Probably a stupid question

[Fer De Lance]

I am quite new to the beta forums so this may have been explained already but can someone tell me - what happens if in a solo game or a game where i have blocked some online people and our paths cross (for example attacking a NPC ship by a nav beacon)?

If we are still in the same game world am is seeing the shields go down on the ship we are both attacking but the damage is coming from an invisible ship?

Or is the game creating completely different activity is a star system for me and the other blocked player, so we could be in the same location and seeing completely different NPC ships?

 

[Tyr07]

Good question, does blocking someone prevent them from interacting with you in space or just communications? Hopefully just communications or my lord, will the carebears ever carebear.
And it will be exploited, people will destroy someones ship, then block them to prevent retaliation.

I suspect in single player the NPC movement is calculated locally, so it won't affect that.

 

[Michael Brookes]

Good question, does blocking someone prevent them from interacting with you in space or just communications? Hopefully just communications or my lord, will the carebears ever carebear.
And it will be exploited, people will destroy someones ship, then block them to prevent retaliation.

I suspect in single player the NPC movement is calculated locally, so it won't affect that.

Blocking someone doesn't stop them being put in your session. And 'carebear' - really?

Michael

 

[Tarman]

The instanced "islands" hold a max of 32 live players for Open play before making another one for someone else dropping into that system, and then the groups break down by choice after that. Solo operates basically like a Group of one. The effects on the galaxy are the same but you won't see any ships being annihilated by invisible phantoms from a parallel universe.


Edit: typos

 

[Zalifer]

Blocking someone doesn't stop them being put in your session. And 'carebear' - really?

Michael

Not sure if you know, but it's an EVE term, used to refer to risk adverse players, who complain about PvP being non-consensual, and want more and more ways to prevent any form of PvP.

Carebears will be in solo anyway though, so only people who are ok with some PvP even if it's not their primary concern will be in open. I want to focus on PvE myself, but I'll be playing open.

 

[Tyr07]

Blocking someone doesn't stop them being put in your session. And 'carebear' - really?

Michael

Carebears? Sure. I have no doubt there's some players who would travel dangerous areas known for piracy who would (if they could) block people to prevent them from engaging in combat with them.
I often find what I would refer to as a carebear on a game like Eve get vehemently upset over these actions.

I think it would have a negative impact on a multiplayer game that allows pvp if players of this mind were able to just deny people that aspect of the game on command.

I might be out trading, but when a player tries to interdict me, I find the random event exciting and fun. I've been destroyed before, and destroyed others, just a game in the end. I didn't get upset.
I don't feel just not wanting to engage in pvp on it's own makes someone a carebear, so people shouldn't be insulted if that isn't their primary focus, that's not my intent.

 

[Michael Brookes]

Not sure if you know, but it's an EVE term, used to refer to risk adverse players, who complain about PvP being non-consensual, and want more and more ways to prevent any form of PvP.

Carebears will be in solo anyway though, so only people who are ok with some PvP even if it's not their primary concern will be in open. I want to focus on PvE myself, but I'll be playing open.

I know where it comes from I just don't think it's a nice way to refer to people.

Michael

 

[Tyr07]

I know where it comes from I just don't think it's a nice way to refer to people.

Michael

Maybe not, but if you kill one you often get referred to in an not very nice way. I think the only reason this term really developed is from people trying to change games like EVE to prevent PVP when people going in should know it's a realistic possibility, and accept it.

 

[Tarman]

Maybe not, but if you kill one you often get referred to in an not very nice way. I think the only reason this term really developed is from people trying to change games like EVE to prevent PVP when people going in should know it's a realistic possibility, and accept it.

Flipside are the people who revel in such gameplay precisely because they know it's aggravating. No PVPer likes the term "griefer" now, do they? They're both slurs at peoples' gameplay approach, and I hope we could have a little more class than that other game, thanks.

 

[tifosi]

Blocking someone doesn't stop them being put in your session. And 'carebear' - really?

Michael

This might be a really silly question - but if blocking someone doesn't stop them being in your session - what does it do?

 

[Tyr07]

This might be a really silly question - but if blocking someone doesn't stop them being in your session - what does it do?

If you target a player ship, you can communicate with them. It's likely intended to prevent someone from doing that.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Flipside are the people who revel in such gameplay precisely because they know it's aggravating. No PVPer likes the term "griefer" now, do they? They're both slurs at peoples' gameplay approach, and I hope we could have a little more class than that other game, thanks.

Well, sure, but in all fairness I referred to a type of player using a specific word. I didn't call anyone such.

 

[Cathy]

If you target a player ship, you can communicate with them. It's likely intended to prevent someone from doing that.

AFAIK it makes it much less likely that you will be put in the same session. And it restricts comms.

 

[Zalifer]

I know where it comes from I just don't think it's a nice way to refer to people.

Michael

Not particularly, I tend not to use the term, though it's an easy way to refer to those who want to remove PvP so I understand why people use it. It's not just people who don't want to PvP, it's people who want to see PvP gone, which is much more complex to say than "carebear". Of course, people use it as an insult, but as insults go, it's pretty tame anyway.

 

[Michael Brookes]

This might be a really silly question - but if blocking someone doesn't stop them being in your session - what does it do?

It stops them communicating with you.

Michael

 

[Michael Brookes]

Not particularly, I tend not to use the term, though it's an easy way to refer to those who want to remove PvP so I understand why people use it. It's not just people who don't want to PvP, it's people who want to see PvP gone, which is much more complex to say than "carebear". Of course, people use it as an insult, but as insults go, it's pretty tame anyway.

Any insult is unnecessary.

Michael

 

[Tyr07]

Any insult is unnecessary.

Michael

Some people might not be insulted by being referred to as a carebear. In times when I was low on credits in eve, I've referred to myself as carebearing when I was avoiding PVP to build up funds. I think the discussion on the word carebear is definitely getting a lot more focus that it deserves. Technically you can use the word "pvper" or anything in a negative or positive way to describe someone, it depends if you view being referred to a player who wants pvp removed insulting, doesn't it?

- I would equate this to being upset at being called a democrat or republican. If you were, would you be upset? This has turned into politics perhaps.

 

[Jaeger]

Not particularly, I tend not to use the term, though it's an easy way to refer to those who want to remove PvP so I understand why people use it. It's not just people who don't want to PvP, it's people who want to see PvP gone, which is much more complex to say than "carebear". Of course, people use it as an insult, but as insults go, it's pretty tame anyway.

Yes it's much easier to use a single term, much in the same way as using swearwords. i.e. swearing is a lazy way of expressing oneself, which implicitly shows disregard for others and a lack of respect. Essentially you are conveying how you feel without any real details, this protects you from reasonable retorts and responses. People who swear like this live in a selfish little cocoon of ignorance and denial, they contribute nothing and engender more of the same.

Well done.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Any insult is unnecessary.

Michael

I dare say that insults are quite necessary when picking a fight, did you not see Braveheart?

 

[noodle]

Any insult is unnecessary.

Michael

It's also provocative, and a great way of creating an argument out of a discussion.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Yes it's much easier to use a single term, much in the same way as using swearwords. i.e. swearing is a lazy way of expressing oneself, which implicitly shows disregard for others and a lack of respect. Essentially you are conveying how you feel without any real details, this protects you from reasonable retorts and responses. People who swear like this live in a selfish little cocoon of ignorance and denial, they contribute nothing and engender more of the same.

Whereas dismissing people on the basis of their use of language isn't ignorant in the slightest

 

[natte hond]

I think Micheal is a nice guy.
hope you can bare the care

 

[Agony_Aunt]

If carebear is the term, then call me a carebear. Ill be avoiding any combat in the game unless i'm in a superior ship with superior weapons. Ill be treating the game like RL. Not quite ironman level of care, but i won't stupidly jump into an anarchic system while flying a sidewinder.