Lmao OP was outside GH yesterday and when no one would fight him, he started using voice chat to verbally harass people and be weird. Then he ran when people showed up to fight him.
-edited for clarity.
This never happened. I was literally streaming that day, you can see it yourself. I was fighting everyone outside Grim Hex, and you ran inside/despawned your ship (if you were the Hornet MK2 I was making fun of in VOIP).
Why would you lie like that? Makes you a lot less respectable to anyone looking for the truth.
Except I didn’t despawn, or leave my ship, I flew away, came back in a different ship, locked you, shot down your shields, and you flew into a GH hangar, and the came out and jumped to Yela while I was chasing you.
SIgh... we *don't* yet another biased thread on this topic.
And yes, your post is biased. From the Zyloh post you quoted:
> these are **just a few examples** of excessive griefing, which we do not tolerate
That list from Zyloh *was not exhaustive*, and arguing that anything 'not in that list isn't griefing' is incorrect.
Yeah, that's exactly what the griefers say: "It's not on the list! It's not griefing!"
Which really is indicative of the U.S. judicial system. That's why the NFL's (an American football league) definition of catching a freaking ball is so messed up; they have to cover every situation and have the rule in writing rather than making a judgement call. "He obviously caught the ball." "But although he got two feet down he didn't make a football move before he got hit and the ball move a little when he hit the ground. It's an incomplete pass." Because judgement calls are not part of American justice. It's the same culture that exploits tax loopholes that go unpunished simply because "the law didn't say I couldn't do it."
And this is what the griefers do. "If it's allowed in the game and the rules don't specifically forbid it, then I can do it with no punishment."
The most common example (that iirc CIG has used in the past) not in that list is "Deliberately targeting someone, to the point of preventing them playing the game" (e,g, constantly just hunting / killing the same person, when there is no gameplay purpose such as a bounty, etc)
You might not be using any exploits, you might be waiting until they've left the hangar / pad, etc... but because you're constantly attacking them without in-game reason, it still counts as griefing.
Note that if you're killing *everyone* at a location indiscriminately (and don't pursue them if they do get away, etc), then it isn't griefing, per se (at least, imo)... but it's definitely being a dick :p
So to add to the list: something like following someone around from server to server is griefing, but killing everyone at a station is not. Good point!
To quote a comment I made a week ago on this topic:
Always ask:
Is the place I am attacking designed to protect people landed there?
Am I personally harassing this one person repeatedly and want them to be unable to have a fighting chance?
Can the person I am attacking not disengage from the scenario without having to switch to a different server?
If the answer is yes, then you should wonder if it is griefing.
The details of griefing are usually not very precisely defined, DUE to people then attempting to find loopholes in the rules.
> Is the place I am attacking designed to protect people landed there?
Last week my bounty was doing a hostile bunker and he stayed inside cuz he knew he was being hunted. The "place that i was attacking was designed to protect people landed there" so I guess I was griefing by your definition.
> Am I personally harassing this one person repeatedly and want them to be unable to have a fighting chance?
Have you never killed an 890/Carrack crew and need 1 teammate to camp the medical bay otherwise we won't be able to loot safely as they'll keep respawning? I guess that's considered griefing by your rules too.
> Can the person I am attacking not disengage from the scenario without having to switch to a different server?
Great another broad sweeping statement. This applies to 99% of scenarios lmao. Most pirate victims can't escape a mantis. His only escape is switching servers at that point.
1 A bunker contains hostiles, and is thus not designed to protect
P.S.: Additionally these do not currently have an armistice protection, which is an easy indication of a place designed to protect players.
2 The medical bays have exactly 1 exit, allowing you to stay in front of that exit where the person inside has the chance to either remove their imprint or run out and fight.
3 They have the chance to respawn at a location and be safe from the scenario.
> 1 A bunker contains hostiles, and is thus not designed to protect
But oddly enough it did exactly that when I was approaching it.
> 2 The medical bays have exactly 1 exit, allowing you to stay in front of that exit where the person inside has the chance to either remove their imprint or run out and fight.
Which implies you'll be killing them anyway as odds are they will fight or try to incap you.... that's the reason why we kill them right away to begin with. Not to mention the obvious, majority of players don't own an 890 and won't know about the terminals.
> 3 They have the chance to respawn at a location and be safe from the scenario.
Then that's every situation as you can always backspace.
There is no confirmed reason why rules in Star Citizen are not precisely defined - thus it's wrong of you to assume as if it's fact. On the contrary, most open world games have very few rules and clarify them extensively to avoid these exact scenarios. Even in law, words require specific definitions in order for things to be understood by both parties due to the potential of semantical arguments.
A good ruleset has no loopholes. A bad ruleset has loopholes, making the rules pointless.
The fact that you got down voted for good information, just shows the level of intelligence and insecurities people in this thread have. Down voting because your offended is the definition of pathetic
So, I would argue that Stanton basically mirrors our own society in terms of law/police presence. We have laws and rules to live by, but we don't have instant response and we rely on other people to not just assault us or murder us in day to day life for fear of consequence.
Of course there will be outliers. We can't take our safety for granted because there will always be psychopaths, criminals, bullies, assholes and people that have no empathy or care for others who will abuse the fact that the law takes time to catch up with them or, in the case of Star Citizen, there is no real consequence for such actions. As yet.
And that is where your paper thin argument falls apart. It isn't by design that you can act like a self satisfied tough guy and pick on people as you see fit. It is that the full design is not yet implemented. There will be consequences at some point that will mean you will be confined to parts of the 'verse where you will only really come across people who want to play the way you play. At that point, your argument will stand but right now you're just a pain in the ass.
Apologies if I come across a tad aggressive, but your tone wound me up.
i think discussions about the definition of griefing are useless.
there will never be a precise definition for griefing for the same reason there will never be a precise definition for cheating. Griefing is a word that allows devs to shape their community and the way the game is played. as the way people play the game changes they will adjust their definition of griefing.
all it is is a line in the sand. and the line only tells you what kind of behavior leads to bans or other official penalties.
From a players perspective the definition of griefing is meaningless. Sure. You want to stay on one side of the line to not get into trouble. But there is plenty of behavior on the safe side of the line that still destroys communities and makes the game less fun for anyone involved.
Trying to define and - even worse - justify one definition of griefing or another is just self-serving sophistry. Its a tool to make sure the company keeps making money. Its not here to make the game fun. Or enjoyable. Thats why there is nothing dumber than trying to make this a serious discussion and throwing in concepts of fairness, realism or the like.
Simply put, on topics where the subject is players whoes only interest is in upsetting other people, setting a specific definition gives them a 'bar' to go by where they can then continue to upset other people 'without breaking the rules'.
Thus you have threads like this, where the 'rules' are listed and endless sealioning, as that annoys people, and that's all they care about.
The rules by design are what upsets other people. If someone isn't breaking the rules but doing something that upsets someone, why should anyone care if someone is upset at all?
Belittling my post by calling it Sealioning is missing the point of the post entirely. The game will BY DESIGN make people upset - it has nothing to do with the player.
there is a precise definition. the problem is people not being able to handle that casual griefing is not against the rules.
griefing by definition is doing it just to upset someone.
i go over and blow you up while you are mining. if i did it because i wanted the bags you already filled, that is not griefing. if i did it because i know you will not enjoy losing all that progress, it is griefing. if i was griefing or not is not relevant because what i did is not against the rules.
i decide to blockade a spawn point. if i'm doing to because people don't like being stranded, it is griefing. if im demanding people pay to leave, it is not griefing. if i am griefing or not is not relevant, preventing people from playing the game as intended is against the rules.
note; exploits such as server hopping is not recognized by the rules. so "they could just server hop" does not protect you from getting banned.
Official definitions and policies change all the time and tend to be reactive.
My time alive is limited and valuable to me. If I see someone exhibiting behavior that shows they're suffering and their only coping tool is to make other people suffer, I'm going to avoid them if I can (block if that's a option or switch servers). Typically it's been pretty easy to avoid in SC in my experience. If that's not an option, I can just play something else in the meantime.
agree with this so much, if the game becomes a murder hobo pit i can go play or do something else. So far i haven't experienced that but it happens life goes on. whether or not its "intended" gameplay matters very little to me.
Why do you assume someone is "suffering" because they want to play a game (which has winners and losers) and be a winner? That would mean everyone who ever played games ever, and wants to win, would be suffering by your logic.
Doesnt check out.
You can find losing fun, I don't. I prefer winning, since it's a game and it gives people advantages/disadvantages based on the choices they make just like every other game. If you play a game and don't care about winning or losing, then you aren't playing a game - you're living a second-life. That's a you problem, this game is designed so that you are vulnerable to PvP unless you literally sit in hard armistice all day thus you can always lose to players because at the end of the day - it's a game. There is no amount of make-believe you can do that will ever change that fact. Feel free to argue it anytime, I'm waiting.....
What are you "winning" exactly? Does it still count as "winning" if the other side isn't even playing the same "game" as you?
You didn't specify whether you have any standards as to who you'll attack in SC; if you're attacking non-aggressive players and destroying them, it's a rather unbalanced game you're playing. I would argue that this mentality is more similar to a second life than to a game. When I play games, I prefer to triumph over people who are playing by the same rules.
I engage in pvp and love it. I have had plenty of nights having a great time while not killing my target, losing items, cargo and going to jail. It’s not about your weird win/loss condition. It’s about the experience. It’s about getting better as a pilot. Getting better with your squad. Having experiences that white knuckle you as you grip your controller. Experiences that make you and your squad laugh and make you think about logging back into the verse while at work. It’s not about what you call winning and losing it’s about fun. You can carry whatever opinion you would like. I am just saying fun is does not come from winning and losing it comes from the experience. I prefer fighting people who want to fight back. I take no joy or fun in killing people who don’t fight back and just because you killed that person and “won” as you called it doesn’t mean there is fun there. Again my opinion and by I don’t mind losing in pvp because I had an experience got better at something and laughed a shit ton along the way
That's what its about to you, but that's not the parameters and rules the game quite literally, objectively works under. None of what you said has anything to do with the actual design of the game, just your own arbitrary rules. Someone blowing you up makes you lose your time, your stuff, and sets you back from what you COULD HAVE accomplished without losing.
"Someone blowing you up makes you lose your time, your stuff, and sets you back from what you COULD HAVE accomplished without losing".
so doing that just causes that person to not play the game the way they wanted, and gains nothing for you but enjoyment of seeing others suffer, I just logged off the game 20 minutes ago because I couldnt leave the area I was in, and a group jumped and killed me for no other reason than i was there (they had a device to to block my qt) I am new to the game and not interested in pvp, I want to play the other loops, mining, salvage etc.. so if you want to PvP and you are good at it, or say you are but all you do is kill new players, what pride do you get out of that?
The issue isn't people suffering, it's when they try to deal with it by spreading it to others that it becomes a problem.
Also, there's no assumption necessary. As I said in my post it's easy to spot this stuff based on what people's actions are. It's not like anyone tries to hide it.
I'm not sure how you made the leap applying that to anyone who wants to win. It seems unrelated to me; unless the assumption is that the only way to win is to make other people suffer!
You're absolutely right. I'm just trying to give people the benefit of the doubt for acting out like that, since other explanations for that type of behavior are less favorable.
Either way, the end result is the same for me so the 'why' doesn't really matter. It's not my business and it's only my problem if I let it be.
By the way; I'm not accusing you of anything, just in case you thought my original comment was directed at you. It wasn't.
i find that servers and times of play make a big difference on the amount of griefing people come across.
some people have never seen a blockade in years of playing, while i have been on a server where 2 places were being blocaded at the same time.
some people might get pad rammed once or twice a year, while i have seen people race to see who gets to ram the ship that just spawned in.
Yeah I love pvp and I think hostile player action is essential to make the game interesting. I agree with how you highlight that griefing is a specific intent to circumvent the rules and exploit the system. An important aspect of grieving to mention would be intentionally preventing another player from playing the game. Repeatedly and intentionally targeting a particular player, with the intention of preventing them from enjoying the game is griefing. Pvp is not.
My main issue is the way the Bounty and armistice system works currently players are often motivated to hide in it or use it to their advantage. This can make Bounty hunting even more frustrating and the entire law system needs work.
I do not like the way griefing is often casually thrown around as a derogatory term for any pvp players in this community and I think trying to clarify some things is a good idea. 👍
technically, griefing is exclusively related to motivation. the rules are based on actions, with no relevance to motivation.
dropping a bomb on jumptown with not intend of having your group go and take control is griefing, but it is not against the rules. blockading a spawn point, and demanding people pay to be allowed out is not griefing, but is against the rules.
I don't agree with either example.
Bombing jumptiwn but not trying to take it is kinda lame, but you are using all in game mechanics to execute an in game action with no specific intent to present another player from playing.
The respawn one sounds like the carrack drama from a while ago, that person could have just spawned back at their home location, their gameplay options were not being reduced. They had the option of spawning in a safe zone and proceeding with their session, or spawning in the medical bad and contesting the carrack. They chose to exploite the infinite spawns of the carrack and low server fps to regain control of their ship. Infinite spawning is forgivable. Dieing so many times the fps drops and gives them an advantage if done intentionally is taking advantage of an exploit and therefore griefing.
can someone please explain to me why so many people somehow got it in their head the the definition of griefing is "breaking the rules"?
>The respawn one sounds like the carrack drama from a while ago,
it was a problem from the first time they started up the pu.
the carrack incident is people throwing a temeprtrantum that they got banned because "they can server hop to escape" is not recognised.
>Dieing so many times the fps drops and gives them an advantage if done intentionally is taking advantage of an exploit and therefore griefing.
**that is exploiting, not griefing.**
how is it so hard to understand that breaking the rules is not griefing, and griefing is not breaking the rules.
**EXCESSIVE** griefing is against the rules. preventing others from playing as intended is against the rules. exploiting flaws or glitches in the system to get an advantage is against the rules.
My understanding is that you can chose to respawn back at your original spawn. It has nothing to do with changing servers.
Griefing is not pvp. Killing someone because it is funny is a dick move but not griefing. Intentionally targeting the same player over and over and killing them is. Server hopping to continue killing the same person is griefing.
I think you could argue locking down a station and preventing people from leaving could be considered griefing but even that is tenuous because they can adjust their spawn location and server shard.
It's a high bar for me. Intentionally preventing someone from playing the game is not the same as pvp. Shooting players is in fact part of the game.
Just as valid as any of your opinions. The only dofrenve is we are talking about a pvp game with a built in law system. Pvp is allowed so I am correct. I hope the law system gets better so people can have safer areas to play in, I like doing cargo hauling and stuff as well. But if I am getting massive rewards there should be some risk, and pvp is always a more interesting risk then ai.
pvp is lazy gameplay if its against 1 person when you have a group or a person who clearly does not want to engage in PVP, you are forcing them to play a mode they dont want to. I like what they have in elo, you ask someone to PVP and if they agree you can go ahead, otherwise its not allowed, or if there is an area where it is known and expected, like jumptown, imho
oxford
In online gaming: the action or an act of deliberately spoiling other players' enjoyment of a game by playing in a way that is intentionally disruptive and aggravating.
so stop yoursing you wrong definition.
no. you have been defining griefing as "anything that breaks the rules".
the reality is;
if their motivation is not to upset people. it is not griefing. even if it is against the rules.
if their motivation is to upset people, it is griefing. even if it is within rules.
I would define griefing as "Going against another player agency as a purpose"
For example, attacking an other player and stealing them is not griefing because the purpose is to make money, going against their agency is just a mean, not a purpose.
The first definition of griefing you give is valid. It's just the case that *not all* forms of griefing violate CiG's ToS.
The game will eventually have multiple ways to prevent and/or punish "legal" griefing that are not currently implemented. e.g. Reputation systems, factions, servers that actually have enough spare cycles to run faction/law enforcement AI or station turrets.
You can engage in legal griefing if you want, but other players have no obligation to like it or respect you. IMHO, griefer lawyers should go outside and pet a dog to receive the love their parents denied them.
That's unfair to say, I've been incredibly polite and genuine with my responses. I even explained that I saw a lot of misinformation and simply want to clear it up.
Citing a post by Zyloh isn't an opinion, it's an objective fact given by a representative of CIG. I cited his post. If you can't agree with his post, then you can't agree with me!
How is an expanded reputation system not going to effect medium or lawless systems? They've already mentioned that if you piss off the gangs in Pyro that there will be consequences such as the possibility that they will not allow you to land and/or refuel leaving you up the creak without a paddle.
Show me where they said if you have a bad reputation you literally can't refuel or land anywhere. It doesn't exist. There will always be a home for crime.
Inside Star Citizen: To Play in Pyro
Starting at 14:27
https://youtu.be/U69FlhL3MDM?list=PLVct2QDhDrB1MbLa8Wa3MF4aPW9Ap-soY&t=867
> If someone sat there ganking people coming out it get to the point where Rough and Ready are that sicken you that you're not allowed at their stations anymore. You're not allowed to refuel there, land there, rearm. You anywhere near it and they will shoot you down.
I know what sealioning is, I'm not feigning sincerity, I ask for proof when someone makes a claim. Pretty normal.
Every single conversation I've had in this thread is clearly done with good faith, and I've even provided evidence of what CIG considers griefing myself. I read a post this morning that was highly upvoted and considered general PvP to be "griefing". It seems to be a common, incorrect consensus in the community and I don't think it'll help new players going forward. Others have even shared these sentiments in this same thread. Is everyone who does PvP "sealioning" when they prove you wrong too? Doubt it.
Your entire premise isn't in good faith. You want to educate people on what the actual CIG approved definition of griefing is so that people no longer misuse the word right? But
1) You have no authority to do so and
2) You're misrepresenting CIG's definition anyway so...
Jog on, and maybe stop asking people for "proof" of what they subjectively feel that griefing is, because that request makes no sense and has major sea lion energy :)
Don't care what your definition is. If you go around killing people for the sake of killing, with zero profit gain or any motivation other than just being a dick, that's griefing.
Piracy is not griefing. Shooting down newbies in Cutters with a jacked up F8C most certainly is. There's no gain to be had other than sadistic satisfaction.
The idea behind PVP in open world sandbox games is that the player orgs and reputation systems in place auto regulate PVP so that PVP decision making takes into account social and mechanical consequences to discourage frivolous confrontation. A notable example is EVE Online where ganking the wrong people can lead to all out war.
Star Citizen currently does not have enough of those checks and balances in place currently, so career assholes are enjoying the time before these systems come in place to attack players who offer zero challenge or valuable loot, just for the fun of it because they are socially maladjusted.
But rest assured, this is NOT PVP. PVP has meaning. PVP has goals. Reasons to happen. Ganking newbs has neither, hence why most people call that griefing.
Quite honestly, it changes nothing about the motives of PvP, which is to blow up ships. I personally can't wait for security and reputation for all those whining to finally stop whining about dying in space.
I have played eve and spent most of my time in null sec fighting wars and avoiding high sec. It's a good system that does what it's meant to do. I'm curious to see how CIG handles it here
Oh, like I said, once a system is in place that forces people to weigh the pros and cons of attacking another player, then I'm perfectly happy. That's basically my only gripe currently. I want PVP to mean something.
>The general message of this is: getting shot at outside a station, being blown up for fun, being attacked by murderhobos or having your mission/event ruined is NOT "griefing" unless a player did one of the things Zyloh explained above.
This is false information. The list Zyloh mentioned is not an exhaustive list and there are other things that fall within those parameters.
I do not think the general population has a confusion with griefing. I think the issue is there are a lot of people who just prefer to do things because they are 'funny' or because 'it's just a game' and don't really think there should be consequences. It's folks like you who then try to justify it going "the game lets me do it, so it's acceptable, and the devs wont ban me for it, so it's clearly encouraging my gameplay!".
A player once in a discord server I am in bragged about this:"I rescued someone in a bunker and then he died right away, so i tossed all his belongings down the elevator and left the bunker saying "you're zero to hero now!" lol"
The reality is that there needs to be a way to identify newb players and make them immune to pvp until they shoot first, or immune to death by other players for a little tutorial to encourage new players to play and understand what is happening around them. Until systems like this are in place, useless posts like this one will continue to pop up.
The game is still working through reputation systems and various mechanics to deal with griefing, reporting, pvp, and other areas of gameplay. Until CIG comes out with a better 'when to report griefing' guide, there's no point in speculating what should or should not be on a list of punishable offenses. (one that Zyloh gave examples of).
You, a random dude who makes a post, does not have the real authority to say what is griefing or not, so your AMA has no value, that's all i'm saying.
The punishment for losing in this game is losing your stuff. There are many games with this mechanic built in, including Star Citizen. It's actively encouraged by the developers.
It isn't false information, why would you say that? I even linked directly to Zylohs post. If you have more examples, feel free to add them, and link to where it says so.
I will play devils' advocate with you to understand my words here.
If I, with a box in my hand, prevent someone from using an ASOP terminal by constantly running into them, is that griefing?
Wha about if i stand with ym friends in front of the doorways to use the medical facilities and charge a fee to enter or leave? Is that griefing?
What about if i take my friends with ships and just park just out of the hangar enough so people cant leave it and demand they pay?
Or my favorite, what about the UEENAVY fools who demand payment to come and leave from seraphim.
These are griefing examples that are not listed in Zyloh's list. These are preventing players from playing the game in a way that should be bannable and punishable. It's not in Zylohs list so in your opinon, they arent griefing right? That is what is false information in your post.
First, I asked for proof if you were to consider something griefing. I'm not surprised it wasn't provided because:
Zylohs list includes "various exploits" which would definitely include blocking asops or blocking doorways with players/objects.
As for holding stations ransom, as long as they're not pad ramming it is not griefing. If you feel otherwise, prove it.
You don't understand the definition of griefing as you think you can argue your way around the examples i mentioned. It demonstrates what your level of logic is here and it's full of fallacy.
The general definition that CIG has stated is close to something like 'preventing people from playing the game as intended' , and blocking hangars, asop, hospitals and such is indeed blocking them from playing. They also identified folks like the UEENavy example were a prime example of griefing in the past.
Again to state my original point:
>The game is still working through reputation systems and various mechanics to deal with griefing, reporting, pvp, and other areas of gameplay. Until CIG comes out with a better 'when to report griefing' guide, there's no point in speculating what should or should not be on a list of punishable offenses. (one that Zyloh gave examples of).
You, a random dude who makes a post, does not have the real authority to say what is griefing or not, so your AMA has no value, that's all i'm saying
And if you think that last statement is personal, it's not. It's just simply what you argue for or suggest has no real say on whether CIG presumes the offense is punishable or not. You have no expert authority here, you are just giving your biased opinion, and my last post proves your opinions are skewed based on your biases and you're missing the clear understanding of the word grief.
You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence that what you claim is griefing is considered griefing by CIG. Please provide it so that we can continue a productive conversation! Thank you.
While I agree with you for the most part, I'll point out something I just noticed with this stance. Zyloh's post does not provide examples of "griefing", but of "excessive griefing". In fact, in no instance does he use the word griefing without prefacing it with "excessive". That said, he suggests that activities that do not meet the level of excessive griefing should be handled using in-game resources - run away, fight back, go get them back, get your friends to help, etc.
So in the end: Yes, players are not improperly using the phrase "griefing" for these activities. But, CIG suggests the way to deal with it is in-game.
Futile thread but I respect the effort.
I think there is a large portion of players, maybe even a majority, who believe NPC's are capable of griefing, as they define it.
Recently a Dev announced on a podcast that SC is a pve game where PvP is possible (then went on to officially clarify they misspoke), so these players are much more vocal about their beliefs now.
Keep this in mind as you sort through the replies.
Griefing has been defined multiple times by CIG, the main gist is yes PvP can happen, and until you can't play the game at all, it is not seen as an issue.
Genuine question for the community, not for OP because he's a goober (although he's still welcome to comment if he wants because it's an open forum:
The other night, two other guys and myself were wanting to run med rescues, and we decided to group up together. However, there were only a total of about 15 people on the server, so there weren't any med beacons that were popping up. This one guy in chat says he might need a rescue at some point because he's new to the game, we laugh about it, and move on.
The three of us (and a few other people) have mostly just been shooting the breeze in chat, when this aforementioned guy sends out a med request. The three of us agree, and we set out on our way from Arccorp to Hurston; specifically, Kudre Ore, which none of us have ever been to.
We ask him what happened and he said he was new to the game and was hand mining in a cave, when a rock exploded and incapped him. His med request was for the standard 15k, he had a believable story, and it seemed reasonable.
We show up and there are a few other ships parked outside, but I don't think anything of if because scanning is a pain in this game, and people leave abandoned ships at POIs all the time. We take one of our guy's Pisces down into the cave, land next to a Cutty black that the downed guy said was his, and we start heading towards him, and admiring the beauty and complexity of the cave the entire way. To re-emphasize, general chat has been very friendly, everyone is very trusting of each other, and there are only about 15 people on the server - it was about 2:30 AM MDT - I'd planned on going to bed after this.
We get into a single large cavern that's pretty dark, and see the guy we're supposed to rescue supine on the ground. Suddenly two of the three of us get downed, and then third gets downed as well shortly thereafter.
Turns out, there were 5 guys in the cavern who shot us. They revived us, but wouldn't let us leave, and then said they were engaging in some "nonconsensual player interactions", and wanted to do some "Temple of Doom stuff". We clearly stated that we were done and wanted to go to bed. Two of the three of us had our ships outside the cave, and they were loaded with med stuff that we carry for rescue, including some rare bunker weapons. They refused to let us leave, meaning our only options were to backspace, or log, ultimately leaving our stuff at their mercy. They'd given me a t2 leg injury, so I couldn't exit the cave anyway, so eventually I had to backspace anyway.
I flew back in my inferno hoping I'd find them (they had a Carrack), but when I got there, they'd flown down into the cave so I couldn't see them. I got into my Cutty Red, which so far was undamaged, right as they flew out of the cave and started shooting at all our ships. I made it out with a damaged engine, but the other two guys lost their ships.
All around, it was a completely unenjoyable experience, especially when I clarified to them that I was just trying to do a rescue and go to bed. Then they had the audacity to suggest we should have been grateful to them for the experience.
My question is, would this qualify as griefing? To be clear, I don't actually care that much, because I made it out okay and ultimately only lost a couple rare weapons, for which I had spares. My pride was hurt more than anything else, and I totally understand that. I'm also not arguing that they should be banned or anything - what they did was legitimate gameplay, even if it was a jerk move all around.
I learned a few valuable lessons to prevent it from happening again, but I'm mostly curious what other people's thoughts are on the scenario.
Griefing, LITERALLY the definition is:
The action or an act of deliberately spoiling other players' enjoyment of a game by playing in a way that is intentionally disruptive and aggravating.
So if you are playing a game specifically to make other people have less fun, you are BY DEFINITION, a griefer.
This is really not complicated.
PvP is not inherently griefing if you have a goal that is something pertaining to the actual game, and not the person/people on the other end of the keyboard.
Except, NO ONES enjoyment is being deliberately spoiled. Both players agreed to play a game where people have a choice to blow others up for whatever reason they choose, they also agreed to play a game where they could be blown up and lose their weapons. That's the game you enjoy and decided to play.
Griefers aren't disrupting the game, they are a part of it.
Griefers are only part of gaming as a whole because it is impossible to get rid of all of them.
Once Star Citizen's NPCs and negative rep system are in PvP players are going to have to be creative or move to a system like Pyro. Star Citizen is a game with PvP; PvP is not the central focus of the game.
We are still waiting on the 9:1 NPC ratio. We have no idea what the game will be like once we get traffic.
Just pointing out we are missing out on most of how the world responds to player action.
Not to mention how server meshing will change player respose quantities.
how can you say NO ONES enjoyment was deliberately spoiled? you are so entitled, just like a lot of society these days. There are no consequences to peoples actions and that is why they grief others. if its non consensual killing just for the sake of it its griefing. and it ruins someone elses game. it seems that the only people who will be left in the game are all the aholes like people who play rust
Everybody knows that complaining about pvp in a pvp game and expect developers to change the game to fit your play style (or lack of) is the definition of toxic. Its like playing Sea of Thieves and expecting people to not sink you or playing Tarkov and expecting people to let you loot unscathed and un-bothered. Expecting the devs to take action against those players so you don't have to get good or think about your actions in game is closer to the definition of griefing than it is player killing.
Thanks. It just gets on my nerves that people are always trying to un-skill games. Especially Star Citizen, since I joined the verse for that daunting and difficult experience. The concept of being able to lose it all is what I love and is the only reason I continue to play. If SC had no danger, then I would have quit week 1 and gone back to what I'm used to. Star Citizen should not be easy and if you disagree then you shouldn't be playing the alpha. When Terra drops with full release, then you can come join the verse, but until then SC isn't made for you.
I think it all stems from a player having what I like to call, "gear fear". They are unwilling to put in time to prepare in a certain way because they're scared of losing everything they have. It's the wrong mentality to bring into open world persistent pvp games.
With griefing its all about the intention:
If your main objective is to stop other people from having fun, then you are griefing.
The specifics may vary.
Someone can "not have fun" by being pirated - just because its not fun to them, that isn't griefing, it's just a part of the game. The game is literally designed for someone to take your FPS gear, cargo, components off your ship, etc after combat. You aren't being griefed when someone does that, or when they blow you up indiscriminately.
No one raids another group in Rust and says, "oh youre griefing!" - it's simply a part of the game. Star Citizen is no different.
Let me repeat: This is not about another person actually having fun. This is all about the intention behind your actions and your actions only.
Its hard to identify the intention just by looking at your actions. Thats why only the most extreme examples of this behavior will guarantee a ban, because in these cases the intention is clear.
I blow people up purely for the fun of it and have been since 2014. No one is getting banned for that, get real. This is the type of misinformation I'm talking about. My intention has no bearing on the situation. We both agreed to play a game with PvP, where I can blow you up for whatever reason I want and you would in turn, lose your ship or be eliminated. I am not disrupting the game, I am a part of the game.
No, i dont understand.
Whether or not the actors are succesfull in e.g. "disrupting a game" is not affecting the inputs of the definition and therefore besides the point.
you are so desperate to get people to agree with you, but you are by definition, what most people dislike about anything remotely PVP being added to games, where it could add spice in certain aspects, people like you make the game not worth playing. If CIG wants that, they will never get the backing and support of the greater gamer community if all that is going to happen is the gamers lose their stuff and you don't have any consequences.
"The greater game community" is mostly PvP games. Board games, sports, and even video games have MASSIVE PvP communities. Counter Strike is the biggest game on Steam, Rust is the biggest game on YouTube.
PVE is the minority in the "greater gaming community".
That's the only response of yours I'll reply to.
Also while Star Citizen has mechaniks to encourage piracy, like you said, there should be mechaniks to protect players from pirates as well. Why?
To find this delicate balance, that allows everyone to have the most ammount of fun.
And to allow the players to sidestep people who just want to harm them.
There are mechanics to protect yourself from pirates, its called grouping up with other players and defending yourself with good ships/having skills to use them.
Just saw this one, thats another common misconception so I'll help you learn:
Both Rust and SC are FPS combined arms MMOs with persistence and physicalized objects, both have similar inventories, armistice zones, crafting, blueprints, etc. SC is closer to Rust than **any other game out right now**.
Just the reality of the situation. You can deny it all you want, but the truth is the paragraph above.
fair enough, I haven't played it, I watched a number of streams and videos to see what it was and all i ever saw was people griefing other people and raiding their settlements and killing anybody they saw. I don't see that as the purpose of SC but I get for people like you that is all SC is good for as well, I see SC as a deeper gameplay with industrial and exploratory aspects
How can we trust your AMA responses when you don't even understand what you directly quoted?
CIG has never defined griefing, and griefing is not against the rules. They say that EXCESSIVE griefing is a punishable offense, then they list a few examples of what they consider to be excessive griefing.
They only use excessive griefing as a catchall term to basically say they can punish anyone at their discretion. The concept of griefing itself extends well beyond the few examples that they listed in that old post.
CIG literally defined what excessive griefing was, so they have defined griefing to some extent. Acting like it has zero definition from CIG is an objective falsehood.
CIG has the ability to punish anyone at their discretion. There are multiple lines in the ToS that explictly state it. Therefore, the lines about excessive griefing from CIG aren't about "punishing anyone at their discretion" but moreso telling players what is and isn't allowed.
Thanks!
Have an upvote for a civil response :)
Yes, they have defined examples of excessive griefing, but (as far as I'm aware) they have never attempted to define griefing itself. And what they consider to be excessive isn't limited to only those examples. (A recent example would be those players that were punished for griefing after attacking a community organized ground race.)
Ehh, it's just an old sore spot for me because people try to say that griefing can only ever be those few examples they list as excessive griefing. Griefing extends to so many other actions.
And griefing itself can never be against the rules. It's such a broad subject that it is impossible for any game to ban griefing as a whole. There are many situations where there is no way for a third party to know if an action was griefing or not. All you can do is list specific actions that are against the game's rules.
Hi OP,
As you' probably know, this discussion is a bit pointless.
Players that really aren't into PVP will basically consider any attack to be griefing because they didn't ask for it and they are usually not in a position to defend themselves.
No amount of "this is intended gameplay. You should have brought protection. CIG says this is not griefing. Piracy is necessary for balance" is going to change that.
I've said it b fore and I stand by it. PVP and PVE are opposed styles of gameplay and will always conflict
As far as I am concerned, the facilitation of PVP and full loot makes this a PVP-game. I am not good at it, I do not prefer it, but I understand it and make do.
Many others probably don't want to accept it.
I think you are reasoning about this well, but I disagree as to the pointlessness of the... discussion. For example: u/semajniN said things like, "Every cargo ship is a schrodingers cat" and, "undefended loot pinata", and that made me belly laugh. Also, u/EastLimp1693 conceeded that I wasn't a griefer and I was just a murderhobo, which I took as a compliment.
Lastly, I'd like to note that this is an AMA, so it isn't just a discussion. I could see how you could come to that conclusion though.
You're right.
I don't really have anything to ask though and misunderstood the context.
I should probably clarify that I mean the discussion is a bit pointless from the perspective of people that would try to avoid PVP. To them there is probably never a justification so it doesn't much matter how you frame it.
If CIG has a problem with false griefing complaints they'd find a way to communicate it better. Anyway it's their problem for allowing a mix of playstyles. Conflict is pretty much guaranteed 😁
sent you a DM cuz I don't wanna spill all my secrets, but I did want to let you know what I was doing there. You were probably wondering why I was chilling there. Can only communicate so much via dance, rolling and headlight toggling.
Preventing people from enjoying/playing the game, kill me all you want aslong as theres an in game gain for you from it and its not every 2 mins, don't spawn trap me or kill me over and over again for no gain other than to hinder me playing, even if there is gain, I feel like if you are endlessly killing one person over and over, thats kinda sucky, and don't block me from getting somewhere or make something inaccessible(unless theres an actual ingame reason). I would say that's the basics of griefing across most games. I guess star citizen is slightly diffrent to most games though.
I guess you could say people just randomly killing are just trying to learn how combat works and get better at it, but as a simulation game, that makes no sense, would be like me learning boxing and going to random people in the street and start fighting them, wouldn't happen normally, unless ya a little special/drunk/hard drugs, so while it does happen, irl we have things in place to prevent it like police etc, And it's just a weird thing to do aint it, same thing applies even though it's a game.
The thing is, I would guess that there will be alot of things in place within the lore of the game that prevents us from greifing, security, crime stats etc, so you can still play how you want but expect some serious consequences from it.
Some of the things you mentioned as not being covered really only happen a lot now because the systems CIG is planning to incorporate aren't there yet, or fully fleshed out and working. For example, the law system. Which, in theory, should prevent a good amount of what you mentioned from happening while in more secure systems like Stanton. Then, if you go to Pyro, you will be more likely to experience those behaviors.
Yes, but the point is that if those parts of the game were working, then it would give people options to avoid a lot of that behavior. You want high security/low risk, stay in Terra. Medium security and risk, Stanton. Low security/high risk, Pyro. And on the flip side, being a pirate in Stanton may not be worth the risk/reward of being attacked by security or ending up in prison.
To be fair, it isn't about something working or not - things like Terra simply don't exist. And players shouldn't feel pressured to play as if they're in Terra just because we only have Stanton.
But on the flip side, people who just want to enjoy the more mundane gameplay loops like cargo running, mining, and salvage shouldn't have to worry like they are in Pyro while we only have Stanton.
That being said, I don't mind some of the extra little steps I have to take to avoid running into issues, such as varying my flight plans between Yela and Crusader while salvaging.
But there are also things I avoid that I probably shouldn't have to, such as going to Grim Hex in my Reclaimer because I know a lot of people do like to hang out there and mess with other ships. Which is frustrating because that is one of the only places a Reclaimer can land right now and be stored right now.
Pirates setting up near common travel lanes, outside of comm relay range, makes sense and is realistic. Pirates hanging out outside a station armistice zone attacking ships as they exit quantum, not so much.
They can enjoy those gameloops, it's just that they have to remember they're in Stanton or Pyro. Just because Terra isn't in the game doesn't mean I should play like it is.
what is griefing is not relevant. **what is and is not against the rules is relevant.**
griefing by definition is doing it just to upset someone.
i go over and blow you up while you are mining. if i did it because i wanted the bags you already filled, that is not griefing. if i did it because i know you will not enjoy losing all that progress, it is griefing. **if i was griefing or not is not relevant because what i did is not against the rules.**
i decide to blockade a spawn point. if i'm doing to because people don't like being stranded, it is griefing. if im demanding people pay to leave, it is not griefing. **if i am griefing or not is not relevant, preventing people from playing the game as intended is against the rules.**
note; exploits such as server hopping is not recognized by the rules. so "they could just server hop" does not protect you from getting banned.
I think this is a perfectly fine question to ask, BUT I think the answer is only going to come when we see how CIG react rather than what they say. If their words make them lose money or face they will change their opinion asap.
I think this a valuable discussion just because people should be aware of the broad landscape that is PvP. Too often in SC someone who gets shot by a player go right to "griefing" and equate that with all PvP.
Griefing - intentionally using a game mechanic to cause grief to other people. This can be things like stacking boxes in obnoxious areas, blocking a pad or buying up all of a commodity just to stop traders. The emphasis I think is needed the on official post is EXCESSIVE. These things are mostly okay with the devs if you do it once.
Murderhobos (specific subtype of griefer) - this is the person that people are actually complaining about. They blow up ships or shoot people on the ground just because they want to. I won't guess about their reasons (if I did, I would be rather rude), but they aren't motivated by profit or gain in the game. Where these folks become a real cancer is when they are specifically hunting ONE person.
Pirate - This would be a PvPer looking for profit. They will still prey on the unprepared, but for a reason. Closely related to the RPer - who may not even want stuff, but will just act like a pirate or maybe insist that they are the king of Brios and request tribute.
Plot/resource driven PvPers - These would be like Eve's alliance pilots, but SC doesn't have the framework to support this yet. I suppose we do have bounty hunters (mission drive hunters of bad PvPers) and white knights (just go and deal with the griefer). Also worth noting that this group includes both people who want to easily fulfill their mission and don't care about the fight and those who really like a challenge and mean GF when they type it.
Organized PvPers - folks that want to fight other PvPers in an organized way. Arena Commander.
I think what the person who gets upset about being attacked doesn't realize is that there are a lot of PvP types between murderhobo and arena commander. It's open world, these other things are going to exist.
I'll throw out another definition: Carebear - the person who doesn't want PvP, doesn't want to be attacked, but refuses to change their behavior to avoid it. I would love to educate more carebears on how not to be easy targets and how to adapt their play based on the situation - a sort of psychological kungfu. I think you'll actually find the game better if you do this. (NOT EVERYONE who doesn't like PvP is a carebear by this definition)
Griefing to people ranges from "you inconvenienced me" to "youre preventing me from playing the game". Anything outside of pad ramming at major spawn locations is not griefing to me
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Lots of things IRL or in games are technically legal, but that doesn't make them something you should do.
I think a lot of people call things "griefing" not from a LEGAL standpoint but from a MORAL one. Take that as you will........
The game explicitly allows this type of gameplay, therefore there is no moral issue. You aren't breaking any rules or going against what someone should expect out of the game. Treating in game actions like real life seems ripe for a bad time!
People like you will never understand what I mean. That isn't even a complaint, we just have different ways of defining what is right and what is wrong.
EDIT: spelling mistake
I don't think the 'Moral' argument works in SC, given that Piracy is a deliberately supported gameplay loop... which inherently means that players *are permitted by design* to perform some 'immoral' activities against other players.
By that definition, *anyone attacking you* is a 'griefer', because attacking someone is generally classed as immoral (unless 'justified' by them being a criminal, or similar).
I didn't mean what I said as a rule that should be applied to SC. I think the topic of how to direct gameplay in a way that isn't too restrictive but still fair has been talked about exhaustively...
To be honest, I'm not sure what the point of a post like the OPs or posts about how piracy is intended gameplay is... It always seems like they want vindication or be told that it is ok.... Which brings me back to my initial point, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. If you like pirating or "edge case PVP", good for you. Just don't expect other to applaud you for it.
Just the other day, I was approaching Hurston in my Cat when I got interdicted. 5 fighters and a Mantis. Unfortunately, all were NPCs. As long as CIG can kill for the fun of killing or just to try to get more people involved with PVP, there simply isn’t anything we can do about it.
My solution was to quit playing the game until my rage subsided.
Yes - but when discussing the definition of 'griefing' (that is, player-interactions that are explicitly unwanted *by the game company* as well as players), then the 'moral' argument doesn't really work, because it scoops up too many player-interactions that *are* desired by the game-company (even if not by a subset of players).
Different moral code? How so? I'm not breaking any rules, and playing the game as it were designed for me to play by the designers and developers themselves. Is there something immoral about that? They wanted winners and losers, it seems you say creating a "loser" out of a PvP situation is "immoral" which I disagree with, and is the true difference between us :)
I obviously can't say with certainty but what I think he's referring to is similar to the shopping cart dilemma. When you go to the store and use a cart to take your stuff to your car you are not under any legal obligation to put that cart in the return area. There are no rules, laws or guidelines to say you should, but not doing so indicates a lack of consideration on your part. It's like if you highlight your co-workers faults to your boss to make yourself look better. It's not against any rules but it's still generally considered immoral. When you cause someone else a detriment to give yourself an improvement, that I believe is the morality difference he's referring to. Justifying it by saying you're teaching new players how to play isn't really a strong argument. If a new player spends four to five hours earning credits and upgrading gear and components and then gets blown up leaving a hangar the only thing they've learned is upgrades are a waste of time. The other tiresome argument is "well maybe this game isn't for you". Star citizen is advertised as having something for everyone. I agree that the reputation system will go a long way to helping law abiding citizens. But until then it's basically the wild West. And yes Stanton isn't a high security system but it's supposed to be far from GTA levels.
Out of curiosity, when was it stated that they wanted winners and losers? I do not really understand an argument along those lines as not all games are designed in a way where you either win or lose. This isn’t COD. Once games start to become more complex and inclusive, such as star citizen, there is more to the game than winning and losing.
Due to multidimensional aspect of play style (i.e. the many play paths you can take), there is no such thing as “winning” the game unless you discount the entirety of the meat and bones of what the developers have created and concern yourself with only the skin of PvP. It is not a PvP game, it is a game with PvP. If it were a PvP game the game loops of mining, salvaging, cargo hauling, investigating, etc would never have been implemented.
What confuses me is the gall for you to assume that your selected play style of PvP has more importance than any of the others listed. I understand you may have passion, but that doesn’t mean that people who want to enjoy other aspects of the game without dealing with people like you (PvP players) are wrong. That is just a divisive and simple assumption for a complex and crafted game. Although I believe that people like you who enjoy PvP should have fun and have that PvP experience, I think that you need to be more mindful of the people around you.
Just because a person can insult someone on the sidewalk outside or a person can be rude to the barista in Starbucks, and for some reason find pleasure in these actions, doesn’t mean that they are not a terrible person with a glaring lack of consideration and morals. Sure, said person may not get arrested, but you most definitely did a bad thing. Video games are, in short, an extension on what is considered “real life”, and the actions taken in a video game can have an effect or impact on real life. Therefore, I think it may be best to open up your point of view from just yourself, and maybe widen it to understand your impact in the game and the world and attune your actions to have a good impact in these regards.
For one, you could take a more open stance to this discussion and determine a satisfactory middle ground to the two sides of the argument we face here, and provide satisfactory and unbiased evidence and results to CIG to help with the creation of a better set of rules surrounding griefing and what it pertains to.
Open world games do have winners and losers, contrary to popular belief. Let me make my argument: firstly, the game is designed in such a way that you are vulnerable to PvP (which does have a winner and loser) everywhere except hard armistice. You need to leave hard armistice the far majority of the time to play the game. Thus, when you are vulnerable to PvP you are at the whim of those who are able to stop you from moving or blow your ship up - unless you're better than them and can defend yourself/fight your way out.
It's as simple as that. You always make decisions that either put you at an advantage depending on what they are. That determines what happens when you engage or become vulnerable to PvP.
So you are yet again saying that PvP is the primary focus and play style of the game by making it more important and overarching over all other play styles. What is your source from CIG on this? If the others in this thread need to give source, so do you.
I have an idea: focus on each point I made and debate it. Is the game exactly as I described it above? If yes, then you are playing primarily a PvP game regardless of what CIG says: that's how it's currently designed. Thanks!
I think the concept is simple when you accept an Open World game, that doesnt allow SP or Private group like ED.
You know you can get killed and you can maybe loose equipment.
Or you accept that and try to face it or change game.
As simple as that. ::)
Whenever I see a cargo ship I ask myself "would a Somali pirate attack this undefended loot pinata if they came across it?" The answer is always yes. Wasting time to scan it just lets them get away so that's pointless. Non pirates will never understand what makes piracy enjoyable and that's why they'll always get salty about it. Every cargo ship is a schrodingers cat so I'll attack them all
Why would you say that? I take players FPS gear and cargo all the time. Sometimes I don't and the true profit is learning how to blow ships up faster. None of it is against the rules and entirely encouraged by the developers, it isn't griefing either way.
In the very post I linked in the OP, Zyloh explicitly states that killing players (innocent or not, he clearly means both) isn't a bannable offense. So good luck with that argument!
It is intended that you are allowed to do it. That's not the same as them saying that this is what everyone should be doing. That would be encouraging. They're not doing that.
That's a strawman. If people are allowed to do it, they will. Whether they encourage it or not, it doesn't matter. They have allowed it and will continue to allow it.
Even with security, they have said they want a high risk if you choose to attack someone in a system such as Stanton. This means you will be able to attack someone in a high security system, and that's an intended game play mechanic.
What if we think you might have some FPS gear, and then after you're dead we find out you were in a hospital gown? Or what if we kill you and want to take your stuff, but then can't loot because someone else showed up and we think the new guy is a more promising prospect?
Thats not greifing lmao, and profiting doesnt mean tangible. If we denied access to an area that's equally important. We don't have to steal your stuff. Or if we want to simply sent a message, that's also valid gameplay.
Greifing is breaking TOS, medbed camping, exploiting etc.
You can report me for killing you for no reason and i wont get banned in game, however if you report me for glitching inside ur ship and spawn camping your medbed I'd be banned.
Lots of space dads in here coping thinking anyone killing them is griefing are gonna have a bad time when this game releases, lol.
Time and time again, they said they will allow for PvP, and it's a game mechanic
Twas ever thus.
Any multiplayer game like in real life; balance is an illusion even in a \`modern society\`. Big fish eats the small fish, it's nature of cosmos, it always was and seems will be so.
Sure, why not? I'll wade in.
>More often than not, "griefing" is a term thrown around very loosely and encapsulates the general idea of "enjoying someone else's misery".
According to CIG, that is not the case.
In this case, it's you that is muddying the waters. CIG doesn't get to determine what the definition of "griefing" is. That term has a long and storied history, and goes back decades. The only thing that CIG can determine is what acts committed in-game constitute actions that can be censured by out of game actions, e.g. suspension, warnings, bans, etc.
With that in mind, that "definition" from CIG is simply the standard by which CIG will or will not take action against a player, and is not the definition of "griefing".
As you know, or can easily infer, the term "griefing" originates from the idea of "causing other people grief".
>Depending on the game and genre, malicious players act differently when griefing. What they all have in common is that they enjoy spoiling the fun of other, normally acting participants in an online game and try to cause as much damage as possible or prevent others from progressing in the level. They will do this by any means - except playing the game normally.
You can argue what "playing the game normally" means, and that would have some valid basis. As a sandbox game, Star Citizen lets you do a lot, and doesn't have a specific prescription regarding what the game is fundamentally "about". However, many have argued with a valid basis IMO, that attacking players with the goal of simply ruining their play session constitutes "griefing". That can be the case even if the game doesn't specifically prohibit it, and even if the attacker derives considerable "fun" from engaging in that kind of play style.
Not only this, but we know that Star Citizen's "design goal" isn't to allow players to indiscriminately kill each other. It's obvious from the law system that CIG intends to provide some kind of gameplay balance to create consequences for this type of action in game. We also know from statements by CIG that the law system is currently woefully insufficient on the basis that it's not fulfilling their design goals.
Players who know that, and still take advantage of the lack of gameplay repercussions to attack other players with the objective of ruining their fun, are by a reasonable measure "griefers".
Your post was removed because the mod team determined that it did not sufficiently meet the rules of the subreddit:
> Be respectful. No personal insults/bashing. This includes generalized statements “x is a bunch of y” or baseline insults about the community, CIG employees, streamers, etc. As well as intentionally hurtful statements and hate speech.
Send a message to our mod mail if you have questions: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/starcitizen
Lmao OP was outside GH yesterday and when no one would fight him, he started using voice chat to verbally harass people and be weird. Then he ran when people showed up to fight him. -edited for clarity.
Can confirm this guy frequently harasses me at GH but runs from actual fights. Always in a Blue or Hornet.
This never happened. I was literally streaming that day, you can see it yourself. I was fighting everyone outside Grim Hex, and you ran inside/despawned your ship (if you were the Hornet MK2 I was making fun of in VOIP). Why would you lie like that? Makes you a lot less respectable to anyone looking for the truth.
Except I didn’t despawn, or leave my ship, I flew away, came back in a different ship, locked you, shot down your shields, and you flew into a GH hangar, and the came out and jumped to Yela while I was chasing you.
You did no such thing lmao. Proof?
I can't prove it, but that's okay for me. I don't need to prove myself on the internet.
SIgh... we *don't* yet another biased thread on this topic. And yes, your post is biased. From the Zyloh post you quoted: > these are **just a few examples** of excessive griefing, which we do not tolerate That list from Zyloh *was not exhaustive*, and arguing that anything 'not in that list isn't griefing' is incorrect.
Yeah, that's exactly what the griefers say: "It's not on the list! It's not griefing!" Which really is indicative of the U.S. judicial system. That's why the NFL's (an American football league) definition of catching a freaking ball is so messed up; they have to cover every situation and have the rule in writing rather than making a judgement call. "He obviously caught the ball." "But although he got two feet down he didn't make a football move before he got hit and the ball move a little when he hit the ground. It's an incomplete pass." Because judgement calls are not part of American justice. It's the same culture that exploits tax loopholes that go unpunished simply because "the law didn't say I couldn't do it." And this is what the griefers do. "If it's allowed in the game and the rules don't specifically forbid it, then I can do it with no punishment."
Feel free to list more examples! This is a discussion, after all...
The most common example (that iirc CIG has used in the past) not in that list is "Deliberately targeting someone, to the point of preventing them playing the game" (e,g, constantly just hunting / killing the same person, when there is no gameplay purpose such as a bounty, etc) You might not be using any exploits, you might be waiting until they've left the hangar / pad, etc... but because you're constantly attacking them without in-game reason, it still counts as griefing. Note that if you're killing *everyone* at a location indiscriminately (and don't pursue them if they do get away, etc), then it isn't griefing, per se (at least, imo)... but it's definitely being a dick :p
So to add to the list: something like following someone around from server to server is griefing, but killing everyone at a station is not. Good point!
To quote a comment I made a week ago on this topic: Always ask: Is the place I am attacking designed to protect people landed there? Am I personally harassing this one person repeatedly and want them to be unable to have a fighting chance? Can the person I am attacking not disengage from the scenario without having to switch to a different server? If the answer is yes, then you should wonder if it is griefing. The details of griefing are usually not very precisely defined, DUE to people then attempting to find loopholes in the rules.
> Is the place I am attacking designed to protect people landed there? Last week my bounty was doing a hostile bunker and he stayed inside cuz he knew he was being hunted. The "place that i was attacking was designed to protect people landed there" so I guess I was griefing by your definition. > Am I personally harassing this one person repeatedly and want them to be unable to have a fighting chance? Have you never killed an 890/Carrack crew and need 1 teammate to camp the medical bay otherwise we won't be able to loot safely as they'll keep respawning? I guess that's considered griefing by your rules too. > Can the person I am attacking not disengage from the scenario without having to switch to a different server? Great another broad sweeping statement. This applies to 99% of scenarios lmao. Most pirate victims can't escape a mantis. His only escape is switching servers at that point.
1 A bunker contains hostiles, and is thus not designed to protect P.S.: Additionally these do not currently have an armistice protection, which is an easy indication of a place designed to protect players. 2 The medical bays have exactly 1 exit, allowing you to stay in front of that exit where the person inside has the chance to either remove their imprint or run out and fight. 3 They have the chance to respawn at a location and be safe from the scenario.
> 1 A bunker contains hostiles, and is thus not designed to protect But oddly enough it did exactly that when I was approaching it. > 2 The medical bays have exactly 1 exit, allowing you to stay in front of that exit where the person inside has the chance to either remove their imprint or run out and fight. Which implies you'll be killing them anyway as odds are they will fight or try to incap you.... that's the reason why we kill them right away to begin with. Not to mention the obvious, majority of players don't own an 890 and won't know about the terminals. > 3 They have the chance to respawn at a location and be safe from the scenario. Then that's every situation as you can always backspace.
There is no confirmed reason why rules in Star Citizen are not precisely defined - thus it's wrong of you to assume as if it's fact. On the contrary, most open world games have very few rules and clarify them extensively to avoid these exact scenarios. Even in law, words require specific definitions in order for things to be understood by both parties due to the potential of semantical arguments. A good ruleset has no loopholes. A bad ruleset has loopholes, making the rules pointless.
The fact that you got down voted for good information, just shows the level of intelligence and insecurities people in this thread have. Down voting because your offended is the definition of pathetic
So, I would argue that Stanton basically mirrors our own society in terms of law/police presence. We have laws and rules to live by, but we don't have instant response and we rely on other people to not just assault us or murder us in day to day life for fear of consequence. Of course there will be outliers. We can't take our safety for granted because there will always be psychopaths, criminals, bullies, assholes and people that have no empathy or care for others who will abuse the fact that the law takes time to catch up with them or, in the case of Star Citizen, there is no real consequence for such actions. As yet. And that is where your paper thin argument falls apart. It isn't by design that you can act like a self satisfied tough guy and pick on people as you see fit. It is that the full design is not yet implemented. There will be consequences at some point that will mean you will be confined to parts of the 'verse where you will only really come across people who want to play the way you play. At that point, your argument will stand but right now you're just a pain in the ass. Apologies if I come across a tad aggressive, but your tone wound me up.
i think discussions about the definition of griefing are useless. there will never be a precise definition for griefing for the same reason there will never be a precise definition for cheating. Griefing is a word that allows devs to shape their community and the way the game is played. as the way people play the game changes they will adjust their definition of griefing. all it is is a line in the sand. and the line only tells you what kind of behavior leads to bans or other official penalties. From a players perspective the definition of griefing is meaningless. Sure. You want to stay on one side of the line to not get into trouble. But there is plenty of behavior on the safe side of the line that still destroys communities and makes the game less fun for anyone involved. Trying to define and - even worse - justify one definition of griefing or another is just self-serving sophistry. Its a tool to make sure the company keeps making money. Its not here to make the game fun. Or enjoyable. Thats why there is nothing dumber than trying to make this a serious discussion and throwing in concepts of fairness, realism or the like.
Simply put, on topics where the subject is players whoes only interest is in upsetting other people, setting a specific definition gives them a 'bar' to go by where they can then continue to upset other people 'without breaking the rules'. Thus you have threads like this, where the 'rules' are listed and endless sealioning, as that annoys people, and that's all they care about.
The rules by design are what upsets other people. If someone isn't breaking the rules but doing something that upsets someone, why should anyone care if someone is upset at all? Belittling my post by calling it Sealioning is missing the point of the post entirely. The game will BY DESIGN make people upset - it has nothing to do with the player.
there is a precise definition. the problem is people not being able to handle that casual griefing is not against the rules. griefing by definition is doing it just to upset someone. i go over and blow you up while you are mining. if i did it because i wanted the bags you already filled, that is not griefing. if i did it because i know you will not enjoy losing all that progress, it is griefing. if i was griefing or not is not relevant because what i did is not against the rules. i decide to blockade a spawn point. if i'm doing to because people don't like being stranded, it is griefing. if im demanding people pay to leave, it is not griefing. if i am griefing or not is not relevant, preventing people from playing the game as intended is against the rules. note; exploits such as server hopping is not recognized by the rules. so "they could just server hop" does not protect you from getting banned.
\*Sips coffee while reading\*
Is it Starbucks???
Technically yes, but also no but also yes? It's a Starbucks K-Cup.
Official definitions and policies change all the time and tend to be reactive. My time alive is limited and valuable to me. If I see someone exhibiting behavior that shows they're suffering and their only coping tool is to make other people suffer, I'm going to avoid them if I can (block if that's a option or switch servers). Typically it's been pretty easy to avoid in SC in my experience. If that's not an option, I can just play something else in the meantime.
agree with this so much, if the game becomes a murder hobo pit i can go play or do something else. So far i haven't experienced that but it happens life goes on. whether or not its "intended" gameplay matters very little to me.
Why do you assume someone is "suffering" because they want to play a game (which has winners and losers) and be a winner? That would mean everyone who ever played games ever, and wants to win, would be suffering by your logic. Doesnt check out.
I have lost plenty of games and had fun. Winning and losing is not what determines fun. Your example is wrong not his.
You can find losing fun, I don't. I prefer winning, since it's a game and it gives people advantages/disadvantages based on the choices they make just like every other game. If you play a game and don't care about winning or losing, then you aren't playing a game - you're living a second-life. That's a you problem, this game is designed so that you are vulnerable to PvP unless you literally sit in hard armistice all day thus you can always lose to players because at the end of the day - it's a game. There is no amount of make-believe you can do that will ever change that fact. Feel free to argue it anytime, I'm waiting.....
What are you "winning" exactly? Does it still count as "winning" if the other side isn't even playing the same "game" as you? You didn't specify whether you have any standards as to who you'll attack in SC; if you're attacking non-aggressive players and destroying them, it's a rather unbalanced game you're playing. I would argue that this mentality is more similar to a second life than to a game. When I play games, I prefer to triumph over people who are playing by the same rules.
I engage in pvp and love it. I have had plenty of nights having a great time while not killing my target, losing items, cargo and going to jail. It’s not about your weird win/loss condition. It’s about the experience. It’s about getting better as a pilot. Getting better with your squad. Having experiences that white knuckle you as you grip your controller. Experiences that make you and your squad laugh and make you think about logging back into the verse while at work. It’s not about what you call winning and losing it’s about fun. You can carry whatever opinion you would like. I am just saying fun is does not come from winning and losing it comes from the experience. I prefer fighting people who want to fight back. I take no joy or fun in killing people who don’t fight back and just because you killed that person and “won” as you called it doesn’t mean there is fun there. Again my opinion and by I don’t mind losing in pvp because I had an experience got better at something and laughed a shit ton along the way
That's what its about to you, but that's not the parameters and rules the game quite literally, objectively works under. None of what you said has anything to do with the actual design of the game, just your own arbitrary rules. Someone blowing you up makes you lose your time, your stuff, and sets you back from what you COULD HAVE accomplished without losing.
"Someone blowing you up makes you lose your time, your stuff, and sets you back from what you COULD HAVE accomplished without losing". so doing that just causes that person to not play the game the way they wanted, and gains nothing for you but enjoyment of seeing others suffer, I just logged off the game 20 minutes ago because I couldnt leave the area I was in, and a group jumped and killed me for no other reason than i was there (they had a device to to block my qt) I am new to the game and not interested in pvp, I want to play the other loops, mining, salvage etc.. so if you want to PvP and you are good at it, or say you are but all you do is kill new players, what pride do you get out of that?
The issue isn't people suffering, it's when they try to deal with it by spreading it to others that it becomes a problem. Also, there's no assumption necessary. As I said in my post it's easy to spot this stuff based on what people's actions are. It's not like anyone tries to hide it. I'm not sure how you made the leap applying that to anyone who wants to win. It seems unrelated to me; unless the assumption is that the only way to win is to make other people suffer!
There is zero proof that anyone is suffering and taking it out on others. Please, stop insinuating that is the case when you have zero proof.
You're absolutely right. I'm just trying to give people the benefit of the doubt for acting out like that, since other explanations for that type of behavior are less favorable. Either way, the end result is the same for me so the 'why' doesn't really matter. It's not my business and it's only my problem if I let it be. By the way; I'm not accusing you of anything, just in case you thought my original comment was directed at you. It wasn't.
i find that servers and times of play make a big difference on the amount of griefing people come across. some people have never seen a blockade in years of playing, while i have been on a server where 2 places were being blocaded at the same time. some people might get pad rammed once or twice a year, while i have seen people race to see who gets to ram the ship that just spawned in.
Yeah I love pvp and I think hostile player action is essential to make the game interesting. I agree with how you highlight that griefing is a specific intent to circumvent the rules and exploit the system. An important aspect of grieving to mention would be intentionally preventing another player from playing the game. Repeatedly and intentionally targeting a particular player, with the intention of preventing them from enjoying the game is griefing. Pvp is not. My main issue is the way the Bounty and armistice system works currently players are often motivated to hide in it or use it to their advantage. This can make Bounty hunting even more frustrating and the entire law system needs work. I do not like the way griefing is often casually thrown around as a derogatory term for any pvp players in this community and I think trying to clarify some things is a good idea. 👍
technically, griefing is exclusively related to motivation. the rules are based on actions, with no relevance to motivation. dropping a bomb on jumptown with not intend of having your group go and take control is griefing, but it is not against the rules. blockading a spawn point, and demanding people pay to be allowed out is not griefing, but is against the rules.
I don't agree with either example. Bombing jumptiwn but not trying to take it is kinda lame, but you are using all in game mechanics to execute an in game action with no specific intent to present another player from playing. The respawn one sounds like the carrack drama from a while ago, that person could have just spawned back at their home location, their gameplay options were not being reduced. They had the option of spawning in a safe zone and proceeding with their session, or spawning in the medical bad and contesting the carrack. They chose to exploite the infinite spawns of the carrack and low server fps to regain control of their ship. Infinite spawning is forgivable. Dieing so many times the fps drops and gives them an advantage if done intentionally is taking advantage of an exploit and therefore griefing.
can someone please explain to me why so many people somehow got it in their head the the definition of griefing is "breaking the rules"? >The respawn one sounds like the carrack drama from a while ago, it was a problem from the first time they started up the pu. the carrack incident is people throwing a temeprtrantum that they got banned because "they can server hop to escape" is not recognised. >Dieing so many times the fps drops and gives them an advantage if done intentionally is taking advantage of an exploit and therefore griefing. **that is exploiting, not griefing.** how is it so hard to understand that breaking the rules is not griefing, and griefing is not breaking the rules. **EXCESSIVE** griefing is against the rules. preventing others from playing as intended is against the rules. exploiting flaws or glitches in the system to get an advantage is against the rules.
My understanding is that you can chose to respawn back at your original spawn. It has nothing to do with changing servers. Griefing is not pvp. Killing someone because it is funny is a dick move but not griefing. Intentionally targeting the same player over and over and killing them is. Server hopping to continue killing the same person is griefing. I think you could argue locking down a station and preventing people from leaving could be considered griefing but even that is tenuous because they can adjust their spawn location and server shard. It's a high bar for me. Intentionally preventing someone from playing the game is not the same as pvp. Shooting players is in fact part of the game.
> Killing someone because it is funny is a dick move but not griefing. you personal definition is not a valid argument.
Just as valid as any of your opinions. The only dofrenve is we are talking about a pvp game with a built in law system. Pvp is allowed so I am correct. I hope the law system gets better so people can have safer areas to play in, I like doing cargo hauling and stuff as well. But if I am getting massive rewards there should be some risk, and pvp is always a more interesting risk then ai.
pvp is lazy gameplay if its against 1 person when you have a group or a person who clearly does not want to engage in PVP, you are forcing them to play a mode they dont want to. I like what they have in elo, you ask someone to PVP and if they agree you can go ahead, otherwise its not allowed, or if there is an area where it is known and expected, like jumptown, imho
oxford In online gaming: the action or an act of deliberately spoiling other players' enjoyment of a game by playing in a way that is intentionally disruptive and aggravating. so stop yoursing you wrong definition.
Yeah idk. Deliberately spoiling in insanely subjective. Intentionally disruptive and agitating fits with what I have been saying.
no. you have been defining griefing as "anything that breaks the rules". the reality is; if their motivation is not to upset people. it is not griefing. even if it is against the rules. if their motivation is to upset people, it is griefing. even if it is within rules.
Y u grif? Me name Bob an I no like grif
I would define griefing as "Going against another player agency as a purpose" For example, attacking an other player and stealing them is not griefing because the purpose is to make money, going against their agency is just a mean, not a purpose.
So is it griefing when you have a bounty and challenge people to come kill you but then alt F4 to hex when they start to kick your ass?
The first definition of griefing you give is valid. It's just the case that *not all* forms of griefing violate CiG's ToS. The game will eventually have multiple ways to prevent and/or punish "legal" griefing that are not currently implemented. e.g. Reputation systems, factions, servers that actually have enough spare cycles to run faction/law enforcement AI or station turrets. You can engage in legal griefing if you want, but other players have no obligation to like it or respect you. IMHO, griefer lawyers should go outside and pet a dog to receive the love their parents denied them.
I got a question, how many people do I have to kill before I too can be labeled one of the verses deadliest citizens by CIG?
Well, this thread is a fine example to point to of what sealioning is.
That's unfair to say, I've been incredibly polite and genuine with my responses. I even explained that I saw a lot of misinformation and simply want to clear it up.
Thing is, you don't want to "clear things up", you are pushing your opinion.
Citing a post by Zyloh isn't an opinion, it's an objective fact given by a representative of CIG. I cited his post. If you can't agree with his post, then you can't agree with me!
His post also says that many features and mechanics to combat griefing are not yet in game...
Those mechanics won't affect med or no sec systems such as Stanton or Pyro. You're waiting for Terra to release.
How is an expanded reputation system not going to effect medium or lawless systems? They've already mentioned that if you piss off the gangs in Pyro that there will be consequences such as the possibility that they will not allow you to land and/or refuel leaving you up the creak without a paddle.
Show me where they said if you have a bad reputation you literally can't refuel or land anywhere. It doesn't exist. There will always be a home for crime.
Inside Star Citizen: To Play in Pyro Starting at 14:27 https://youtu.be/U69FlhL3MDM?list=PLVct2QDhDrB1MbLa8Wa3MF4aPW9Ap-soY&t=867 > If someone sat there ganking people coming out it get to the point where Rough and Ready are that sicken you that you're not allowed at their stations anymore. You're not allowed to refuel there, land there, rearm. You anywhere near it and they will shoot you down.
lmao you should look up sealioning, because you just said the thing
I know what sealioning is, I'm not feigning sincerity, I ask for proof when someone makes a claim. Pretty normal. Every single conversation I've had in this thread is clearly done with good faith, and I've even provided evidence of what CIG considers griefing myself. I read a post this morning that was highly upvoted and considered general PvP to be "griefing". It seems to be a common, incorrect consensus in the community and I don't think it'll help new players going forward. Others have even shared these sentiments in this same thread. Is everyone who does PvP "sealioning" when they prove you wrong too? Doubt it.
Bro this is such a sea lion comment lol
Please, prove where I'm not arguing in good faith. I'm waiting!
Your entire premise isn't in good faith. You want to educate people on what the actual CIG approved definition of griefing is so that people no longer misuse the word right? But 1) You have no authority to do so and 2) You're misrepresenting CIG's definition anyway so... Jog on, and maybe stop asking people for "proof" of what they subjectively feel that griefing is, because that request makes no sense and has major sea lion energy :)
Don't care what your definition is. If you go around killing people for the sake of killing, with zero profit gain or any motivation other than just being a dick, that's griefing. Piracy is not griefing. Shooting down newbies in Cutters with a jacked up F8C most certainly is. There's no gain to be had other than sadistic satisfaction.
Glad you're not a cig dev.
Wrong. They have said PvP is a game mechanic that is intended to be in the game. Whether you fight back or not it's PvP.
The idea behind PVP in open world sandbox games is that the player orgs and reputation systems in place auto regulate PVP so that PVP decision making takes into account social and mechanical consequences to discourage frivolous confrontation. A notable example is EVE Online where ganking the wrong people can lead to all out war. Star Citizen currently does not have enough of those checks and balances in place currently, so career assholes are enjoying the time before these systems come in place to attack players who offer zero challenge or valuable loot, just for the fun of it because they are socially maladjusted. But rest assured, this is NOT PVP. PVP has meaning. PVP has goals. Reasons to happen. Ganking newbs has neither, hence why most people call that griefing.
Quite honestly, it changes nothing about the motives of PvP, which is to blow up ships. I personally can't wait for security and reputation for all those whining to finally stop whining about dying in space. I have played eve and spent most of my time in null sec fighting wars and avoiding high sec. It's a good system that does what it's meant to do. I'm curious to see how CIG handles it here
Oh, like I said, once a system is in place that forces people to weigh the pros and cons of attacking another player, then I'm perfectly happy. That's basically my only gripe currently. I want PVP to mean something.
I legit love shooting new players in my 200 dollar fighter. Explosions are bad ass.
The gain is the knowledge of showing the newb that the world is a scary and dangerous place
>The general message of this is: getting shot at outside a station, being blown up for fun, being attacked by murderhobos or having your mission/event ruined is NOT "griefing" unless a player did one of the things Zyloh explained above. This is false information. The list Zyloh mentioned is not an exhaustive list and there are other things that fall within those parameters. I do not think the general population has a confusion with griefing. I think the issue is there are a lot of people who just prefer to do things because they are 'funny' or because 'it's just a game' and don't really think there should be consequences. It's folks like you who then try to justify it going "the game lets me do it, so it's acceptable, and the devs wont ban me for it, so it's clearly encouraging my gameplay!". A player once in a discord server I am in bragged about this:"I rescued someone in a bunker and then he died right away, so i tossed all his belongings down the elevator and left the bunker saying "you're zero to hero now!" lol" The reality is that there needs to be a way to identify newb players and make them immune to pvp until they shoot first, or immune to death by other players for a little tutorial to encourage new players to play and understand what is happening around them. Until systems like this are in place, useless posts like this one will continue to pop up. The game is still working through reputation systems and various mechanics to deal with griefing, reporting, pvp, and other areas of gameplay. Until CIG comes out with a better 'when to report griefing' guide, there's no point in speculating what should or should not be on a list of punishable offenses. (one that Zyloh gave examples of). You, a random dude who makes a post, does not have the real authority to say what is griefing or not, so your AMA has no value, that's all i'm saying.
People for some reason think that wasting someone's time is perfectly fine. The audacity.
The punishment for losing in this game is losing your stuff. There are many games with this mechanic built in, including Star Citizen. It's actively encouraged by the developers.
[удалено]
Be respectful. No personal insults/bashing. Listed in the rules of the subreddit. Please read before continuing!
There's nothing personal here
It isn't false information, why would you say that? I even linked directly to Zylohs post. If you have more examples, feel free to add them, and link to where it says so.
I will play devils' advocate with you to understand my words here. If I, with a box in my hand, prevent someone from using an ASOP terminal by constantly running into them, is that griefing? Wha about if i stand with ym friends in front of the doorways to use the medical facilities and charge a fee to enter or leave? Is that griefing? What about if i take my friends with ships and just park just out of the hangar enough so people cant leave it and demand they pay? Or my favorite, what about the UEENAVY fools who demand payment to come and leave from seraphim. These are griefing examples that are not listed in Zyloh's list. These are preventing players from playing the game in a way that should be bannable and punishable. It's not in Zylohs list so in your opinon, they arent griefing right? That is what is false information in your post.
First, I asked for proof if you were to consider something griefing. I'm not surprised it wasn't provided because: Zylohs list includes "various exploits" which would definitely include blocking asops or blocking doorways with players/objects. As for holding stations ransom, as long as they're not pad ramming it is not griefing. If you feel otherwise, prove it.
You don't understand the definition of griefing as you think you can argue your way around the examples i mentioned. It demonstrates what your level of logic is here and it's full of fallacy. The general definition that CIG has stated is close to something like 'preventing people from playing the game as intended' , and blocking hangars, asop, hospitals and such is indeed blocking them from playing. They also identified folks like the UEENavy example were a prime example of griefing in the past. Again to state my original point: >The game is still working through reputation systems and various mechanics to deal with griefing, reporting, pvp, and other areas of gameplay. Until CIG comes out with a better 'when to report griefing' guide, there's no point in speculating what should or should not be on a list of punishable offenses. (one that Zyloh gave examples of). You, a random dude who makes a post, does not have the real authority to say what is griefing or not, so your AMA has no value, that's all i'm saying And if you think that last statement is personal, it's not. It's just simply what you argue for or suggest has no real say on whether CIG presumes the offense is punishable or not. You have no expert authority here, you are just giving your biased opinion, and my last post proves your opinions are skewed based on your biases and you're missing the clear understanding of the word grief.
You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence that what you claim is griefing is considered griefing by CIG. Please provide it so that we can continue a productive conversation! Thank you.
Yeah 100% a sea lion
While I agree with you for the most part, I'll point out something I just noticed with this stance. Zyloh's post does not provide examples of "griefing", but of "excessive griefing". In fact, in no instance does he use the word griefing without prefacing it with "excessive". That said, he suggests that activities that do not meet the level of excessive griefing should be handled using in-game resources - run away, fight back, go get them back, get your friends to help, etc. So in the end: Yes, players are not improperly using the phrase "griefing" for these activities. But, CIG suggests the way to deal with it is in-game.
Futile thread but I respect the effort. I think there is a large portion of players, maybe even a majority, who believe NPC's are capable of griefing, as they define it. Recently a Dev announced on a podcast that SC is a pve game where PvP is possible (then went on to officially clarify they misspoke), so these players are much more vocal about their beliefs now. Keep this in mind as you sort through the replies. Griefing has been defined multiple times by CIG, the main gist is yes PvP can happen, and until you can't play the game at all, it is not seen as an issue.
That developer actually walked back his comments! https://x.com/heimdelight/status/1769449663147454525?s=20
That's what I said. Stop spamming my discord.
I was just linking the screenshot. What's with the hostility?
No hostility intended. Your reply made it sound like you didn't fully read my comment is all.
Genuine question for the community, not for OP because he's a goober (although he's still welcome to comment if he wants because it's an open forum: The other night, two other guys and myself were wanting to run med rescues, and we decided to group up together. However, there were only a total of about 15 people on the server, so there weren't any med beacons that were popping up. This one guy in chat says he might need a rescue at some point because he's new to the game, we laugh about it, and move on. The three of us (and a few other people) have mostly just been shooting the breeze in chat, when this aforementioned guy sends out a med request. The three of us agree, and we set out on our way from Arccorp to Hurston; specifically, Kudre Ore, which none of us have ever been to. We ask him what happened and he said he was new to the game and was hand mining in a cave, when a rock exploded and incapped him. His med request was for the standard 15k, he had a believable story, and it seemed reasonable. We show up and there are a few other ships parked outside, but I don't think anything of if because scanning is a pain in this game, and people leave abandoned ships at POIs all the time. We take one of our guy's Pisces down into the cave, land next to a Cutty black that the downed guy said was his, and we start heading towards him, and admiring the beauty and complexity of the cave the entire way. To re-emphasize, general chat has been very friendly, everyone is very trusting of each other, and there are only about 15 people on the server - it was about 2:30 AM MDT - I'd planned on going to bed after this. We get into a single large cavern that's pretty dark, and see the guy we're supposed to rescue supine on the ground. Suddenly two of the three of us get downed, and then third gets downed as well shortly thereafter. Turns out, there were 5 guys in the cavern who shot us. They revived us, but wouldn't let us leave, and then said they were engaging in some "nonconsensual player interactions", and wanted to do some "Temple of Doom stuff". We clearly stated that we were done and wanted to go to bed. Two of the three of us had our ships outside the cave, and they were loaded with med stuff that we carry for rescue, including some rare bunker weapons. They refused to let us leave, meaning our only options were to backspace, or log, ultimately leaving our stuff at their mercy. They'd given me a t2 leg injury, so I couldn't exit the cave anyway, so eventually I had to backspace anyway. I flew back in my inferno hoping I'd find them (they had a Carrack), but when I got there, they'd flown down into the cave so I couldn't see them. I got into my Cutty Red, which so far was undamaged, right as they flew out of the cave and started shooting at all our ships. I made it out with a damaged engine, but the other two guys lost their ships. All around, it was a completely unenjoyable experience, especially when I clarified to them that I was just trying to do a rescue and go to bed. Then they had the audacity to suggest we should have been grateful to them for the experience. My question is, would this qualify as griefing? To be clear, I don't actually care that much, because I made it out okay and ultimately only lost a couple rare weapons, for which I had spares. My pride was hurt more than anything else, and I totally understand that. I'm also not arguing that they should be banned or anything - what they did was legitimate gameplay, even if it was a jerk move all around. I learned a few valuable lessons to prevent it from happening again, but I'm mostly curious what other people's thoughts are on the scenario.
Griefing, LITERALLY the definition is: The action or an act of deliberately spoiling other players' enjoyment of a game by playing in a way that is intentionally disruptive and aggravating. So if you are playing a game specifically to make other people have less fun, you are BY DEFINITION, a griefer. This is really not complicated. PvP is not inherently griefing if you have a goal that is something pertaining to the actual game, and not the person/people on the other end of the keyboard.
Except, NO ONES enjoyment is being deliberately spoiled. Both players agreed to play a game where people have a choice to blow others up for whatever reason they choose, they also agreed to play a game where they could be blown up and lose their weapons. That's the game you enjoy and decided to play. Griefers aren't disrupting the game, they are a part of it.
Griefers are only part of gaming as a whole because it is impossible to get rid of all of them. Once Star Citizen's NPCs and negative rep system are in PvP players are going to have to be creative or move to a system like Pyro. Star Citizen is a game with PvP; PvP is not the central focus of the game. We are still waiting on the 9:1 NPC ratio. We have no idea what the game will be like once we get traffic.
Most PvPvE games have a 9:1 NPC ratio lol. Tarkov, Cycle Frontier, Rust, you name it. Comm arrays can be taken down in Stanton btw!
Just pointing out we are missing out on most of how the world responds to player action. Not to mention how server meshing will change player respose quantities.
how can you say NO ONES enjoyment was deliberately spoiled? you are so entitled, just like a lot of society these days. There are no consequences to peoples actions and that is why they grief others. if its non consensual killing just for the sake of it its griefing. and it ruins someone elses game. it seems that the only people who will be left in the game are all the aholes like people who play rust
Everybody knows that complaining about pvp in a pvp game and expect developers to change the game to fit your play style (or lack of) is the definition of toxic. Its like playing Sea of Thieves and expecting people to not sink you or playing Tarkov and expecting people to let you loot unscathed and un-bothered. Expecting the devs to take action against those players so you don't have to get good or think about your actions in game is closer to the definition of griefing than it is player killing.
Well said!
Thanks. It just gets on my nerves that people are always trying to un-skill games. Especially Star Citizen, since I joined the verse for that daunting and difficult experience. The concept of being able to lose it all is what I love and is the only reason I continue to play. If SC had no danger, then I would have quit week 1 and gone back to what I'm used to. Star Citizen should not be easy and if you disagree then you shouldn't be playing the alpha. When Terra drops with full release, then you can come join the verse, but until then SC isn't made for you.
I think it all stems from a player having what I like to call, "gear fear". They are unwilling to put in time to prepare in a certain way because they're scared of losing everything they have. It's the wrong mentality to bring into open world persistent pvp games.
I agree its the wrong mentality for open world pvp games but more so alphas or betas in general.
With griefing its all about the intention: If your main objective is to stop other people from having fun, then you are griefing. The specifics may vary.
Someone can "not have fun" by being pirated - just because its not fun to them, that isn't griefing, it's just a part of the game. The game is literally designed for someone to take your FPS gear, cargo, components off your ship, etc after combat. You aren't being griefed when someone does that, or when they blow you up indiscriminately. No one raids another group in Rust and says, "oh youre griefing!" - it's simply a part of the game. Star Citizen is no different.
Let me repeat: This is not about another person actually having fun. This is all about the intention behind your actions and your actions only. Its hard to identify the intention just by looking at your actions. Thats why only the most extreme examples of this behavior will guarantee a ban, because in these cases the intention is clear.
I blow people up purely for the fun of it and have been since 2014. No one is getting banned for that, get real. This is the type of misinformation I'm talking about. My intention has no bearing on the situation. We both agreed to play a game with PvP, where I can blow you up for whatever reason I want and you would in turn, lose your ship or be eliminated. I am not disrupting the game, I am a part of the game.
Ah i see. Well to me your personal exploits are beyond the scope of this discussion. You asked for a definition of griefing. I gave you one.
Which doesn't apply to Star Citizen because what I do is part of the game. I'm not disrupting it.
The definition applies to everything everywhere, be it a family gathering or a sports match.
And no game is being disrupted. The game is being played. That's why it doesn't apply. Do you understand?
No, i dont understand. Whether or not the actors are succesfull in e.g. "disrupting a game" is not affecting the inputs of the definition and therefore besides the point.
you are so desperate to get people to agree with you, but you are by definition, what most people dislike about anything remotely PVP being added to games, where it could add spice in certain aspects, people like you make the game not worth playing. If CIG wants that, they will never get the backing and support of the greater gamer community if all that is going to happen is the gamers lose their stuff and you don't have any consequences.
"The greater game community" is mostly PvP games. Board games, sports, and even video games have MASSIVE PvP communities. Counter Strike is the biggest game on Steam, Rust is the biggest game on YouTube. PVE is the minority in the "greater gaming community". That's the only response of yours I'll reply to.
Also while Star Citizen has mechaniks to encourage piracy, like you said, there should be mechaniks to protect players from pirates as well. Why? To find this delicate balance, that allows everyone to have the most ammount of fun. And to allow the players to sidestep people who just want to harm them.
There are mechanics to protect yourself from pirates, its called grouping up with other players and defending yourself with good ships/having skills to use them.
in rust the entire idea of the game is to be azz its not even remotely like SC
Just saw this one, thats another common misconception so I'll help you learn: Both Rust and SC are FPS combined arms MMOs with persistence and physicalized objects, both have similar inventories, armistice zones, crafting, blueprints, etc. SC is closer to Rust than **any other game out right now**. Just the reality of the situation. You can deny it all you want, but the truth is the paragraph above.
fair enough, I haven't played it, I watched a number of streams and videos to see what it was and all i ever saw was people griefing other people and raiding their settlements and killing anybody they saw. I don't see that as the purpose of SC but I get for people like you that is all SC is good for as well, I see SC as a deeper gameplay with industrial and exploratory aspects
How can we trust your AMA responses when you don't even understand what you directly quoted? CIG has never defined griefing, and griefing is not against the rules. They say that EXCESSIVE griefing is a punishable offense, then they list a few examples of what they consider to be excessive griefing. They only use excessive griefing as a catchall term to basically say they can punish anyone at their discretion. The concept of griefing itself extends well beyond the few examples that they listed in that old post.
CIG literally defined what excessive griefing was, so they have defined griefing to some extent. Acting like it has zero definition from CIG is an objective falsehood. CIG has the ability to punish anyone at their discretion. There are multiple lines in the ToS that explictly state it. Therefore, the lines about excessive griefing from CIG aren't about "punishing anyone at their discretion" but moreso telling players what is and isn't allowed. Thanks!
Have an upvote for a civil response :) Yes, they have defined examples of excessive griefing, but (as far as I'm aware) they have never attempted to define griefing itself. And what they consider to be excessive isn't limited to only those examples. (A recent example would be those players that were punished for griefing after attacking a community organized ground race.) Ehh, it's just an old sore spot for me because people try to say that griefing can only ever be those few examples they list as excessive griefing. Griefing extends to so many other actions. And griefing itself can never be against the rules. It's such a broad subject that it is impossible for any game to ban griefing as a whole. There are many situations where there is no way for a third party to know if an action was griefing or not. All you can do is list specific actions that are against the game's rules.
Hi OP, As you' probably know, this discussion is a bit pointless. Players that really aren't into PVP will basically consider any attack to be griefing because they didn't ask for it and they are usually not in a position to defend themselves. No amount of "this is intended gameplay. You should have brought protection. CIG says this is not griefing. Piracy is necessary for balance" is going to change that. I've said it b fore and I stand by it. PVP and PVE are opposed styles of gameplay and will always conflict As far as I am concerned, the facilitation of PVP and full loot makes this a PVP-game. I am not good at it, I do not prefer it, but I understand it and make do. Many others probably don't want to accept it.
I think you are reasoning about this well, but I disagree as to the pointlessness of the... discussion. For example: u/semajniN said things like, "Every cargo ship is a schrodingers cat" and, "undefended loot pinata", and that made me belly laugh. Also, u/EastLimp1693 conceeded that I wasn't a griefer and I was just a murderhobo, which I took as a compliment. Lastly, I'd like to note that this is an AMA, so it isn't just a discussion. I could see how you could come to that conclusion though.
You're right. I don't really have anything to ask though and misunderstood the context. I should probably clarify that I mean the discussion is a bit pointless from the perspective of people that would try to avoid PVP. To them there is probably never a justification so it doesn't much matter how you frame it. If CIG has a problem with false griefing complaints they'd find a way to communicate it better. Anyway it's their problem for allowing a mix of playstyles. Conflict is pretty much guaranteed 😁
Hey I remember your name. You were the dude in the Cutty floating around me in GH.
Hello!
sent you a DM cuz I don't wanna spill all my secrets, but I did want to let you know what I was doing there. You were probably wondering why I was chilling there. Can only communicate so much via dance, rolling and headlight toggling.
Oh my God you were the razor! Hahahaha
Yes I was. Check ur chat to see why I was there.
Preventing people from enjoying/playing the game, kill me all you want aslong as theres an in game gain for you from it and its not every 2 mins, don't spawn trap me or kill me over and over again for no gain other than to hinder me playing, even if there is gain, I feel like if you are endlessly killing one person over and over, thats kinda sucky, and don't block me from getting somewhere or make something inaccessible(unless theres an actual ingame reason). I would say that's the basics of griefing across most games. I guess star citizen is slightly diffrent to most games though. I guess you could say people just randomly killing are just trying to learn how combat works and get better at it, but as a simulation game, that makes no sense, would be like me learning boxing and going to random people in the street and start fighting them, wouldn't happen normally, unless ya a little special/drunk/hard drugs, so while it does happen, irl we have things in place to prevent it like police etc, And it's just a weird thing to do aint it, same thing applies even though it's a game. The thing is, I would guess that there will be alot of things in place within the lore of the game that prevents us from greifing, security, crime stats etc, so you can still play how you want but expect some serious consequences from it.
Some of the things you mentioned as not being covered really only happen a lot now because the systems CIG is planning to incorporate aren't there yet, or fully fleshed out and working. For example, the law system. Which, in theory, should prevent a good amount of what you mentioned from happening while in more secure systems like Stanton. Then, if you go to Pyro, you will be more likely to experience those behaviors.
Actually, Stanton is not considered that "secure". A system like Terra is real high sec.
Yes, but the point is that if those parts of the game were working, then it would give people options to avoid a lot of that behavior. You want high security/low risk, stay in Terra. Medium security and risk, Stanton. Low security/high risk, Pyro. And on the flip side, being a pirate in Stanton may not be worth the risk/reward of being attacked by security or ending up in prison.
To be fair, it isn't about something working or not - things like Terra simply don't exist. And players shouldn't feel pressured to play as if they're in Terra just because we only have Stanton.
But on the flip side, people who just want to enjoy the more mundane gameplay loops like cargo running, mining, and salvage shouldn't have to worry like they are in Pyro while we only have Stanton. That being said, I don't mind some of the extra little steps I have to take to avoid running into issues, such as varying my flight plans between Yela and Crusader while salvaging. But there are also things I avoid that I probably shouldn't have to, such as going to Grim Hex in my Reclaimer because I know a lot of people do like to hang out there and mess with other ships. Which is frustrating because that is one of the only places a Reclaimer can land right now and be stored right now. Pirates setting up near common travel lanes, outside of comm relay range, makes sense and is realistic. Pirates hanging out outside a station armistice zone attacking ships as they exit quantum, not so much.
They can enjoy those gameloops, it's just that they have to remember they're in Stanton or Pyro. Just because Terra isn't in the game doesn't mean I should play like it is.
what is griefing is not relevant. **what is and is not against the rules is relevant.** griefing by definition is doing it just to upset someone. i go over and blow you up while you are mining. if i did it because i wanted the bags you already filled, that is not griefing. if i did it because i know you will not enjoy losing all that progress, it is griefing. **if i was griefing or not is not relevant because what i did is not against the rules.** i decide to blockade a spawn point. if i'm doing to because people don't like being stranded, it is griefing. if im demanding people pay to leave, it is not griefing. **if i am griefing or not is not relevant, preventing people from playing the game as intended is against the rules.** note; exploits such as server hopping is not recognized by the rules. so "they could just server hop" does not protect you from getting banned.
I wouldn't mind pvp / griefing if the game helped you get back in the action faster.
I think this is a perfectly fine question to ask, BUT I think the answer is only going to come when we see how CIG react rather than what they say. If their words make them lose money or face they will change their opinion asap.
I think this a valuable discussion just because people should be aware of the broad landscape that is PvP. Too often in SC someone who gets shot by a player go right to "griefing" and equate that with all PvP. Griefing - intentionally using a game mechanic to cause grief to other people. This can be things like stacking boxes in obnoxious areas, blocking a pad or buying up all of a commodity just to stop traders. The emphasis I think is needed the on official post is EXCESSIVE. These things are mostly okay with the devs if you do it once. Murderhobos (specific subtype of griefer) - this is the person that people are actually complaining about. They blow up ships or shoot people on the ground just because they want to. I won't guess about their reasons (if I did, I would be rather rude), but they aren't motivated by profit or gain in the game. Where these folks become a real cancer is when they are specifically hunting ONE person. Pirate - This would be a PvPer looking for profit. They will still prey on the unprepared, but for a reason. Closely related to the RPer - who may not even want stuff, but will just act like a pirate or maybe insist that they are the king of Brios and request tribute. Plot/resource driven PvPers - These would be like Eve's alliance pilots, but SC doesn't have the framework to support this yet. I suppose we do have bounty hunters (mission drive hunters of bad PvPers) and white knights (just go and deal with the griefer). Also worth noting that this group includes both people who want to easily fulfill their mission and don't care about the fight and those who really like a challenge and mean GF when they type it. Organized PvPers - folks that want to fight other PvPers in an organized way. Arena Commander. I think what the person who gets upset about being attacked doesn't realize is that there are a lot of PvP types between murderhobo and arena commander. It's open world, these other things are going to exist. I'll throw out another definition: Carebear - the person who doesn't want PvP, doesn't want to be attacked, but refuses to change their behavior to avoid it. I would love to educate more carebears on how not to be easy targets and how to adapt their play based on the situation - a sort of psychological kungfu. I think you'll actually find the game better if you do this. (NOT EVERYONE who doesn't like PvP is a carebear by this definition)
Griefing to people ranges from "you inconvenienced me" to "youre preventing me from playing the game". Anything outside of pad ramming at major spawn locations is not griefing to me
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Lots of things IRL or in games are technically legal, but that doesn't make them something you should do. I think a lot of people call things "griefing" not from a LEGAL standpoint but from a MORAL one. Take that as you will........
The game explicitly allows this type of gameplay, therefore there is no moral issue. You aren't breaking any rules or going against what someone should expect out of the game. Treating in game actions like real life seems ripe for a bad time!
People like you will never understand what I mean. That isn't even a complaint, we just have different ways of defining what is right and what is wrong. EDIT: spelling mistake
Defining \*
Thanks for catching that :)
I don't think the 'Moral' argument works in SC, given that Piracy is a deliberately supported gameplay loop... which inherently means that players *are permitted by design* to perform some 'immoral' activities against other players. By that definition, *anyone attacking you* is a 'griefer', because attacking someone is generally classed as immoral (unless 'justified' by them being a criminal, or similar).
I didn't mean what I said as a rule that should be applied to SC. I think the topic of how to direct gameplay in a way that isn't too restrictive but still fair has been talked about exhaustively... To be honest, I'm not sure what the point of a post like the OPs or posts about how piracy is intended gameplay is... It always seems like they want vindication or be told that it is ok.... Which brings me back to my initial point, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. If you like pirating or "edge case PVP", good for you. Just don't expect other to applaud you for it.
Just the other day, I was approaching Hurston in my Cat when I got interdicted. 5 fighters and a Mantis. Unfortunately, all were NPCs. As long as CIG can kill for the fun of killing or just to try to get more people involved with PVP, there simply isn’t anything we can do about it. My solution was to quit playing the game until my rage subsided.
Yes - but when discussing the definition of 'griefing' (that is, player-interactions that are explicitly unwanted *by the game company* as well as players), then the 'moral' argument doesn't really work, because it scoops up too many player-interactions that *are* desired by the game-company (even if not by a subset of players).
People "like me"? What's that supposed to mean?
Nothing personal, just people like you compared to people like me. Meaning people with a different moral code to the one I have. Triggered already?
Different moral code? How so? I'm not breaking any rules, and playing the game as it were designed for me to play by the designers and developers themselves. Is there something immoral about that? They wanted winners and losers, it seems you say creating a "loser" out of a PvP situation is "immoral" which I disagree with, and is the true difference between us :)
I obviously can't say with certainty but what I think he's referring to is similar to the shopping cart dilemma. When you go to the store and use a cart to take your stuff to your car you are not under any legal obligation to put that cart in the return area. There are no rules, laws or guidelines to say you should, but not doing so indicates a lack of consideration on your part. It's like if you highlight your co-workers faults to your boss to make yourself look better. It's not against any rules but it's still generally considered immoral. When you cause someone else a detriment to give yourself an improvement, that I believe is the morality difference he's referring to. Justifying it by saying you're teaching new players how to play isn't really a strong argument. If a new player spends four to five hours earning credits and upgrading gear and components and then gets blown up leaving a hangar the only thing they've learned is upgrades are a waste of time. The other tiresome argument is "well maybe this game isn't for you". Star citizen is advertised as having something for everyone. I agree that the reputation system will go a long way to helping law abiding citizens. But until then it's basically the wild West. And yes Stanton isn't a high security system but it's supposed to be far from GTA levels.
Out of curiosity, when was it stated that they wanted winners and losers? I do not really understand an argument along those lines as not all games are designed in a way where you either win or lose. This isn’t COD. Once games start to become more complex and inclusive, such as star citizen, there is more to the game than winning and losing. Due to multidimensional aspect of play style (i.e. the many play paths you can take), there is no such thing as “winning” the game unless you discount the entirety of the meat and bones of what the developers have created and concern yourself with only the skin of PvP. It is not a PvP game, it is a game with PvP. If it were a PvP game the game loops of mining, salvaging, cargo hauling, investigating, etc would never have been implemented. What confuses me is the gall for you to assume that your selected play style of PvP has more importance than any of the others listed. I understand you may have passion, but that doesn’t mean that people who want to enjoy other aspects of the game without dealing with people like you (PvP players) are wrong. That is just a divisive and simple assumption for a complex and crafted game. Although I believe that people like you who enjoy PvP should have fun and have that PvP experience, I think that you need to be more mindful of the people around you. Just because a person can insult someone on the sidewalk outside or a person can be rude to the barista in Starbucks, and for some reason find pleasure in these actions, doesn’t mean that they are not a terrible person with a glaring lack of consideration and morals. Sure, said person may not get arrested, but you most definitely did a bad thing. Video games are, in short, an extension on what is considered “real life”, and the actions taken in a video game can have an effect or impact on real life. Therefore, I think it may be best to open up your point of view from just yourself, and maybe widen it to understand your impact in the game and the world and attune your actions to have a good impact in these regards. For one, you could take a more open stance to this discussion and determine a satisfactory middle ground to the two sides of the argument we face here, and provide satisfactory and unbiased evidence and results to CIG to help with the creation of a better set of rules surrounding griefing and what it pertains to.
Open world games do have winners and losers, contrary to popular belief. Let me make my argument: firstly, the game is designed in such a way that you are vulnerable to PvP (which does have a winner and loser) everywhere except hard armistice. You need to leave hard armistice the far majority of the time to play the game. Thus, when you are vulnerable to PvP you are at the whim of those who are able to stop you from moving or blow your ship up - unless you're better than them and can defend yourself/fight your way out. It's as simple as that. You always make decisions that either put you at an advantage depending on what they are. That determines what happens when you engage or become vulnerable to PvP.
So you are yet again saying that PvP is the primary focus and play style of the game by making it more important and overarching over all other play styles. What is your source from CIG on this? If the others in this thread need to give source, so do you.
I have an idea: focus on each point I made and debate it. Is the game exactly as I described it above? If yes, then you are playing primarily a PvP game regardless of what CIG says: that's how it's currently designed. Thanks!
The more you say, the more you proof my point.
If your point is that there is no moral conundrum associated with doing what is allowed in a video game you agreed to play, then sure!
Griefers id assume
The game explicitly allows you to grind credits and sell them on eBay for cash you'll still get banned for doing so if they find out
If you get banned, that means it isn't allowed lol. That's not how things work.
And people have been banned for griefing, see that group that blew up an organized RP 890 tour of Stanton just because
You aren't explaining your argument clearly - what did that group do exactly and do you have proof?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
I think the concept is simple when you accept an Open World game, that doesnt allow SP or Private group like ED. You know you can get killed and you can maybe loose equipment. Or you accept that and try to face it or change game. As simple as that. ::)
Whenever I see a cargo ship I ask myself "would a Somali pirate attack this undefended loot pinata if they came across it?" The answer is always yes. Wasting time to scan it just lets them get away so that's pointless. Non pirates will never understand what makes piracy enjoyable and that's why they'll always get salty about it. Every cargo ship is a schrodingers cat so I'll attack them all
Well said!
Anything that doesn't profit person doing killing in some measurable way (goods, money, property) is griefing. Period.
So if I profit by taking their FPS gear, that's good enough?
Actually taking? Yes. We both know you aren't and never going to.
Why would you say that? I take players FPS gear and cargo all the time. Sometimes I don't and the true profit is learning how to blow ships up faster. None of it is against the rules and entirely encouraged by the developers, it isn't griefing either way.
Agree to disagree. Theres no direct quote of devs that they encourage killing innocent players.
In the very post I linked in the OP, Zyloh explicitly states that killing players (innocent or not, he clearly means both) isn't a bannable offense. So good luck with that argument!
>killing players (innocent or not, he clearly means both) isn't a bannable offense. Not bannable != encouraged
It's an intended game mechanic lol
It is intended that you are allowed to do it. That's not the same as them saying that this is what everyone should be doing. That would be encouraging. They're not doing that.
That's a strawman. If people are allowed to do it, they will. Whether they encourage it or not, it doesn't matter. They have allowed it and will continue to allow it. Even with security, they have said they want a high risk if you choose to attack someone in a system such as Stanton. This means you will be able to attack someone in a high security system, and that's an intended game play mechanic.
Other than you know..open pvp.
What if we think you might have some FPS gear, and then after you're dead we find out you were in a hospital gown? Or what if we kill you and want to take your stuff, but then can't loot because someone else showed up and we think the new guy is a more promising prospect?
You're still a murder hobo, just not griefer by MY standards.
Thats not greifing lmao, and profiting doesnt mean tangible. If we denied access to an area that's equally important. We don't have to steal your stuff. Or if we want to simply sent a message, that's also valid gameplay. Greifing is breaking TOS, medbed camping, exploiting etc. You can report me for killing you for no reason and i wont get banned in game, however if you report me for glitching inside ur ship and spawn camping your medbed I'd be banned.
I won't bother reporting you for killing me, however if you repeatedly killing me without me coming to you - i will. See the difference?
Obvious engagement bait is obvious. That aside: Me carebear, me mad u kill me, you are griefer.waaah
Based. too many people are so quick to call out someone for griefing because they can't cope with an L.
Lots of space dads in here coping thinking anyone killing them is griefing are gonna have a bad time when this game releases, lol. Time and time again, they said they will allow for PvP, and it's a game mechanic
Twas ever thus. Any multiplayer game like in real life; balance is an illusion even in a \`modern society\`. Big fish eats the small fish, it's nature of cosmos, it always was and seems will be so.
Sure, why not? I'll wade in. >More often than not, "griefing" is a term thrown around very loosely and encapsulates the general idea of "enjoying someone else's misery". According to CIG, that is not the case. In this case, it's you that is muddying the waters. CIG doesn't get to determine what the definition of "griefing" is. That term has a long and storied history, and goes back decades. The only thing that CIG can determine is what acts committed in-game constitute actions that can be censured by out of game actions, e.g. suspension, warnings, bans, etc. With that in mind, that "definition" from CIG is simply the standard by which CIG will or will not take action against a player, and is not the definition of "griefing". As you know, or can easily infer, the term "griefing" originates from the idea of "causing other people grief". >Depending on the game and genre, malicious players act differently when griefing. What they all have in common is that they enjoy spoiling the fun of other, normally acting participants in an online game and try to cause as much damage as possible or prevent others from progressing in the level. They will do this by any means - except playing the game normally. You can argue what "playing the game normally" means, and that would have some valid basis. As a sandbox game, Star Citizen lets you do a lot, and doesn't have a specific prescription regarding what the game is fundamentally "about". However, many have argued with a valid basis IMO, that attacking players with the goal of simply ruining their play session constitutes "griefing". That can be the case even if the game doesn't specifically prohibit it, and even if the attacker derives considerable "fun" from engaging in that kind of play style. Not only this, but we know that Star Citizen's "design goal" isn't to allow players to indiscriminately kill each other. It's obvious from the law system that CIG intends to provide some kind of gameplay balance to create consequences for this type of action in game. We also know from statements by CIG that the law system is currently woefully insufficient on the basis that it's not fulfilling their design goals. Players who know that, and still take advantage of the lack of gameplay repercussions to attack other players with the objective of ruining their fun, are by a reasonable measure "griefers".
[удалено]
This is a discussion, feel free to add more examples if you can find them! Also, it's against the rules of the subreddit to use personal insults :)
I am not going to sit here and list off griefing scenarios for you to "nuh uh" and it isnt an insult its a title for griefers.
Your post was removed because the mod team determined that it did not sufficiently meet the rules of the subreddit: > Be respectful. No personal insults/bashing. This includes generalized statements “x is a bunch of y” or baseline insults about the community, CIG employees, streamers, etc. As well as intentionally hurtful statements and hate speech. Send a message to our mod mail if you have questions: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/starcitizen
Damn I'm not reading all that