Is this griefing or PVP
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
I'm pretty sure using your own shield gen as an infinite portable fire source is an exploit. I don't think devs balanced fire damage for the eventuality that you can set every room on fire willy-nilly without expanding any resources yourself, like bringing along a copious amount of ammo and grenades and then spending a long time using those.
As for what is griefing, I'd say it's when you have no casus belli for the PvP. I don't particularly mind when that happens in pyro or some mostly lawless system where CIG actively encourages you to murder hobo it up. A place where, just being there you're basically giving consent for being murdered.
Though using exploits to gain an unfair advantage is always the sorta behavior that warrants short term bans in my opinion.
As for what is griefing, I'd say it's when you have no casus belli for the PvP. I don't particularly mind when that happens in pyro or some mostly lawless system where CIG actively encourages you to murder hobo it up. A place where, just being there you're basically giving consent for being murdered.
Though using exploits to gain an unfair advantage is always the sorta behavior that warrants short term bans in my opinion.
I do believe it's griefing once you are not in it for the money or the challenge but for the moods you ruin.
Whatever happes in Pyro stays in Pyro, I know.
But we all invest time to go from A to B and whenever someone shoot you in the back whilly-nilly and the doesn't even have the courtesy to loot your body, thats some grieving in my eyes.
As for the guys in the video...
I gotta TEST that method, honestly.
Under safe and morally justifyable circumstances obviously.
That being said the case shown in this video was a case of piracy with some some devious use of an inplemented mechanic.
Defective components cranking up the heat as seen here.
But no phasing through walls or some other cheater shit.
I'd call the guy a lot of names if I were the pilot of that Perseus.
But Griefer?
I think not.
Whatever happes in Pyro stays in Pyro, I know.
But we all invest time to go from A to B and whenever someone shoot you in the back whilly-nilly and the doesn't even have the courtesy to loot your body, thats some grieving in my eyes.
As for the guys in the video...
I gotta TEST that method, honestly.
Under safe and morally justifyable circumstances obviously.
That being said the case shown in this video was a case of piracy with some some devious use of an inplemented mechanic.
Defective components cranking up the heat as seen here.
But no phasing through walls or some other cheater shit.
I'd call the guy a lot of names if I were the pilot of that Perseus.
But Griefer?
I think not.
Whether a fight is griefing or not is obviously a matter of opinion. That opinion can be partly based on fact, though a 'losing' player, the self-perceived victim in the fight, often won't know all the facts: were they attacked or killed by a player using an exploit or cheat, was the attack made for fun or just because they were an easy target, or with the intention of causing grief to the victim, rather than for gain. From a single incident, there's enough ambiguity that the facts often won't come out. If there's a sustained pattern of behaviour that someone (probably someone at CIG, less likely players) can see, maybe the fact of the cheating or griefing can be found out. I think there are sometimes apologists for griefers who hide behind the "they might have been trying to steal your stuff" excuse for just murdering and blowing stuff up, because who knows for sure what the intention was.
But a large part of anyone's opinion about whether a fight was griefing or not is purely subjective, not based on any fact however known or unknowable. Should the victim have anticipated that other players might attack them or their ship in that location, perhaps given what they brought there and were doing there? If they should have and didn't, that's on them - if they feel victimised, that's their opinion but not necessarily right. Great examples above - in lawless areas like Pyro, anything goes, and the rewards available there are intended to compensate those who dare take on the risks and come prepared to win a fight or to spot the danger in time to turn and run - great! It's fairly clearly communicated and if you're paying attention you should be able to spot the danger, or have a plan to deal with being ambushed - not having all your wealth and possessions on you at once, being able to run away. A player around outside Port Tressler for a couple of hours, firing at every industrial ship that approaches, when the comm-link is up and still somehow no UEE vessels are showing up to get rid of them is probably griefing; the players doing industrial stuff should reasonably expect the game systems to provide some protection from that.
It's important that the game's design and the way CIG and the game itself communicate the level of risk to players, and game systems back that up with some protection in 'safe' areas, and less or none in 'lawless' areas. A lot of this is in place already with the comm-link satellite status indicators, Pyro's reputation, station defences (when they work) and a crime stat system (when it works). The station defences don't always work properly, it seems, and I'm surprised some of the crime system is so janky, but the foundations are in game already.
Discovering new and interesting ways to use the toys in our sandbox in an attack, in a lawless system, one time doesn't seem like griefing to me. I think the burning shield generator and fire mechanics might need some adjusting if they become a problem when used that way. Just like regular doors, it should take some effort - some firing - to get through an air shield and into a ship owned by someone not in your party, but it shouldn't be impossible. But for every time a game mechanic needs tweaking (the air shield that lets anyone in, the shield gen that can act as an incendiary) there's also a case to make that players in Pyro should expect saboteurs if they aren't crewing their large ships, watching and defending the entrances, and not fighting intruders while using fire extinguishers. Parked up 10km from New Babbage? You probably shouldn't expect that sort of attack to come without the cavalry arriving to help you.
But a large part of anyone's opinion about whether a fight was griefing or not is purely subjective, not based on any fact however known or unknowable. Should the victim have anticipated that other players might attack them or their ship in that location, perhaps given what they brought there and were doing there? If they should have and didn't, that's on them - if they feel victimised, that's their opinion but not necessarily right. Great examples above - in lawless areas like Pyro, anything goes, and the rewards available there are intended to compensate those who dare take on the risks and come prepared to win a fight or to spot the danger in time to turn and run - great! It's fairly clearly communicated and if you're paying attention you should be able to spot the danger, or have a plan to deal with being ambushed - not having all your wealth and possessions on you at once, being able to run away. A player around outside Port Tressler for a couple of hours, firing at every industrial ship that approaches, when the comm-link is up and still somehow no UEE vessels are showing up to get rid of them is probably griefing; the players doing industrial stuff should reasonably expect the game systems to provide some protection from that.
It's important that the game's design and the way CIG and the game itself communicate the level of risk to players, and game systems back that up with some protection in 'safe' areas, and less or none in 'lawless' areas. A lot of this is in place already with the comm-link satellite status indicators, Pyro's reputation, station defences (when they work) and a crime stat system (when it works). The station defences don't always work properly, it seems, and I'm surprised some of the crime system is so janky, but the foundations are in game already.
Discovering new and interesting ways to use the toys in our sandbox in an attack, in a lawless system, one time doesn't seem like griefing to me. I think the burning shield generator and fire mechanics might need some adjusting if they become a problem when used that way. Just like regular doors, it should take some effort - some firing - to get through an air shield and into a ship owned by someone not in your party, but it shouldn't be impossible. But for every time a game mechanic needs tweaking (the air shield that lets anyone in, the shield gen that can act as an incendiary) there's also a case to make that players in Pyro should expect saboteurs if they aren't crewing their large ships, watching and defending the entrances, and not fighting intruders while using fire extinguishers. Parked up 10km from New Babbage? You probably shouldn't expect that sort of attack to come without the cavalry arriving to help you.
Griefing is basically PVP, but where the objective is simply to annoy someone else.
No specific game objectives to achieve.
Usually no piracy or in game items to be stolen or any real money to be made.
Often attacking players that are easy prey or can be seal clubbed.
Often attacking in groups and ganking single players.
Often repeated killing of the same player which is true griefing.
Sadly it is a mentality created by games like call of duty where the only objective is to kill and kill and kill over and over.
No specific game objectives to achieve.
Usually no piracy or in game items to be stolen or any real money to be made.
Often attacking players that are easy prey or can be seal clubbed.
Often attacking in groups and ganking single players.
Often repeated killing of the same player which is true griefing.
Sadly it is a mentality created by games like call of duty where the only objective is to kill and kill and kill over and over.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
I respectfully assert that griefing is not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of definition. Opinions may change about the true definition but certainly whether someone transgresses is a matter of defining the transgression, which is a matter of definition.
I point this out because this kind of fuzzy thinking pops up all the time. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Well no, it is not. Any reasonable definition notes that freedom fighters attack military targets for martial gain, and terrorists attack civilian targets to create terror in a population. One should really assert a proper definition. It is certainly not a matter of opinion, like which side of the plate to lay a fork or knife. Most opinion is merely convention, while many issues require more reason than that.
IMHO, griefing is all in the name. If you are playing for some real game advantage, that is not griefing. If you are taking joy in the misery of others, you should see a therapist. That’s griefing.
I point this out because this kind of fuzzy thinking pops up all the time. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Well no, it is not. Any reasonable definition notes that freedom fighters attack military targets for martial gain, and terrorists attack civilian targets to create terror in a population. One should really assert a proper definition. It is certainly not a matter of opinion, like which side of the plate to lay a fork or knife. Most opinion is merely convention, while many issues require more reason than that.
IMHO, griefing is all in the name. If you are playing for some real game advantage, that is not griefing. If you are taking joy in the misery of others, you should see a therapist. That’s griefing.
Maybe I had misunderstood Charlie Brown all these years? He seems to think griefing is ‘good’.
Something to consider for my philosophizing TESTies out there: If you always thought that Charlie was the best of the Peanuts, and he says that griefing is good, then you too must become a griefing extraordinaire. Wah waaah wah wah, so says I.
Something to consider for my philosophizing TESTies out there: If you always thought that Charlie was the best of the Peanuts, and he says that griefing is good, then you too must become a griefing extraordinaire. Wah waaah wah wah, so says I.
Well, considering Mr.Brown.
That reminds me of a verry sophisticated form of griefing that's associated with that guy:
That reminds me of a verry sophisticated form of griefing that's associated with that guy:
SC has a playing field which is not always PvP, it's Rock Paper Scissors sometimes where submissive mechanics are subjected to dominant mechanics. Some are totally dominant over others, Mining has as much defence against Combat as Paper has over Scissors.
Yes there are griefers welding that imbalance but there are also legit players doing that too, the difference is one is perversely doing it to ruin other players day, the other is just playing the game to progress by predating other players.
More thoughts on that from 2022 on this thread:
testsquadron.com
Yes there are griefers welding that imbalance but there are also legit players doing that too, the difference is one is perversely doing it to ruin other players day, the other is just playing the game to progress by predating other players.
More thoughts on that from 2022 on this thread:
Some thoughts on Player Verses Player when it lacks the "Verses"
Hello TESTies. TL;DR I'm not sure but I think I've observed a complication with multi-disciplinary PvP games which might be giving a misleading impression whenever anyone says "SC is a PvP game" it's more than that and I might have picked up on something which has always been there but I don't...
testsquadron.com
Last edited: