Actually we have this "griefer" thread, because you opened it and put "griefer" in the title.
I have 2175 posts on this forum and the only thread I opened was a bug report. So .. yea .. you started it.
There are (almost) no griefers in Open Play
- Thread starter Crimson Kaim
- Start date
Actually we have this "griefer" thread, because you opened it and put "griefer" in the title.
I have 2175 posts on this forum and the only thread I opened was a bug report. So .. yea .. you started it.
Well certainly not my own definition but I do believe that dictionaries provide a good source of defining the meaning of the word.
Here is another source form the urban dictionary (link):
Here again we have the term "repeatedly" so griefing is, by definition, not killing a hostile player. Teamkilling as stated in the example above, is (for example intentionally killing a wing member but TBH this is the rarest kind of grief in ED. I have never heard about someone doing that. But there always be a first time I guess).
Anyways, to answer your question "What can define?": Dictionaries, Wikis, any other sort of community based definitions. The larger the community creating and defining the meaning the higher the value of this definition. Combining various definition with the same meaning increases the value of the definition(s).
What can not define a meaning of a word: A subjective interpretation of an individual.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Actually we have this "griefer" thread, because you opened it and put "griefer" in the title.
I have 2175 posts on this forum and the only thread I opened was a bug report. So .. yea .. you started it.
But my intention was to actually stop it. This point is for you. Have a rep
Too much of a click-bait I guess
However, how should I named the title if not like this?
Last edited:
I'd love to play but since ED decided to kill my profession by making scooped cargo not register in my hold, I can't.
verminstar
Banned
So there is absolutely no reason to worry because open play is completely safe...phew!
Nice try OP...staying in solo here.
And I'm not moaning about it...you are ^^
Nice try OP...staying in solo here.
And I'm not moaning about it...you are ^^
Another thread!
Woohoo. Lol
Actual Griefing hardly happens at all in ED.
For some reason, people have decided that being murdered is now Griefing, and I'm not sure why that started.
You don't accuse players in Battlefield or CoD of Griefing if they kill you once.
Being killed by a CMDR for no apparent reason is not Griefing.
Only being killed by the same CMDR(or wing of), over and over, specifically targeting you, is actually Griefing.
Even the Muppets in sidewinders with 1% hull slamming in to speeding ships near docks is not Griefing.
It's almost law enforcement
Simply don't speed. Problem solved.
(Saying that, I regularly dock at 200m/s.
The reason people don't complain about people on the *other* team killing them in Battlefield is because that's how you score points in that game. It's what you might call "the objective". Try killing people on your own team, and watch the complaints start. Then try explaining to them that killing is killing, and asking why they're so upset about you killing your own team if killing the other team is fine. You can also try the "I'm not targeting any one person, I'm just killing everyone indiscriminately" line, and see how far that gets you.
Want to know a simple way to tell if you're greifing? Right before you hit the interdict button, ask yourself "What am I going to get out of killing this guy?"
If the answer is "nothing, other than knowing I interrupted his game and cost him credits", then you're greifing.
I've seen several examples in this thread of people talking about unfair fights. I'm confused. Why would someone assume that the only danger they are in, in an OPEN environment, is with an equally outfitted and modded ship? The reason a lot of people enjoy open is the danger. Purposefully throttling that danger in order to make things fair seems counter to this enjoyment. I've always been a fan of winning fights I'm looking to start. My definition of honor or another's does not factor into whether or not I will win a fight, therefore I do not rely on it as a determinant of whether or not to fight.
If I'm interdicted by another Conda in a CG system, I'm glancing over their subsystems and such to see gather information on whether or not I'm going to stay and fight or run. I'm running if they have weaponry that outclasses my current configuration or they are in a wing. If I feel that my mods and outfitting put me at an advantage, I stay and fight. Fairness has nothing to do with it, and I think it would be foolish to ponder it in my opinion.
Another example is if me and my buddies decide to try to prevent as much BGS activity as we can for a faction. The way to do this in my opinion, would be to have a large ship for mass lock, and several heat built FDL's to pop the targets post interdiction. This isn't a fair activity, it would be an activity that would be more likely to succeed at our goal of stopping all traffic in open to said system by stacking the odds in our favor.
Open isn't fair. Fair play can be agreed upon, but I'm never looking to fight at a disadvantage unless a fair fight is my goal. Any other type of player conflict that I am going to participate in, I'm going to try to stack the odds in my favor as much as possible.
If I'm interdicted by another Conda in a CG system, I'm glancing over their subsystems and such to see gather information on whether or not I'm going to stay and fight or run. I'm running if they have weaponry that outclasses my current configuration or they are in a wing. If I feel that my mods and outfitting put me at an advantage, I stay and fight. Fairness has nothing to do with it, and I think it would be foolish to ponder it in my opinion.
Another example is if me and my buddies decide to try to prevent as much BGS activity as we can for a faction. The way to do this in my opinion, would be to have a large ship for mass lock, and several heat built FDL's to pop the targets post interdiction. This isn't a fair activity, it would be an activity that would be more likely to succeed at our goal of stopping all traffic in open to said system by stacking the odds in our favor.
Open isn't fair. Fair play can be agreed upon, but I'm never looking to fight at a disadvantage unless a fair fight is my goal. Any other type of player conflict that I am going to participate in, I'm going to try to stack the odds in my favor as much as possible.
verminstar
Banned
+1...I would agree with that conclusion. This whole thread can be summed up as nothing more than griefers trying to justify themselves as "pvprs", then moaning at everyone to stop moaning even though he's the only one moaning.
Simple remedy to stop ganking, adjust the BGS so the the ganker pays the rebuy insurance fee for any innocent Cmdr he kills, the fee would also have to cover the loss of cargo. That would soften their cough fairly rapid.
So you want no risk at all in the game. That is called solo for any halfway competent pilot.
verminstar
Banned
So you want no consequences for the random killings? Ye do the crime then ye do the time otherwise don't do the crime ^^
No it wouldn't apply to NPC's, just to halfwits who are mentally deficient (Gankers) and if the Cmdr was wanted he was fair game.
You missed the point. NPC's are not a threat to halfway competent pilots, AT ALL. Nothing in the game offers real danger but for the chance of a human interdicting and killing you, in open.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
No, I didn't say that. I didn't propose a change. I just pointed out, taking any risk away from "inncoent" pilots is ridiculous, and already exists in solo. Only through your own failings, be they through lack of skill, or equipment, can you die to npc's in this game anymore.
Fine, but just as you say there is a consequence for Cmdrs playing in open it should follow that there is an equal and as grievous consequence for the Ganker that kills an innocent Cmdr, NO?
Edit- and how much skill does it take for a Ganker in a fully kitted Cutter to kill a Cmdr in a unarmed AspX. Do these halfwits believe their own tripe.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Well certainly not my own definition but I do believe that dictionaries provide a good source of defining the meaning of the word.
Here is another source form the urban dictionary (link):
Here again we have the term "repeatedly" so griefing is, by definition, not killing a hostile player. Teamkilling as stated in the example above, is (for example intentionally killing a wing member but TBH this is the rarest kind of grief in ED. I have never heard about someone doing that. But there always be a first time I guess).
Anyways, to answer your question "What can define?": Dictionaries, Wikis, any other sort of community based definitions. The larger the community creating and defining the meaning the higher the value of this definition. Combining various definition with the same meaning increases the value of the definition(s).
What can not define a meaning of a word: A subjective interpretation of an individual.
Urban dictionary is fairly similar to a wiki - anyone can add a definition.
When definitions are, obviously, not universally agreed, citing subjectively dubious sources would not seem to advance the case for acceptance of one or other definition.
Who is in a position to tell the person on the receiving end of an "interaction" how they are supposed to feel about it?
I believe the title to this thread should be "With notably rare exceptions, there are no griefers in Open."
I doubt that this will get us all back to open from Mobius and solo?
The player killers have less people to kill as people have lost interest in open
The recent CG's have been great fun in Mobius, I cannot believe that there has been no player killers at work at the CG's in open?
The player killers have less people to kill as people have lost interest in open
The recent CG's have been great fun in Mobius, I cannot believe that there has been no player killers at work at the CG's in open?
Last edited:
Well I thought I would pop into open at the Community Goal station to see how things have progressed. Just going out of the station I was being rammed from behind. Of course I was in my Anaconda, so I'm sure I was a big target. It has armor and shields so it will take the beating, I was also going slow (speed limit slow, not really slow). The moment I'm out of the station, I'm attacked by several ships. I do an all stop, pop a shield cell, and look around. Guess nothing has really changed much in open at all. So I requested to dock, turned on the docking computer and watched as they continued to attack. Of course I had nothing in my cargo yet so all this role play stuff is bunk.
I really don't understand why the need for people to log into a game and just simply try to ruin other people's game. Back to solo again, nothing to see here.
I really don't understand why the need for people to log into a game and just simply try to ruin other people's game. Back to solo again, nothing to see here.
We`d all like something for nothing but consequence is a B, so until there are proper consequences silly behaviour will continue. FD can remedy it easily.
Again, I did not say that consequences for killing an innnocent commander shouldn't exist. I was simply criticizing one proposed solution. One can disagree to a method to solve a problem while agreeing that a problem exists.
I still feel though, if a higher bounty or cost to CMDR's existed for killing innocent people, it wouldn't change a thing. You do realize, that if I am of mind to play this way, I would gladly be restricted to only calling on Anarchy ports, and having hostile status in civilized space and having a large bounty on my head right? If you give in game consequences to the random player conflict that can occur in open, then you must recognize that random player conflict happens in open. A proper crime and punishment system would do a lot to expose the people who so loudly declare "griefing" as simply incompetent. Because their crying would not stop. They still would refuse to take responsibility for their own survival, while continuing to log into open. Meanwhile, F
ev would have finally recognized that dying to other CMDR's in open actually is a thing by implementing a mechanic that would actually make sense.- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Hilarious, no, there have been plenty of pvp encounters in the most recent CG. It is just a vast majority of players in open recognize and appreciate that this happens in this game mode and never post whine threads about griefers on the forums.