stop the community from accomplishing the goal. Without the goal there would have been no need for you to do anything. The AI are not going to attempt the CG so your not there to stop them. Your there to stop the CG. The CG is being completed by the community. Your tried to stop the community.

Your logic in this matter would make a Vulcan cry.

 

[GluttonyFang]

The section I highlighted makes no sense at all Mr Fang.

Your blockade was nothing more than a method to hinder/stop the community from accomplishing the goal. Without the goal there would have been no need for you to do anything. The AI are not going to attempt the CG so your not there to stop them. Your there to stop the CG. The CG is being completed by the community. Your tried to stop the community.

Your logic in this matter would make a Vulcan cry.

I think you misunderstood somewhere and is too fast to jump to the conclusion...

"The community sees their interest of completing the CG hindered by Code, and Code sees its interest of blockading the CG hindered by the community."

Our interest is blockading the CG (stopping the CG from being successful), and it was hindered by the community because the community is what makes CG successful. Thus we went after the community with our blockade.

I don't see what is confusing about the logic other than a potential misinterpretation.

Edit:

Allow me:

Your misinterpretation or potential strawman is akin to Managarm chasing after the sun.

See what I did there?

 

[Herik]

Arcadius, when did you join CODE? Sorry, but if you haven't, then there's something a bit, no not a bit but extremely, funny about a non-CODE member doing better PR for CODE then their own PR man does.

As to the statement from Michael, I don't see him referring to CODE, or even making mention that anything the 'opposition', which is exactly what he said, did anything right, proper or good, only that the players DOING the CG responded well despite the opposition.

CODE were late to the show, others were there before them blatantly exploiting game mechanics(which oddly enough, Nonya described exactly as they were used) days before. CODE only showed up, per their own admission, in order to grief the players because they were mad at FD. You and Gluttony can keep trying to whitewash that however you want, but you PROBABLY should have shut Nonya up before he made HIS post describing why CODE was there and all the game mechanics that CODE purposely exploits(seriously, incredibly stupid move on his part).

Michael was talking about how well the players responded to the CG, that's all folks, he did NOT give props or any positive spin to anyone else, so don't take that statement as being anything good/positive about what CODE and others did, because those things aren't mentioned at all.

As to how FD will respond to the actions of CODE and others, we don't know, we'll have to wait and see if some people simply stop playing or not won't we.

This is true; -Code gets a (little) of what they want, The Community get (more) of what they want, and the great Galactic god of Elite (FD), decides if its (Dangerously) working as expected. And I agree with FD,...this is the way the game should work.