Great New Article About Elite Dangerous

[Brimstone]

You know perfectly we weren't talking about video game losses. Stop playing the innocent, it doesn't fit you.

I'm sorry... what? If we aren't talking about losses in a video game causing 'emotional harm' or what ever, then what are we talking?

Also, "stop playing the innocent, it doesn't fit you." You know absolutely nothing about me, or what I've done within the video game against other players. This is exactly what Princess Nia was talking about earlier in the thread, a broad generalization of everyone who either play like the SDC, or don't but understand and appreciate why they play like that.

 

[Sandmann]

I'd say your statement is the misrepresentation sandman.

Pvp can affect the BGS. Just not in a direct way. Look to my last few comments as an example

I read them. Yes, under very rare circumstances pvp could be forced to indirectly have a small impact on the bgs, but you're really stretching if you claim it's anything more than that. Your claims smell strongly of desperation, because their lie has been exposed. Modes have practically ZERO impact on the bgs.

 

[Julio Montega]

See, this is a complete misrepresentation. The ONLY way you can counter BGS gameplay is with BGS gameplay... in short PvE. The ONLY thing that having BGS players in open does is allow you to shoot.them which has close to ZERO bgs impact in the long run. "We can't counter BGS in solo/group" actually means "we have no intereset in BGS play, we just want to shoot players and we think if we can stop them enjoying being in solo/group they'll come to open so we can shoot them".

If you want to counter BGS play you HAVE to do PvE, and it makes no difference which mode you're in.

Misintegration I'D say.
If we take a PvP centered playstyle as baseline here, it is clear why they state they "cannot counter the BGS",
because their playstyle has no means to do so.
They also cannot see what is happening, other from guesstimations from traffic-reports
and influence changes.
You as an owner of a station cannot deny docking rights to specific pilots/groups/minor factions/etc.,
so you lack tools to manage the influence of PvE of other gamemodes on your ownership.

And yes, as GOOSE stated, you can hinder Players sacking in their bounties/vouchers,
but as said, the implementation of PvP to affect the BGS is minimal,
and every meaningful way leaves a sour taste.

I think you'll find that they wanted a faction for their egos, but had no intention of actually playing it, and.quite probably no real knowledge of how the BGS even works or interest in finding out. I doubt it even occured to them that it could be taken off them, and when they realised they were left with no way to save face wuthout going back on everything they'd said and so decided to cut their losses and put in a huge effort to convince people that they didn't care. In fact they tried so hard to convince us of it that they got a whole thread closed down.

Quite possible, yes.

 

[Sandmann]

I'm sorry... what? If we aren't talking about losses in a video game causing 'emotional harm' or what ever, then what are we talking?

We were referring to that disgusting a-holes for a-holes stunt. As you know. Hence my "stop playing the innocent" remark.

a broad generalization of everyone who either play like the SDC, or don't but understand and appreciate why they play like that.

What's the expression? "Be sure you shall be known by the company you keep."

Noone CARES why you behave like that, game however you like. We care that you don't force it on us.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Obviously Elite Dangerous has died 10 times now!! [squeeeee][wacko]

Like the cats, it has several lives

 

[JosiahD]

I don't buy this argument. Sure people are entitled to their feelings, but claiming "emotional harm" is like someone getting angry at gravity for spilling their beer.

At some point we have to put on our big boy pants and realize that bad stuff happens. It doesn't mean the world hates you or is out to get you. It just means that forces exist. Including natural and unnatural forces of destruction. It's not personal. You can choose to take it that way, but that is choice. And your reaction says just as much about you as SDCs choices say about them.

Someone has to be the villain in this play. Just be glad that it isn't you.

You can not 'buy this argument' all you like. The FACT is that online interactions do cause harm to people every day - the regular highlighting of internet bullying as a social problem is sufficient to prove that people are indeed harmed by antisocial online interactions. And online interactions in a computer game have the potential to be just as harmful as interactions on a forum or online chat room. I'd be the first to say that sometimes people just need to harden up, but it cannot be denied that online interactions can be harmful to certain individuals. And let's not forget that the ability to deal with such interactions very much depends on the maturity and life experience of the individuals involved.....and in a game such as this, one can never be certain that the person on the other end has the necessary life skills to cope with the actions imposed on them. Unfortunately there are also those who do not have sufficient empathy for others to recognise that fact and insist on acting like jerks nonetheless (using the 'it's just a computer game' excuse), regardless of who may be on the receiving end. Yes that's the truth of the internet (and the adults amongst us accept that), but the suggestion by some that that's the way it has to be (ie we should just accept it) is sad, very sad.

 

[Mephane]

I think with griefers and PK'ers in general it's like with sharks. Nobody really likes them, except other sharks of course, but from a higher perspective they are necessary for a healthy and living ecosystem.

And in what way is it that griefers and PKers are healthy for the game?

 

[Rinzler o7o7o7]

Better they just go forth and multiply in another game (not SC, I bought that!).

Simon

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/SMILE/

Sorry!

 

[Halp]

space sweetchuck disapproves them SDC social experiments.

 

[KestrelPi]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's up to FDev to decide what they want to do to improve open play. But it's clear that a lot of people only want to play PvE, but still want the social aspect.

Either this is a valid way to play the game or it isn't. I say it is. And currently it's the only valid way to play the game that doesn't enjoy official support.

Want no interaction at all? Solo.
Want approved people only? Private Group
Want a free for all? Open
Want interaction, but not PvP combat? Well, there's a workaround, sort of, but it's not completely effective.

Spot the odd one out.

As far as I'm concerned, THAT is what is wrong with this picture, regardless of potential improvements to the other modes.

 

[DD_Crash]

I think that the PvP players think the game should be Elite Space Combat Simulator and ditch the rest of the game. However the real game is a combination of Il-2 and MFS X

 

[SentineI]

the bit that stood out most to me was the quote from Harry Potter saying he would quit if anyone from SDC was banned. I immediately thought - how can I get someone from SDC banned? I cannot be only one!

Given the article makes it clear that they do what they do to get an "emotional response" from other people (i.e. upset them), I certainly would shed no tears if someone was to cause the whole of SDC to have an "emotional response" & leave the game (i.e. rage quit).

Well event on this weekend - pople's goal should not be to kill Harry Potter but to entrap an SDC member into breaking the EULA so Harry Potter can carry out his threat, hopefully followed by the rest of SDC and open can be a better place.

Going by what FDev have said in warning, they have arguably already broken the EULA by (apparently) using duplicate accounts to circumvent in-game controls provided to Mobius (etc). I presume that if they clearly do it again then FDev will do more than issue a warning this time.

Also stalking Kate Click's live streams seems like an EULA violation, albiet a milder one that should initially just warrant gradually rising warnings & then action from FDev.

P.S. Personally I'd ignore what SDC *say* about their reasons (not least since this seems to change at the smallest gust of wind), and instead look at what they *do*.

 

[CMDR Argent Steel]

The fuel rats are great. No denying that but remember, they can ONLY work in open. They have no choice. I would argue that the very best "emergent gameplay" in ED has been the Distant Worlds Exhibition. That has spawned the most imaginative things to do with SRV's and ships (some of which I think the PvP groups would love such as the "whack a mole" competition or the SRV demolition derby). The publicity has been great, the videos good marketing tools and over 1000 participants. It is not in open,it is a group.

The Rats are a smart group. They know how to set up a private group too and will do so if necessary.

 

[Barking_Mad]

You can not 'buy this argument' all you like. The FACT is that online interactions do cause harm to people every day - the regular highlighting of internet bullying as a social problem is sufficient to prove that people are indeed harmed by antisocial online interactions. And online interactions in a computer game have the potential to be just as harmful as interactions on a forum or online chat room. I'd be the first to say that sometimes people just need to harden up, but it cannot be denied that online interactions can be harmful to certain individuals. And let's not forget that the ability to deal with such interactions very much depends on the maturity and life experience of the individuals involved.....and in a game such as this, one can never be certain that the person on the other end has the necessary life skills to cope with the actions imposed on them. Unfortunately there are also those who do not have sufficient empathy for others to recognise that fact and insist on acting like jerks nonetheless (using the 'it's just a computer game' excuse), regardless of who may be on the receiving end. Yes that's the truth of the internet (and the adults amongst us accept that), but the suggestion by some that that's the way it has to be (ie we should just accept it) is sad, very sad.

Very well said.

 

[Sandmann]

Misintegration I'D say.
If we take a PvP centered playstyle as baseline here, it is clear why they state they "cannot counter the BGS",
because their playstyle has no means to do so.
They also cannot see what is happening, other from guesstimations from traffic-reports
and influence changes.
You as an owner of a station cannot deny docking rights to specific pilots/groups/minor factions/etc.,
so you lack tools to manage the influence of PvE of other gamemodes on your ownership.

And yes, as GOOSE stated, you can hinder Players sacking in their bounties/vouchers,
but as said, the implementation of PvP to affect the BGS is minimal,
and every meaningful way leaves a sour taste.

Yes, exactly. A player faction & station is a manifestation of the BGS in action and I don't think SDC really understood that when they got into it - they just wanted it for bragging rights. As you say, if you ONLY want to do PvP then a faction & station is actually the LAST thing you want coz it forces you to do PvE or risk losing it. They (various pvp groups, not just SDC) keep complaining that "they can't defend against group/solo PvE using their preferred play style" (pew pew), but even in open their "preferred play style" wouldn't do diddly to defend against an attack on the faction. So either they're completely ignorant (willingly or not) of how the BGS works or they're completely disingenuous and using it as yet another excuse to demand that players be forced into open.

 

[tagos]

Yes, exactly. A player faction & station is a manifestation of the BGS in action and I don't think SDC really understood that when they got into it - they just wanted it for bragging rights. As you say, if you ONLY want to do PvP then a faction & station is actually the LAST thing you want coz it forces you to do PvE or risk losing it. They (various pvp groups, not just SDC) keep complaining that "they can't defend against group/solo PvE using their preferred play style" (pew pew), but even in open their "preferred play style" wouldn't do diddly to defend against an attack on the faction. So either they're completely ignorant (willingly or not) of how the BGS works or they're completely disingenuous and using it as yet another excuse to demand that players be forced into open.

They decided to be jerks, players pushed back, they got all butt hurt and then pretended being a faction and having a faction base wasn't really important to them in the first place. And it all 'wasn't fair' in some ill defined but self-serving manner.

Have I missed anything?

 

[Marcus Tullius]

And in what way is it that griefers and PKers are healthy for the game?

---------------

Because the griefers and PKers are pushing people in solo thus preventing random contacts and cooperation. Less people wishing for clan/guilds is healthy for FD income. Player guilds with guild warehouse and player to player trade are threatening Season pass sales scheme. That's why everything that pushes the players to solo is warm welcomed by FD.

 

[Halp]

i think that E-D is now a game of 2 (in good part politically driven) extremes that both tend to confortably harass in their own way and create a fictional divide which will eventually make either side (or both) grow in size. space sweetchuck might approve all this, no matter the fact that this good old game/community deprives the game from being good to play for anyone else involved. nothing new to see, imho. nice try but #donotwant

 

[Julio Montega]

Yes, exactly. A player faction & station is a manifestation of the BGS in action and I don't think SDC really understood that when they got into it - they just wanted it for bragging rights. As you say, if you ONLY want to do PvP then a faction & station is actually the LAST thing you want coz it forces you to do PvE or risk losing it. They (various pvp groups, not just SDC) keep complaining that "they can't defend against group/solo PvE using their preferred play style" (pew pew), but even in open their "preferred play style" wouldn't do diddly to defend against an attack on the faction. So either they're completely ignorant (willingly or not) of how the BGS works or they're completely disingenuous and using it as yet another excuse to demand that players be forced into open.

I think we both can agree however on this:
It wouldn't hurt to have PvP (aka aggressive play, killing players in systems) influence the BGS directly.
If i am correct, currently the security rating of a system and the BGS are affected by killing NPCs,
but not by killing players.

Some pages back i suggested implementing an "affiliation" with a minor faction to players,
regarding the current reputation in a given system with the minor factions.
This way the server could track a playerkill as a ship-loss to that minor faction.
However a player kill should be worth more, than killing an NPC given the increased difficulty.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Great Idea o one eyed one!
repped ya