funny that you say that. I saw something about Braben or one of the other devs treating ED like a big social experiment. Don't recall the specifics though.
If anyone has that, please post.
The Difference Between PvP and "Griefing"
- Thread starter StarfireIX
- Start date
funny that you say that. I saw something about Braben or one of the other devs treating ED like a big social experiment. Don't recall the specifics though.
If anyone has that, please post.
Which elephant. The one where commanders want to ignore ToS when convenient? Or the one where commanders have effectively refused to accept the ToS, despite continue to play? Or the one where commanders are unable to consider consequences? Or the one where commanders don't want to be held accountable for those consequences? Or the one where commanders are diametrically opposed to developer design and elect instead to blame the community for this? Or the one where commanders blame the player base for Frontier not punishing more people more often? Or the one where commanders blame the player base when Frontier does punish more people more often?
Which elephant?
This commander? I reckon the developer, is just trying to keep up; and doing what they can, knowing it will never be enough. They are a great team, that isn't perfect. All for improvements, but there are times people ask for the elephants to be addressed, as long as it's not their elephant.
Also referring to the community as "man-children"; great way to keep the debate sensible.
To be fair; the developer has just thrown a ton of effort into ensuring Powerplay remains contextually relevant with the Pilot's Federation bounty. That's actually a very good sign. Because that is 100% rewarding structured PVP, over simply throwing away the key on a system that would have otherwise become irrelevant.
Last edited:
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Its in the video at the start of this thread about griefing. Its at the very end of it.
League of Legends did the same thing. Riot Lyte did this to combat toxicity and reward players for the behavior. However, fdev approach seems to be the opposite, just look at how long Hotel California has been open. And how long people have been calling each other griefers. When they intended us to shoot at each other. I do agree through. It really needs context. Fighting against another commander is fun. Even if its a trader.
I love it when traders escape from me. It makes me feel good that they can escape. I think a lot of us pvpers share this same feeling. Ive paired up with some of the notorious PVP groups out there ganking traders. And they are really happy when people learn to defend their-self and get away from ganks. Its the people that just fly in a straight line or combat log we feel bad about. And most of us will stop if its super one sided and explain what they can do better.
I know its hard for the forums to believe this. But not everyone is after salt. Its just so many people offer it up instead of getting better.
Anyways here a link to that video, again its at the end I believe, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Yeah the manchildren I speak of are the ones that call people names, or tell others to "seek help". And end up getting their posts removed from the forums because they cant have a debate about a topic like an adult.
That would be an inaccurate hyperbole, if only you would spend some time reading Marx or equivalent you would understand the need of the working class to be an active force not a group excluded completely from the machine known as civil society. But do not mistaken them for proletarians that Marx would envision them to be, considering he is, in reality a "have-not" living off his friend's wealth when he wrote his famous writings.
Careful. I have remained civil since. Equally, debate the topic; let's move on.
Last edited:
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Fair enough, its the elephant thats not taken out of context. This thread is about griefing and how it pertains to elite dangerous. We really dont have a real statement about it.
The only thing we have is this so far, https://gyazo.com/207741f0c6e7fd18463b9158db3f630b And I agree 100%.
Now if Fdev would make a statement about it. Instead of his personal opinion. Most of this nonsense would be over. Instead of letting us fight and arguing semantics.
Because no one really hates anyone here personally. I dont hate you, Maybe people hate me I dont know. Dont care. But it should never come to that.
We all love and enjoy the same game. So it would be nice if we were all on the same page. Because its obvious we arent. All the TOS in the world still doesn't change the fact people argue this every day. And hotel california has been around how long now? They havnt touched that either.
Ive never seen anything like it. Its like they want us to do it at this point. But why?
In my experience, the notorious PvP groups don't show mercy. 4 on 1 odds with god-rolled engineered ships. Last time I did anything in open, and this was for fuel rat stuff (returning from a rescue), I got interdicted by 4 FDLs. I was in a cobra III. The only reason I escaped is because my cobra was a stupidly fast ice cube and I used the couple of seconds between me entering the instance and them entering the instance to start chain boosting in the opposite direction they would be facing when they instanced. I also popped a heat sink and engaged silent running (shields didn't matter, this cobra didn't have them). I still took a shot or two into the engines before the high wake was complete.
Another time, pre-Engineers, and back when I thought Open might surprise me. I was interdicted in my Python. I already had 4 pips to systems and started the timer for graceful exit. You wouldn't believe the venom and hate that spewed from that guy just because he didn't get to see my pixels explode. I wish I still had the screen shot.
Sorry if I don't buy your version of things, I got enough stories from the other side of this to back me up.
And there is documentation of Braben stating that open was intended to only have occasional PvP violence, not the constant kill-fest it can be at times.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
For sure totally understandable. Been on the receiving end of that myself. you know that little part in the beginning there with the god rolled engineered ships. Starting with balancing that by making rolls static and allowing people to learn against each other in ways thats less detrimental to their gameplay would be a great start. Like making credit adjustments when you reach a certain point in the game.
Cause really the PVPers already ground out their ships, And chances are they are sitting on a fat wad of cash. Allow people to catchup a liiiiitle bit sooner. The balancing that needs addressing is not for the PVPers, we already made it there. Its for the people that want to get out there and learn. And its a very harsh environment to get started in. Cause you're gonna die. A LOT. While normally in any other game thats fine. But this one punishes you a bit. Not as much as EVE. But its still enough to put people off. Especially when there are other options to begin with.
Balance this stuff for the beginners of open.(I say this cause private and solo builds are completely different as well as the ability of the cmdr to pilot their ship.) Allow the people to learn.
And if it makes anyone feel any better. I have 1.8 billion in rebuys alone. I always give my death. If I gank a conflict zone and im wanted. I go 1 vs all and if I die so be it. They get the kill. PVP matches, If I lose I get a rebuy screen. Its how I've always played. But oh baby does it take some upkeep. Especially since I dont have fat pockets in the billions. I usually grind our 250 - 500 million at a time and call it at that.
Then you and I can grab a pint and watch this all blow over.
Last edited:
Yay! Another thread like this! And again: bullying is bad since forever. So just because we're in a game and people might not be 12 anymore, it's not suddenly discussable.
If you force something on somebody else just because you can do it does not make it right. It's a social question, not about what you can do.
Means: yeah, you can shoot down a non-consent player/force another kid to give you his/her lunch, but then you're an a-hole. Plain simple.
Yeah, well, if that non-consent player happens to sit in a battle-ready FDL that might change the whole matter, or if it's about piracy where you ask for cargo without shooting down the ship, that's a different story, but usually bullies don't attack people who are able to fight back, and that's what griefing is.
If you force something on somebody else just because you can do it does not make it right. It's a social question, not about what you can do.
Means: yeah, you can shoot down a non-consent player/force another kid to give you his/her lunch, but then you're an a-hole. Plain simple.
Yeah, well, if that non-consent player happens to sit in a battle-ready FDL that might change the whole matter, or if it's about piracy where you ask for cargo without shooting down the ship, that's a different story, but usually bullies don't attack people who are able to fight back, and that's what griefing is.
![[VR] Frank_G](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/59/59394.jpg?1553527111){kind=avatar}
I'll wait, what the proposed karma system will bring. Maybe people with certain senseless kill counts will encounter only players of similar karma level and below, resulting in a killer Mobius group with no escape. A result, that has some nice evil to it.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
What if we had context behind it. Like the Salmoe event. Fight for or against Salome? Label people in CGS so they can pick a side. Make powerplay open only. Give context to PVP. Even PVPers want this. Not everyone just goes around blowing up ships just cause. Yeah it happens. And some people try to roleplay it. But unless someone writes a book in local chat. Its "bullying or griefing".
And its pretty much far from that.
From what I can tell, we just need more visual context from frontier.
And a pirate is a bully. Even the nice ones. They pick on weaker ships. And they want pirates to be a part of this game.
So we can stop this bullying stuff before it even gets started.
For sure totally understandable. Been on the receiving end of that myself. you know that little part in the beginning there with the god rolled engineered ships. Starting with balancing that by making rolls static and allowing people to learn against each other in ways thats less detrimental to their gameplay would be a great start. Like making credit adjustments when you reach a certain point in the game.
Cause really the PVPers already ground out their ships, And chances are they are sitting on a fat wad of cash. Allow people to catchup a liiiiitle bit sooner. The balancing that needs addressing is not for the PVPers, we already made it there. Its for the people that want to get out there and learn. And its a very harsh environment to get started in. Cause you're gonna die. A LOT. While normally in any other game thats fine. But this one punishes you a bit. Not as much as EVE. But its still enough to put people off. Especially when there are other options to begin with.
Balance this stuff for the beginners of open.(I say this cause private and solo builds are completely different as well as the ability of the cmdr to pilot their ship.) Allow the people to learn.
Then you and I can grab a pint and watch this all blow over.
If FD genuinely wanted to change something about open mode or engineers, it would have happened already.
Yes, yes a C&P change is on the way, but its my understanding that the murder bounty for killing another player is 10% of the victim's rebuy cost (or .5% of the ship value). Does nothing to discourage noob killers, and I bet the suicidewinder trick still works. Also, these PvPers (if you want to call them that, I have other terms that I can't use on these forums) have billions of credits already in most cases, or are using relatively cheap ships. And this change would still leave the system punishing the victim far more than the perpetrator.
The fact that FD is only just now getting to this, despite the problem being evident since day 1 of ED, is probably just to shut some of the community up by being able to say "look, we did something." The other half of that story is that this "something" is practically nothing, and is a token gesture at best.
Do I seem cynical? Its not without reason. And for the most part, I am just going to assume that FD considers most, if not all of this, to be "working as intended."
If I had to sum up open, I would quote Shakespeare/Huxley, but in a very sardonic sense: "Oh brave new world, with such people in it." Nick Valentine delivers the line (more or less) in Fallout 4 just about perfectly for this.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
I think its safe to say a lot of people are cynical and fed up. Both sides of the fence really. When it comes down to it. We are all asking for the same thing.
Context.
They did. The ToS states what is acceptable behaviour within the network; it makes no reference to player based combat. Just the decorum of which they expect people to maintain. People argue, because people naturally have differing viewpoints. Frontier making a statement won't change that.
Open was designed to be multi-player with a shared damage model (some games have select zones or instances, with ghosting used elsewhere to prevent combat); Frontier has not traditionally drawn an exclusion of combat at any point, anywhere. Private Group and Solo provide essentially structured group play and single player experiences, respectively.
The ToS does not forbid player combat in open. In fact, it doesn't forbid it in Private Group, or Solo either, technically speaking. It has governing rules over behaviour, but not combat explicitly. Frontier exist to build a game and help foster a great community, create a set of law-and-order rules, and at times be a mediator; but they shy away from telling people specifically how they must play beyond the ToS. Because, ultimately, that is up to each commander to decide.
The ToS does however specifically state terms regarding behaviour. This is logical because without terms, they would be culpable for acts that are considered either illegal or constitute repeated abuse. Like anything, there are boundaries.
The reason Solo and Private Groups exist is to a) respond to the single player demographic, and to provide a structured group model, Frontier's take on private lobbies, essentially. Is this perfect? Oh god no.. please, my sides, but this is where we are. There's no putting the Genie back in the bottle.
Conflict exists, because of basic disagreeance with Frontier's elected model for Open for a portion of the community. It matters little how much Frontier clarifies, states, documents or institutes policies with respect to. It's a contentious decision. And always will be.
tl;dr - people will be people and no amount of statements from frontier, will stop people being people.
Last edited:
I'm not sure I follow.
OJ Simpson certainly had a motive for the murder he didn't commit. The others almost certainly fall into the category of "nutcases" who find themselves facing the full force of law-enforcement.
The fact remains that the overwhelmingly vast majority of crimes are committed for gain and law-enforcement works as an effective deterrent to ensure sane criminals moderate their actions.
At best, all you're suggesting, here, is that the sort of criminal acts enacted in ED are by people acting as "nutcases".
If that's the case then I guess we can skip straight past the part where we attempt to create any kind of "outlaw" gameplay and move straight to the part where we effectively apply sufficient law-enforcement to deter the vast majority of such actions.
I disagree.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of real-life crime is committed for reasons that even law-abiding people can easily understand.
Nothing needs to be over-analysed to reach that conclusion.
Compare that to the situation in ED, whereby some criminal acts have justifications but the vast majority don't.
There's your comparison with the real-world shot to bits, right there.
Well, I guess it was convenient since your head already seems to be there.
No, if everybody submitted to the rule of law there'd be no criminals.
Accepting the rule of law is to simply understand that certain things aren't allowed and to understand that there are degrees of wrongdoing.
A person who makes £1,000 by selling dodgy lottery tickets is treated differently, in law, to somebody who makes £1,000 by shooting somebody in the head and then taking the money out of their dead hands.
This is why the vast majority of crime is petty and why we don't have the same murder rates as a banana-republic in Africa and it's what FDev should be striving to create in ED.
I don't care about context. It already exists in many ways, I am tired of a system that punishes the victim and barely slaps the wrist of the perpetrator, and the upcoming "change" isn't going to do that. Context doesn't matter, consequence does. And its this that gets the griefers and whatnot all riled up, the fact that many want there to be consequences for being a tool-bag. Many "noble PvPers" want things to be dangerous for everyone but themselves. Quite the double standard.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
I agree. I can get in a engineered sidey, And kill all the noob condas I want. Hopefully they have more under their skirt with this crime and punishment.
But at the same time. No one robs a bank for no reason.
And like braben said. Allow other commanders to go after the bad guys in the game.
Huge difference between a griefer and a bad guy by the way. Murderhobo = bad guy. Griefer = exploiter or using hacks/cheats to have an advantage.
But there is not much that forces a murderhobo anywhere at the moment. And even most of those dudes want the punishment. But they should also be rewarded for being a bad guy. Just the same as someone is being a good guy.
Griefers though? Because its half the reason we are in this spot to begin with. Not the typical one off Brett C mentions here, https://gyazo.com/207741f0c6e7fd18463b9158db3f630b . Its okay to die in Elite against another commander. Its not okay to die when cheats and exploits are in play. Like this guy here that never loses 1% off their shields, https://clips.twitch.tv/PluckyRacyPuddingUnSane
Now thats griefing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Context? What you really mean here is giving a reason to shooting someone for the fun of it, but making it sound legit. Arriving at some system you've probably never been to before, because you heard there's a CG going on, and you know there'll be easy killings for you, and then trying to legitimise it under any reason, is classic sociopathic behaviour. Do you're PvP buddies a service and stop trying to legalise your actions under false pretenses. If you want PvP, why not PvP against PvP players? Go on.. explain that to me...
See, that's the thing I find most baffling.
"Play your own way".
Go out and explore the galaxy.
Become an interstellar tycoon.
Assist your chosen faction in their rise to greatness.
Spend your life as a hard-working asteroid miner.
Or, make stuff explode.
Only one of those choices is likely to allow a player to seriously inconvenience other players in any way.
It's not like a successful trader can buy shares in a station or system and use their credits to have another CMDR killed.
You can't gain control of a faction and then task your minions with destroying other players.
You can't explore or mine another CMDR to death.
So, if players don't have a "level playing field" to make the most of their own particular talents for their own ends, how can they "play their own way"?
The only way it can happen is if FDev create some kind of system whereby certain things yield both advantages and consequences.
That should have been a cornerstone of core gameplay right from pre-alpha days.
Not an afterthought tacked together in year 3.
Last edited: