its not really like that though is it. It's more the old guys banging the drum about it's not what they bought into.
- Status
its not really like that though is it. It's more the old guys banging the drum about it's not what they bought into.
Some of the long term players/original backers feel the game is not what they bought into...and as time goes by...some are leaving disillusioned...and some are staying...of those staying some are fighting against any more change that makes the game something they did not expect...and are summarily being ignored by the devs...which means some more will leave...and some more will stay...and eventually those that stay will just sit in the forums telling everyone else how great the game could have been, letting people know of all the broken promises, and how the game needs this and that and it will almost be what was promised.
Oh...and age really has nothing to do with all this.
- - - Updated - - -
...as long as people do not tell others how to play in Open...we can all agree to this.
Yet it is those in Open who think they have the right to tell everyone else how to play...
I guess you could see it that way, although the people who complain most loudly about wanted players hiding in Solo are from the Open only side of the argument.
When Solo advocates come up with stuff like this, it's not generally to curtail any freedoms, but to try and offer ways whereby Open might become a more agreeable place to play.
For what it's worth, I don't believe altering the crime / punishment system will do anything for Open except perhaps kill off PvP for good if the consequences of killing another player are too harsh, and since illegal and illicit gameplay (including murder) is actively encouraged by FD in the game, I doubt they'll do much to it anyway.
2 wrongs don't make a right? >
I see quite a few folks on the Private side making similar suggestions to limit the play style of those that want to create strife and conflict within the rules of the game as designed. Both sides need to accept that the 'problems' are unfixable within the game design and dev's vision of what the game is...and play where they are unaffected by these problems.
Seriously? Why? Clicking an unrelated button implies consent how? Do you also assume that wearing a short skirt in town also implies consent?
One cannot conceal the mechanism for giving consent and then argue that consent was expressly given. There's a big difference between expressed consent and implied consent, even moreso when you consider the basics of affirmative consent. You can't imply full and prior knowledge of obvious harm and injury when PvP has neither been emphasized in advertising or game play and indeed has been described as "rare".
Yes, why would people think clicking the button that starts the open pvp allowed section of the game means consenting to open pvp in the game? Expressed consent =/= implied consent, I often ride the log flume and become furious when i get wet, like seriously, i know there's water around and sometimes people get wet but I consented to the ride not to getting wet.
Last edited:
I don't need anyones consent to wear a short skirt in town! It's rather horrifying though, so in the interest of public decency, health and safety and all that - I restrict it to Tuesdays.
Last edited:
You do know you're not supposed to wear them on your head like some strange sort of crown, right?
but i want to have a crown!!!!
Wearing a crown, implies the consent of the governed...
So yeah...let's compare sexual crimes to a computer game. This point is so offensive that it should be moderated.
Putting that little gem behind us...I have conceded this point on numerous occasions, so far as to put up a suggestion in the beta on behalf of everyone that requires this legal statement...for the protection of....someone. It seems a fine compromise...not that many see it as needed...it just seems that it would make a few people happier to understand what the Open mode is about...a place where everyone can play together...and a place where good and bad things can occur. If this stops the complaints about Open being unfair to people that do not want to be bothered by others and a few other complaints then everyone will be happy and go play...rather than come to the forums and complain that someone shot them in the face ( and god forbid someone that got shot in the face would stand up to those that are shooting them in the face in-game and try to stop this from occurring....like the design expects.
Last edited:
Even if you disagree with the analogy being used, the big difference is-
IRL = crimes have consequences. Just try murdering wanton and see where it gets you.
ED = relatively no consequences. Wanton murder occurs frequently.
So yeah, I believe this is what we need to "stick" with when it comes to comparisons- the issue here is that there's a whole consequence system missing from Open. You can disagree all you like but it doesn't change the reality a bit.
I also believe that simply paying off a fine doesn't give value to human life- and it shouldn't be as simple as paying a few credits to get off the hook. There should be not only immediate consequence but even perhaps residual ones- sort of like being a felon IRL will limit your ability to do a lot of things, although there should also be the ability for redemption, too. Lots of people hate complication... and I think it's why it likely won't change and we'll still have the "mile-wide, inch-deep" game we have today even in the future.
I find it funny when people forget the forums have a looooong memory;
Here you are, suggesting people get mode locked under certain circumstances that suit you, but you don't like the idea when it suits someone else?
It seems perfectly fair for me; you attack other players, you open yourself to being attacked by other players for a certain time or until you get rid of the resulting bounty, whichever comes first. If you don't attack other players — and this includes pirating or otherwise attacking NPCs, or even pirating players if you manage to do so without getting a bounty — then you are still able to switch freely.
I only see this as fair for players that get a bounty by attacking other players, mind. Those that get a bounty by attacking NPCs should still be able to play in the other modes as normal.
Also of note: similar restrictions exist in nearly every MMO that uses a PvP flag. You attack others, you are stuck with the PvP flag — and, thus, attackable by other players — for a short while, after which you can unflag and return to being immune to PvP.
But... but... but... Open is the Holy Grail for PvPers! PvPers dont want to play in any other mode anyway. They want everyone in Open... slinking off to solo and to group is cheating and exploiting.
You mean PvPers dont want to be locked into the mode that they want everybody else to be locked into!
Last edited:
The analogy is about consent, not about the relative severity of the actions the consent is given for. Unless you are suggesting that consent should only matter in real life? Perhaps a re-read would be in order, after you've calmed down a bit.
The main content in OPEN PLAY is all the CMDRs that populate it.
Everything else just window dressing / fill in.
By no means are all encounters in OPEN PLAY hostile.
Empire Space is for example policed for Pirate and Federal Enemy CMDRs.
Honest traders have nothing to fear.
Everything else just window dressing / fill in.
By no means are all encounters in OPEN PLAY hostile.
Empire Space is for example policed for Pirate and Federal Enemy CMDRs.
Honest traders have nothing to fear.
- Status