The Difference Between PvP and "Griefing"

[CylonSurfer]

EDIT: lol, it appears that my definition of griefing matches yours. But it doesn't match everyone's, and that is why it becomes subjective.

Which also matches the most common definition of what it is. Why? Becuase thats what it is - it really is not subjective at all. What we have here is bad loosers looking for a way to change the game by using inflamatory phrases in order to gain attention.

The only subjective thing is, is how people feel when they get blown up. People may "feel" griefed but the actual fact is - they were not.

 

[Stigbob]

PvP: Players playing Elite. I'm a pirate. I'm defending my System/Power. I'm Blue or Red in a CQC match. I have an ingame reason of my own to attack you CMDR.

Griefing: I know this will upset a player on the other side of the screen, ha ha ha ha. The game is irrelevant, I just want to generate a reaction outside the game.

That's pretty much how I see it, any deliberate breach of Wheatons law is greifing.

Which also matches the most common definition of what it is. Why? Becuase thats what it is - it really is not subjective at all. What we have here is bad loosers looking for a way to change the game by using inflamatory phrases in order to gain attention.

The only subjective thing is, is how people feel when they get blown up. People may "feel" griefed but the actual fact is - they were not.

That's just your subjective opinion of the subjective opinions of others.

 

[UmbraRex]

Yep, it's like harassment people mention it all the time (even FDEV) in relation to the game. I think you can't harass someone in a game at all, except by using comms in a naughty way but that's not really gameplay related.

Can't harass someone in a game?

What do you think repeatedly killing someone would be? That's not harassment?

Kill the same player every time you see them isn't harassment? Taunting them after you obliterated them isn't harassment?

Look, I have no problem with one off kills. I know I'm going to lose, if I move to open I'll be sure to only fly with three or more rebuys.

Someone decides to hunt me down and kill me over and over (and yes, it has happened to me before, it's why I actively avoid compulsory PvP games now) that's harassment. Pure and simple. No amount of repeatedly killing someone is going to make them like PvP or make them any better at it. Taunting with 'get gud' as/after you are actively in the process of making it impossible TO 'get gud' is harassment.

 

[Arkadi]

Jesus H, some of you 'stop soloists and PG players doing this and that' guys need to lay off the onionhead.

Let's follow this to it's theoretical conclusion for a second, it all happens, solo and PG players can no longer :-

- Influence the BGS
- Influence powerplay
- Take part in CG's
- Take part in the Thargoid story
- 'myriad of other things'

Right, well done, now are you lot going to refund all these guys and gals that don't want to or can't play in open as you've just taken away 30% of the game they paid as much as you for? Not to mention instancing, cross platform, time zones and an awful lot of other factors that make the 'hiders influencing BGS, I can't shoot them' argument one of the most ridiculously short sighted, ignorant and illogical positions on these boards

I can agree with your line of thoughts. Although it's not only a "can't shoot 'em" thing. Actually it's a "can't see them" thing for me. Becouse I prefer talk to shooting. I prefer diplomacy over agression. Agression kicks in when diplomacy fails. But if I can't even see who is doing stuff I can't even talk to that person(s). It's not only about shooting - it really is about the negative aspects of seperate game modes.
Also in my opinions it's only BGS and powerplay where the seperation actually matters becouse, let's face it CG's don't really matter becouse they succeed anyaway regardless which tire is met. And the thargoid story also does not require comeptitive open play.

Let's face it, regardless of any superficial justifications, the real reason for most of these "proposals" is simply to force people to become cannon-fodder for PvPers.

Pretty sure that FDev are smart enough to see them for what they are though.

Stealthie, I must radically disagree. See my response to Theodrid who made a thoughtful post. What you said in my ears rings like a gross exaggeration, black and white thinking and I beleive you got emotionally carried away with this statement.

 

[CylonSurfer]

That's just your subjective opinion of the subjective opinions of others.

You have quite the imagination. There is nothing subjective about definition, you can choose to not agree with the popular definition but it doesn't make an ounce of difference. The term 'Griefing' has a definition, the op does not match that and as such is not that. It's all rather simple.

 

[Stealthie]

Lets face it, those who get offended by being blown up in a game which allows it are just like those people who play 'Snakes and Ladders' but refuse to drop down the board when they land on a snake.

Possibly so but, TBH, it escapes me what this has to do with my comment.

If we had a bunch of, say, explorers insisting that it'd be a good idea if once you discovered a system you should receive some kind of tax from everybody else who travels through it or if we had a bunch of traders insisting they should have the ability to hire SysSec to murder people for them, those would also be equally biased proposals.

Your analogy with snakes & ladders isn't entirely accurate because there's an equal chance that anybody who's playing will land on a snake.
Then it comes to PvP in ED, anybody who chooses not to embrace PvP is, effectively, playing on a board that is all snakes and no ladders.

Even so, if we do accept the analogy, what's happening here is like somebody landing on a snake and then the other player saying "Tell you what; from now on anybody who lands on a snake misses 10 turns and isn't allowed to use ladders for the rest of the game".

I'm sure everybody is aware that PvP is a risk when you play in Open mode.
The issue is whether or not it's fair to further penalise people who choose not to play in Open mode.

 

[Stealthie]

Stealthie, I must radically disagree. See my response to Theodrid who made a thoughtful post. What you sayd in my ears rings like a gross exaggeration, black and white thinking and I beleive you got emotionally carried away with this statement.

A "gross exaggeration" and getting "emotionally carried away"?

Come off it.

We've had people suggesting that the "deterrent" for unlawful PvP should be to allow other CMDRs to hunt you.
That's like an alcoholic suggesting they should have to drink brandy as a deterrent.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Your analogy with snakes & ladders isn't entirely accurate because there's an equal chance that anybody who's playing will land on a snake.
Then it comes to PvP in ED, anybody who chooses not to embrace PvP is, effectively, playing on a board that is all snakes and no ladders.

You are a spin doctor of the very best. My hat off to you.

You play on the same board as everyone else in open. You have no choice to embrace PVP or not as it is part of the game mode and everyone else in that mode also faces the same risks. The board has ladders (reward) and snakes (penalty), PVP and even PVE can result in either that is the nature of the game. What some of you want is a board with no snakes, no matter how you try to spin that it's exactly what is happening here. You want to play in open but avoid the what you see as unwanted interactions, but you don't (and shouldn't) get that choice in open.

It was in relation to: "the real reason for most of these "proposals" is simply to force people to become cannon-fodder for PvPers"

Or as I see it, I don't want to be blown up.... wah wah wah.

 

[Crank Larson]

You have quite the imagination. There is nothing subjective about definition, you can choose to not agree with the popular definition but it doesn't make an ounce of difference. The term 'Griefing' has a definition, the op does not match that and as such is not that. It's all rather simple.

Except that it actually has lots of definitions, including (but not limited to) the one I use. When a word is used in multiple contexts, it can have different meanings. It can also have different meanings in the same context, depending upon the intent of the person using it.

 

[Stealthie]

You are a spin doctor of the very best. My hat off to you.

You play on the same board as everyone else in open. You have no choice to embrace PVP or not as it is part of the game mode players are playing in which is the same as everyone else in that mode. The board has ladders (rewards) and snakes (penalties), PVP can result in either that is the nature of the game. What some want is a board with no snakes, no matter how you try to spin that it's exactly what is happening here.

The issue is that, even if we're all "playing on the same board", not every body is playing the same game.

Surely nobody is going to try and dispute that a player who's intent on PvP is likely to be better equipped for it than a person who's intent on, say, mining or exploration?

So, we have different modes, provided with the intention of removing the likelihood of PvP for those who aren't interested in it.
And now we've got players - PvP oriented players - saying "If you don't play in Open you shouldn't get a slice of a bunch of other things either.

You don't need to be a rocket-scientist to realise suggestions like that are intended to create a situation which forces people into Open, where they can become cannon-fodder for the pew-pew brigade.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I had a CMDR blow by Python up outside an anarchy CG station once (after I valiantly avoided their first attempted and docked).
No comms or reasoning.

They was there just indiscriminately blowing up anyone they could.

Was it griefing?

No. It was an Anarchy System. I murder NPC's all the time in Anarchy systems to blow off steam, or for PowerPlay (and steal materials. Lol).

After my untimely death, I respawned and just typed "lmao". Because it was actually quite hilarious how poorly prepared my Python was.
Then they spoke back, and offered advice on protecting my ship from that sort of attack. And added me as a friend.
I did assume it was so they could jump me later on, but alas, I've not seen them since.


But no part of that was griefing.
I'm not sure if they let me leave, but I managed to undock and make the jump to Hyperspace without any more trouble.

If you're not prepared for these random encounters, don't play in open.
If you do, just shrug it off, it's a game after all.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[CylonSurfer]

The issue is that, even if we're all "playing on the same board", not every body is playing the same game.

Surely nobody is going to try and dispute that a player who's intent on PvP is likely to be better equipped for it than a person who's intent on, say, mining or exploration?

So, we have different modes, provided with the intention of removing the likelihood of PvP for those who aren't interested in it.
And now we've got players - PvP oriented players - saying "If you don't play in Open you shouldn't get a slice of a bunch of other things either.

You don't need to be a rocket-scientist to realise suggestions like that are intended to create a situation which forces people into Open, where they can become cannon-fodder for the pew-pew brigade.

Oooooo the threat of 'Open', a game mode I have played in exclusively since the original beta and only ever encountered PVP on a 3 occassions..... Ooooooooo so worried about those big bad PVP'ers.... So what if my ship is under equipped and blown up by another commander... Many civilian ships were blown up in WWII and were not equipped to fight back. It's the nature of things...

If you're not prepared for these random encounters, don't play in open.
If you do, just shrug it off, it's a game after all.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

Well said.

 

[Stigbob]

Can't harass someone in a game?

Not unless you do it via comms. Harassment is a real crime (where I live), which is why I don't think it should be used to describe playing a game in a bit of a ish way, that waters down any real harassment. Which would be things like repeated threats and abuse via comms in a game.

What do you think repeatedly killing someone would be? That's not harassment?

Griefing, and very easily solvable by blocking (as is comms abuse for that matter).

Kill the same player every time you see them isn't harassment? Taunting them after you obliterated them isn't harassment?

Nope, it's griefing. The taunting could be harrassemnt, depends very much on how it's worded. Blocking would be the best approach.

Look, I have no problem with one off kills. I know I'm going to lose, if I move to open I'll be sure to only fly with three or more rebuys.

Ok I guess, not sure why it's relevant.

Someone decides to hunt me down and kill me over and over (and yes, it has happened to me before, it's why I actively avoid compulsory PvP games now) that's harassment. Pure and simple. No amount of repeatedly killing someone is going to make them like PvP or make them any better at it. Taunting with 'get gud' as/after you are actively in the process of making it impossible TO 'get gud' is harassment.

In ED where you can block any player who does or says things you don't like I'd say it's a failure to use the tools at your disposal.

You have quite the imagination. There is nothing subjective about definition, you can choose to not agree with the popular definition but it doesn't make an ounce of difference. The term 'Griefing' has a definition, the op does not match that and as such is not that. It's all rather simple.

There is no definition it's a nebulous concept everyone has their own triggers, if you don't feel negative emotions then you haven't been griefed. That doesn't mean someone didn't try to grief you though, they'll still be a griefer even if they fail (just a bad one).

Again as with harassment I think the term grief is misused in relation to video games. Actual grief is bad, really really bad. Whereas games are trivial, if you ever feel genuine grief in relation to a game you should walk away. But the term griefer is used as slang to describe players who try to annoy other players, and it does convey the right image but being a slang term it's meaning is open to interpretation.

It doesn't matter to me if you think you represent the silent majority or not, because that's entirely subjective.

 

[veryDead]

If you're not prepared for these random encounters, don't play in open.
If you do, just shrug it off, it's a game after all.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

This. Nothing needs to change in the game. Don't like being killed? Then don't play Open. You easily avoid dying from other CMDRs 100% in Solo or Private Group. If you do play Open, be prepared to die in amazing, maddening, stupid, silly ways. It really is that simple. </thread>

 

[CylonSurfer]

There is no definition it's a nebulous concept everyone has their own triggers, if you don't feel negative emotions then you haven't been griefed. That doesn't mean someone didn't try to grief you though, they'll still be a griefer even if they fail (just a bad one).

Having a negative reaction to a singular event does not equate to being griefed, people will get those everytime their team looses a match in Battlefield for example - Griefing amounts to bullying an indervidual, repeated unwanted behaviour focused on one player that is perpetrated by a single user or group of users. Being killed once by a player is not griefing and no definitoin of griefing remotely suggests that it is.

Anyway, if someone is really stupid enough to feel that getting blown up by a player is an act of griefing than I suggest they contact support. They'll recieve a reply telling them they'll look into the matter and then their email will be trashed as soon as support see it's an isolated instance of being blown up. That is the reality of it. Unless there is a provable pattern of abuse, the player has not been griefed. (this thread is pointless)

There are very black and white definitions of what griefing is out there (in fact I found 0 that were open to interpretation - suprising being a definition and all) and to the mass populus they are and will always be what griefing is. 'Spin Doctor Cear Bears' on the Elite forum aside of course, they can continue to live in their own bubble.... Still doesn't change anything.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

PvP: Players playing Elite. I'm a pirate. I'm defending my System/Power. I'm Blue or Red in a CQC match. I have an ingame reason of my own to attack you CMDR.

Griefing: I know this will upset a player on the other side of the screen, ha ha ha ha. The game is irrelevant, I just want to generate a reaction outside the game.

That's not griefing even if you just kill them for the lulz and for them to open a thread on the forums crying. Still. Not. Griefing. If you used valid game mechanics to cause them pain, they shouldn't play open if they cant accept being blown up and feel upset over a video game.

 

[DaggerSnake]

That's pretty much how I see it, any deliberate breach of Wheatons law is greifing.

Yes. It's pretty simple. Pretty black and white. There isn't a need for discussion or trying to spin it.

Wheatons Law sums it up into a nice concise package.

People know what they are doing, and that they are just doing it to get a response outside the game. Albeit forum salt, YouTube salt, whatever...

If you see them, block them and move on. If a dev wants to curb outside game behavior, it's on them to put ingame deterants. Sounds like there is a plan coming. We'll see what happens.

 

[Zambrick]

Lol, yes it is. Open is one big pvp arena.

Fdev can confirm. Kill anyone anywhere. I have written proof from fdev.

Thats good. And when you have to pay for a full rebuy on your ship PF bounties are rolled out, I dont want to hear you whining.

When the actually add the Karma system and the C&P system and it effects your game play, I dont want to hear you cry. When the upcoming Karma/C&P system blocks you from using star ports in secured systems or it takes all your assets and credits, I dont want to hear you complaining.

You will finally be subject to the very same risks that everyone else who plays in Open has to take. Can you take responsibility for your actions? Are you willing to be a real in game Criminal? Or do you just want to punch kids on the playground? Thats the question you need to ask yourself before you take such a hard line stance. If you are willing to accept any and all forms of punishment that will be dished out once this system is put in place, then we have no problem.

However I can guarantee you once it does. People like you will be out here whining and crying and demanding that it be turned back into GTA V in space. I doubt you have the conviction to be a real criminal in this game.

 

[Dietger]

PvP: Players playing Elite. I'm a pirate. I'm defending my System/Power. I'm Blue or Red in a CQC match. I have an ingame reason of my own to attack you CMDR.

Griefing: I know this will upset a player on the other side of the screen, ha ha ha ha. The game is irrelevant, I just want to generate a reaction outside the game.

Perfect description. Griefing has no context to the particular game. REP

 

[Zambrick]

Same to you!

Shall you 2 get a room?