There's an official statement on exactly what constitutes griefing? Links, please....
They accepted Codes shenanigans at Hutton...so...I think every one should realize that there are some very large gulfs to be crossed on the definition of griefing.
- Status
They accepted Codes shenanigans at Hutton...so...I think every one should realize that there are some very large gulfs to be crossed on the definition of griefing.
good point.
NOBODY in their right mind would buy a game and then have the game show you a forty five page document and tell you that you must agree or not play the game.
i mean, that's ridiculous that people would be required to agree with some long and verbose contract to use any piece of software.
it would never happen in reality.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
From the Dev Update:
From the text, while Michael clearly praised the efforts of those who wanted the mug ("the organisation and response from players who really want a mug from Hutton Orbital was quite impressive"), he did not make any comment (positive or negative) on the "opposition" other than to acknowledge the existence of opposition.
The emphasis on those "who really want a mug from Hutton Orbital" when offering praise would seem not to apply to those who don't want a mug.
All those...those...words...when I install any program...mean nothing.
- - - Updated - - -
..and where were the bans and reprimands to the player group?
I'm trying to think of what would actually be "griefing" in Open Mode.
Blocking a pad at an outpost on purpose so people have to swap instances is about the only thing I can think of.
But proving it is on purpose and not someone who had to suddenly go AFK is a hard one to figure out
(I have children and suddenly go AFK all the time, sometimes for the beat part of an hour. Plus when the phones rings, when the door knocks etc).
So that is not always "griefing", sometimes it could just be real life getting in the way of someones game time.
Using ramming as a way to kill without getting a bounty or to get the other person a bounty isn't "griefing", that is abusing and "exploit" within the actual game.
FD were told ( a lot ) that the speed limit would do nothing to help fix that exploit - but they didn't listen, and it didn't work.
I know some folks still refer to it as "griefing" but by rights it's not. Just a flawed mechanic FD cannot seem to fix.
Blowing up unarmed trader ships, by a wing of 4 heavily armed combat ships, for no reason at all - is part of the game.
Often confused for or labeled as "piracy" or "griefing", which it is not either. Playing the murderer role is perfectly valid in game.
Alas more people seem to have gravitated towards that role than expected, FD seem to think if just left, sooner or later it will balance itself out.
(Ironically if everyone was forced into 1 mode, it would self balance sooner rather than later - as people either left the game completely or moved away from core worlds and became harder to find, as it stands at the moment however, people just leave Open Mode for Solo or Private Groups and now Open players want FD to balance things out for them by giving incentive's in Open or nerfing Solo / Groups.)
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Who knows....
I expect that their behaviour will be discussed within FD (as they are obviously aware of it). I would not expect their response (if any!) to be particularly swift.
It would be very interesting to know how such behaviour influences the likelihood of unfettered large player groups being facilitated within the game though....
Last edited:
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
To my knowledge there were no bans or reprimands issued to the Hutton Mug CG Group.
(Or the opposition groups)
While it is not griefing the game reeally needs to add some "Danger" to the Elite in regards to agressors.
There is no "Danger" for an agressor in elite and risk is on the victim. So a better balanced "Crime and Punishment" system is really needed so if I play a criminal I should know there are proper consequences to my actions instead of a paltry fine/bounty of 6K while the victim pays MILLIONS.
To my knowledge there were no bans or reprimands issued to the Hutton Mug CG Group.
(Or the opposition groups)
Maybe the opposing groups promised FD that they won't do it again after FD told them that what they did wasn't nice? I think that's what happened with the station rammers back then.
Last edited:
What if interdiction gave a 20% chance of the aggressors ship exploding under the strain of the tether?
Imagine, you're in a T6, up comes the mini game and you fail it.... you drop back to normal space, then suddenly your ship gets pelted with debris from the attacking ship.
All you can make out is the frozen dead body of the pilot, and there account suffers an automatic CMDR deletion due to the horrific style they died (no escape pod in that situation).
Wonder how many people would still want to randomly kill for no reason then
What if interdiction gave a 20% chance of the aggressors ship exploding under the strain of the tether?
Imagine, you're in a T6, up comes the mini game and you fail it.... you drop back to normal space, then suddenly your ship gets pelted with debris from the attacking ship.
All you can make out is the frozen dead body of the pilot, and there account suffers an automatic CMDR deletion due to the horrific style they died (no escape pod in that situation).
Wonder how many people would still want to randomly kill for no reason then
i like it.
Blocking pads can be fixed easily -
Just make players automatically enter the hanger after x minutes idle. (or launch)
No reason for people to sit on the pad endlessly.
Pads going into the hangar does not clear them for use by anyone else - you still have to wait for the occupying ship to leave.
As for "No reason" - real life happens, so perhaps an auto logout timer (thus freeing the pad without killing someone who may have had an emergency crop up).
Or have the hangar section transition people to a Solo instance out of the way - freeing the pad for anyone else to use in multiplayer modes by using your idea of auto enter.
From what people were saying on the other thread, you still block the pad if you're in the hanger at the moment, for some reason. Which strikes me as something to fix - give people 30 seconds to either get in the hanger or leave if they're on the pad, then allow multiple people docked at once (either by doing just that, or reinstancing them).
Last edited:
Well...FD have consistently overestimated the rationality of their customer base. It's all a bit naive really.
Last edited:
Agreed- and simply ignoring the problem won't make it "go away", either.
Sooner or later- FD is going to have to address this, and it doesn't mean they have to "take sides", but rather give players an actual choice of playstyle instead of pidgeonholing everyone into one or the other. I've got a sneaky suspicion that they'll just wait for everything to die out... milking the expansions for as much as they can and eventually the game will die a slow, withering death.
I really feel bad for the backers, if that's the case- and I'd gladly love to see the day where I can eat my words.
<grins wryly> See my sig!
OH GOD!! not the dreaded cowardly, safe, hiding, ahhh whatever that long list of words that tell us how horrible SOLO is.
have you no HEART man?!
however i DO remember a time that i was sent to an outpost and there was someone on my assigned landing pad, and another player showed up that was assigned to the other landing pad and it turned out both were blocked.
i suppose that hurling the pad blockers into the living hell that solo is would have been justified.
- Status