Why are we still arguing about open v solo, ganking, griefing, etc.?

[Marra Morgan]

Oh, yeah, so its everthing fine like it is. The shooter loose 1 min having still fun to shoot at the trader, and the trader loose 1 hour or more.
Didnt want to use this word. But this can just come from a griefer

It's taken me a fair while to make my Python into the fantastic pirate ship it is. Gathering materials, flying around to the engineers, learning by trial and error what works and what doesn't.
I don't usually pirate at CG's - too many going straight for the kill, which makes traders extra skittish - so I look for opportunities as I go about my usual BgS stuffs.
When an opportunity does present itself, I've got to assure them that I'm not going to kill them, that I just want their cargo. So I interdict, issue demands, sometimes I have to press the point, and when the cargo drops prey that I don't fall foul of the dropped cargo bug...

And with a simple high-wake, the trader can put all that time and effort to nought.

Did I mention that I rarely kill traders who don't comply? That I just send them on their way with a hefty repair bill?

Doesn't matter if I did, does it? You've already got me down as a griefer

 

[Gusty]

It's taken me a fair while to make my Python into the fantastic pirate ship it is. Gathering materials, flying around to the engineers, learning by trial and error what works and what doesn't.
I don't usually pirate at CG's - too many going straight for the kill, which makes traders extra skittish - so I look for opportunities as I go about my usual BgS stuffs.
When an opportunity does present itself, I've got to assure them that I'm not going to kill them, that I just want their cargo. So I interdict, issue demands, sometimes I have to press the point, and when the cargo drops prey that I don't fall foul of the dropped cargo bug...

And with a simple high-wake, the trader can put all that time and effort to nought.

Did I mention that I rarely kill traders who don't comply? That I just send them on their way with a hefty repair bill?

Doesn't matter if I did, does it? You've already got me down as a griefer

Thx for your time to explain your doings
Sorry about thinking infront you may be a griefer

 

[Vorxian]

After 2 years I'm still reading threads debating the pros and cons of open v solo. Most often the debate focuses around ganking and griefing. Why? It's so frustrating to read the same thing over and over with the same complaint.

All the while the same problems are in game, the same complaints will be made.

If there's a burst water pipe causing a flood of water in the street, who's is to blame?

The people complaining
or
The water company for not fixing it.

The OP seems to suggest the people complaining are to blame

 

[Tarman]

I agree about the importance of separating pretend and real, but I would still make two responses to what you say.

I claimed that saying "it's only a game" was deliberately overlooking the fact that there is a RL person in the spaceship, when actually that's the motivation for some behaviours. I still think that's true. You can see this whenever someone of the greify persuasion goes on about NPCs being unsatisfying (they'll often say it's because they're not challenging, but I think we can all see through that - can they I wonder?). Therefore, I still believe that a multi-player game is a great lab for seeing what people are really like when constraints are removed.

In the restaurant, you say otherwise good people can still make a mess with the coffee cups. I think I must be more judgemental than you; I'm not prepared to accept someone with that lack of empathy and uncaring attitude as "otherwise good", I think their true nature is shining through. And I haven't even worked there, I've just tried to imagine what it must be like. Sometimes I annoy other family members by tipping even when the meal was no good, saying "The waitress is on minimum wage and it's not her fault the kitchen messed up the food!"

If you think that good people don't mess up all the time out of ignorance or circumstance rather than purely malicious intent then I think you need to start really looking around you a bit more carefully and less judgmentally. Nobody's a superhero, not even superheroes anymore. Four-colour concepts of Good and Evil are just not applicable IRL; there are too many variables for such a simplistic gauge. You're going to be really disappointed in most people as they fail your impossibly high standards, when maybe all they need is a "hey don't do that, it's not cool".

As far as people who will attack you in a game because it's possible and allowable; if it's not cheating then you have to learn to play the game by its rules or find a game with rules you like better. That's the whole point of rules, to lay down a groundwork of behaviour, and the game takes place inside that area. Nowhere in the rules of pretty much any game, does it say that you aren't supposed to face adversity, though many of them advise against breaking the rules that allow adversity to occur.

Monopoly for example is based totally around the accumulation of wealth and using that wealth to bring financial ruin upon your opponents until they're bankrupt, after they've resorted to making increasingly unfair deals with the eventual winner in an attempt to survive one more trip around an ever more risky board; it is not a nice game in the least in concept, but that doesn't mean people playing it are amoral and cruel and greedy. You can't rob the bank though, that's cheating. Nor can you call a lawyer to have the winner sued for predatory business practices because it's a game, not real financial ruin. At the end you pack up the monies in the little tray and put your shoe and hat and cute little doggie away, you don't go into receivership or out to live on the street behind the Boardwalk Hotel.

Boxing is inherently and literally violent as it's all about punching people in the face and body until they fall down - but you can't put lead shot in your gloves, or punch them in the junk, or keep hitting them when they're flat on the mat. There's only so much violence allowed in boxing till it's cheating, though there's a lot allowed. It's probably the closest to Elite in terms of calling out griefing vs playing the game as an out-Elite example - you can win your given encounter through the application of massive directed violence until someone is unconscious (in boxing you can even hi-wake if the violence is too much for you to handle by throwing in the towel), but you don't get to cheat or keep injuring them when they're down. If you keep breaking the rules, the dudes in the zebra shirts will revoke your win and possibly your chance to box again, sometimes permanently. You also can't hide behind the referee if you're losing, or climb out of the ring, or otherwise just sit there and turtle without throwing in the towel, because the refs will call you on that too. A bloody and barbaric game; maybe, but it also has clearly defined rules.

Elite can kill you just for poor parking with no players present at all; it is a game full of adversity of various types, none of which cost you any more monies than any other when you hit the rebuy screen. Rebuy is based on your ship and outfitting, not how sad you are when you go there.

If the thought of some stranger on the other side of the planet laughing at you over your game adversity makes you sad and angry, that's a you thing, not a them thing. Maybe they shot you down for lulz; it's a fairly shallow but allowable pastime. Maybe it was for monies or honour or storytelling or territorialism or politics or Engimats or because your ship name was somehow offensive to them or because it's Tuesday. Ultimately it's irrelevant because you're not going to alter their motivations even if you could magically know them; certainly not by being upset. How you deal with adversity is waaaaaaaaaaay more important than the fact that it happens unless you have a global mind control device to do something about all the other people. Not to mention that this is Pretend Adversity. If Pretend Adversity is causing Real Anguish you are taking it far far too seriously.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

If you think that good people don't mess up all the time out of ignorance or circumstance rather than purely malicious intent then I think you need to start really looking around you a bit more carefully and less judgmentally. Nobody's a superhero, not even superheroes anymore. Four-colour concepts of Good and Evil are just not applicable IRL; there are too many variables for such a simplistic gauge. You're going to be really disappointed in most people as they fail your impossibly high standards, when maybe all they need is a "hey don't do that, it's not cool".

As far as people who will attack you in a game because it's possible and allowable; if it's not cheating then you have to learn to play the game by its rules or find a game with rules you like better. That's the whole point of rules, to lay down a groundwork of behaviour, and the game takes place inside that area. Nowhere in the rules of pretty much any game, does it say that you aren't supposed to face adversity, though many of them advise against breaking the rules that allow adversity to occur.

Monopoly for example is based totally around the accumulation of wealth and using that wealth to bring financial ruin upon your opponents until they're bankrupt, after they've resorted to making increasingly unfair deals with the eventual winner in an attempt to survive one more trip around an ever more risky board; it is not a nice game in the least in concept, but that doesn't mean people playing it are amoral and cruel and greedy. You can't rob the bank though, that's cheating. Nor can you call a lawyer to have the winner sued for predatory business practices because it's a game, not real financial ruin. At the end you pack up the monies in the little tray and put your shoe and hat and cute little doggie away, you don't go into receivership or out to live on the street behind the Boardwalk Hotel.

Boxing is inherently and literally violent as it's all about punching people in the face and body until they fall down - but you can't put lead shot in your gloves, or punch them in the junk, or keep hitting them when they're flat on the mat. There's only so much violence allowed in boxing till it's cheating, though there's a lot allowed. It's probably the closest to Elite in terms of calling out griefing vs playing the game as an out-Elite example - you can win your given encounter through the application of massive directed violence until someone is unconscious (in boxing you can even hi-wake if the violence is too much for you to handle by throwing in the towel), but you don't get to cheat or keep injuring them when they're down. If you keep breaking the rules, the dudes in the zebra shirts will revoke your win and possibly your chance to box again, sometimes permanently. You also can't hide behind the referee if you're losing, or climb out of the ring, or otherwise just sit there and turtle without throwing in the towel, because the refs will call you on that too. A bloody and barbaric game; maybe, but it also has clearly defined rules.

Elite can kill you just for poor parking with no players present at all; it is a game full of adversity of various types, none of which cost you any more monies than any other when you hit the rebuy screen. Rebuy is based on your ship and outfitting, not how sad you are when you go there.

If the thought of some stranger on the other side of the planet laughing at you over your game adversity makes you sad and angry, that's a you thing, not a them thing. Maybe they shot you down for lulz; it's a fairly shallow but allowable pastime. Maybe it was for monies or honour or storytelling or territorialism or politics or Engimats or because your ship name was somehow offensive to them or because it's Tuesday. Ultimately it's irrelevant because you're not going to alter their motivations even if you could magically know them; certainly not by being upset. How you deal with adversity is waaaaaaaaaaay more important than the fact that it happens unless you have a global mind control device to do something about all the other people. Not to mention that this is Pretend Adversity. If Pretend Adversity is causing Real Anguish you are taking it far far too seriously.

Cool analogies bro, but let's take the Monopoly one a bit further.
Anyone who's played that game may have met that person who starts being a bit of a tool, maybe when they're winning, maybe when they're losing, and it makes the game a bit unpleasant to play.

Some people just choose not to play Monopoly with that person again.
They still like Monopoly, they might even still like that person - but not in that arena.

It's not about the rules of the game, it's about the difference between sportsmanship and gamesmanship.

 

[Tarman]

Cool analogies bro, but let's take the Monopoly one a bit further.
Anyone who's played that game may have met that person who starts being a bit of a tool, maybe when they're winning, maybe when they're losing, and it makes the game a bit unpleasant to play.

Some people just choose not to play Monopoly with that person again.
They still like Monopoly, they might even still like that person - but not in that arena.

It's not about the rules of the game, it's about the difference between sportsmanship and gamesmanship.

Sportsmanship is an unfortunately optional component. You can only manage your own, not that of others. It's a great thing to see, but it's not mandatory or really enforceable. You can't stop someone enjoying their success within the rules to the point of being insufferable. And unlike Monopoly, in Elite you don't know the vast majority of your players or get to choose them - except in PGs where you actually do choose them, so there's that.

Like you said, if you don't like playing a game with Person X because they violate Wheaton's Law on an hourly basis, then don't. Luckily in Elite that's been an option in two flavours since 2014. If they haven't broken any rules though, you just get to be sad about it or not, which actually is entirely under your control. It doesn't change the ingame outcome either way.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Sportsmanship is an unfortunately optional component. You can only manage your own, not that of others. It's a great thing to see, but it's not mandatory or really enforceable. You can't stop someone enjoying their success within the rules to the point of being insufferable. And unlike Monopoly, in Elite you don't know the vast majority of your players or get to choose them - except in PGs where you actually do choose them, so there's that.

Like you said, if you don't like playing a game with Person X because they violate Wheaton's Law on an hourly basis, then don't. Luckily in Elite that's been an option in two flavours since 2014. If they haven't broken any rules though, you just get to be sad about it or not, which actually is entirely under your control. It doesn't change the ingame outcome either way.

And so we come full circle, people are making that choice - and their choice is making other people sad.

And your argument holds up both ways - the rules of the game allow players to choose their mode, thus avoiding other players.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Some wise words @Tarman and I mostly agree . However some of those Wheaton's law breakers are the ones demanding the cowards hiding from them should be forced into their game mode or have access to game features removed. For me that is the bone of contention... Open it is clear to me is madmax mode. FD try to get it under control but players are inherently more skilled at circumventing game systems than Devs are at making them unbeatable.... And IF FD lock it down to much they are in danger of spoiling the game for the 99% due to the 1%. TBH this is a losing battle imo. I now believe FD are probably best moving on and fleshing out the game and letting open be open..... But just build in better tools for PG moderation.

 

[Neutronium]

Dude, the irony, you are killing it with this thread. Makes me feel like a total amateur, have some rep.

Why can't I rep this post? Have some virtual +rep

 

[jasonbirder]

If the thought of some stranger on the other side of the planet laughing at you over your game adversity makes you sad and angry, that's a you thing, not a them thing. Maybe they shot you down for lulz; it's a fairly shallow but allowable pastime...Ultimately it's irrelevant because you're not going to alter their motivations even if you could magically know them; certainly not by being upset.

Isn't this the ULTIMATE argument for playing in solo? Its certainly what took me out of Open and into Solo (except when I'm with wing mates)
The ONLY way you can "win" this sort of encounter is to completely nullify it...

* If a PvP'er attacks you in your non-optimal ship...they get Lulz & a feeling of superiority
* If a PvP'er attacks you in your non-optimal ship...and you Combat log...they get a feeling they've beat you AND a feeling of moral superiority
* If a PvP'er attacks you in your non-optimal ship...and you High wake...they geta feeling they've beat you AND they've inconvenienced you by interfering with your activities
* If in RESPONSE to PvP'ers you start using a Combat Optimised ship (either preemptively OR after an encounter in response) YOU'VE altered your behaviour according to their inputs...they've "won" by interfering with you doing what YOU want

There's NO WAY an encounter with a PvPer can result in an outcoime that benefits the normal player...You fight back, they win YOU've lost, you fight back and YOU win...they STILL win...you've taken time ,altered YOUR behaviour and they STILL probably enjoyed it, you evade either legitimately or Clogging...they feel they've won and get all excited...

Its a zero sum game for the normal player...the only win is to avoid the scenario entirely and stay in Co-Op or Solo where that interaction doesn't happen...

 

[zZCannonFoddaZz]

The true test of character is how you act towards other people when you are free from constraints. A multi-player game is an excellent lab for seeing that. I can say and do whatever I want wihout breaking any laws! There are good people and evil people. In RL the evil people are often constrained by laws to appear good, but in a game like this their nature becomes clear.

To say "but it's only a game" is to deliberately overlook the fact that behind the pixillated spaceship is a real person, when actually that's the whole point.

A more RL example is a restaurant. If you want to know what someone is really like, watch how he/she treats waiters and waitresses. This is a particular situation where social pressure doesn't force me to be polite or kind, so I'm only polite to them if it's in my nature to be so.

This sums it up pretty well!

 

[Sylveria]

This sums it up pretty well!

It's actually quite appropo, although some will clearly dismiss it as it doesn't benefit their personal agendas of being able to be a**hats to people in video games.

It's really the basis of Ethics. Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing. It's also why most video games have clear rules that can get you banned, such as using racial slurs and other things that have emotional undertones.

Some think that RP in a video game means "carte blanche" and seem to forget that they're playing in a multi-player environment where others are not "RP-ing".

 

[Vedmo]

Robbing and killing other players are functions of the game, extrapolating real life character flaws in people for assuming others are playing a game as intended is kind of sick, to be nice.

 

[Tarman]

Robbing and killing other players are functions of the game, extrapolating real life character flaws in people for assuming others are playing a game as intended is kind of sick, to be nice.

Nope, if you pretend to be a pirate you're obviously a real career criminal floating off the coast of Africa waiting to kidnap tourists and steal French armour deliveries for your nefarious deeds.

Just look at Ian McKellan. Obviously since he played Magneto he's evil. Wait; he also played Gandalf, maybe he's super good. Hrm.

Patrick Stewart is a better example, he played Picard so he's totally good. Except for that time he played the head of a murderous racist gang. >____>

Wait; maybe they get paid to pretend to be people for a living and who they are offscreen isn't directly related to their onscreen personas at all.

That's the difference! If you get paid to pretend you're good. If you do it in your spare time for free it's evil. Man, I feel like I'm back in the 80s trying to explain why RPGs don't lead to rooms coated in chicken blood.

I really don't see how people can't find this line between Pretend Adversity and Real Adversity. I think maybe too many people are bringing their actual self-worth and egos to the party, and using your real stuff in the pretend world can frequently lead to these kinds of OMG EVIL outcries. If your real ego is getting bruised by the pretend stuff it's probably pretty traumatic.

 

[Sylveria]

Robbing and killing other players are functions of the game, extrapolating real life character flaws in people for assuming others are playing a game as intended is kind of sick, to be nice.

Multiplayer games are a social setting. In social settings, what you do affects others- like it or not. That's the difference.

Want to RP to your heart's content without others "labeling" you for your actions? Choose Solo- which is not a social setting.

Implying others may be "sick" because what you do has an effect on them is akin to quite a few psychological disorders, FYI.

 

[Tarman]

Multiplayer games are a social setting. In social settings, what you do affects others- like it or not. That's the difference.

Want to RP to your heart's content without others "labeling" you for your actions? Choose Solo- which is not a social setting.

Implying others may be "sick" because what you do has an effect on them is akin to quite a few psychological disorders, FYI.

Social just means "other peoples be round". That comes in every flavour under the sun. Like military hazing or ritual mutilation or unbreakable caste systems; you know, fun social stuff. It's not anything to do with how nice you are to other people at all unless that's part of your societal rules. It isn't always, nor always even applied equally in societies that generally aren't too horrid to their peoples. Some societies respect strength and violence over and above nicety, and some don't respect any or all of those in various combinations. Some respect all other societies even if they don't agree with them, and yet others believe that only their society is right and all others are so wrong they should be eliminated. Lots of wars between nice people who respect all life except the lives of people who don't believe what they believe. That's all being social; interacting with others in various ways.

The word you're looking for "sociable", wherein you're using your pleasant and gentlemanly or womanly ways with like-minded individuals who are also seeking a more genteel approach to things, such as the vast numbers of Mobius folks who don't want to shoot at each other in their Pretend Spaceman. That's a different concept. It's also some really delicious crackers.

 

[Sylveria]

Social just means "other peoples be round". That comes in every flavour under the sun. Like military hazing or ritual mutilation or unbreakable caste systems; you know, fun social stuff. It's not anything to do with how nice you are to other people at all unless that's part of your societal rules. It isn't always, nor always even applied equally in societies that generally aren't too horrid to their peoples. Some societies respect strength and violence over and above nicety, and some don't respect any or all of those in various combinations. Some respect all other societies even if they don't agree with them, and yet others believe that only their society is right and all others are so wrong they should be eliminated. Lots of wars between nice people who respect all life except the lives of people who don't believe what they believe. That's all being social; interacting with others in various ways.

The word you're looking for "sociable", wherein you're using your pleasant and gentlemanly or womanly ways with like-minded individuals who are also seeking a more genteel approach to things, such as the vast numbers of Mobius folks who don't want to shoot at each other in their Pretend Spaceman. That's a different concept. It's also some really delicious crackers.

Do you think anything and everything should be allowable in an RP sense because it's a fantasy environment (or "video game") then?

R@pe, torture? Nothing should ever be considered "taboo" because it's in the context of a fantasy environment?

If not, why? I mean, depriving someone else of life and liberty is so "lulz-worthy" in the context of this video game, after all.

Fighting to defend and for survival is indeed one thing- but simply blowing players ships away just because it's laugh-worthy is another.

I'm not an extremist- I'm using extreme examples to point out that actions affecting others doesn't simply "disappear" within the context of a video game or because you don some sort of fantasy mask for RP purposes.

 

[Brrokk]

It's funny isn't it. Some of us think it's natural to deduce what someone is like from their behaviour when we interact with them. Others are offended at the very idea. I wonder if there's a correlation with any other trait?

 

[Leadfoot]

Why are we still arguing about open v solo, ganking, griefing, etc.?

Because like herpes, it just never goes away.

Seriously, it's a debate that no one will agree to end. Everyone on either side is right and for them, everyone on the other side of the argument is wrong.

I still think it's nice that FD gave us SOLO for those of us who just preferred a single-player game. Then again, just think of how World of Warcraft would have turned out of THEY had Solo Mode.

Just look at Ian McKellan. Obviously since he played Magneto he's evil. Wait; he also played Gandalf, maybe he's super good. Hrm.

Patrick Stewart is a better example, he played Picard so he's totally good. Except for that time he played the head of a murderous racist gang. >____>

Wait; maybe they get paid to pretend to be people for a living and who they are offscreen isn't directly related to their onscreen personas at all.

You may have to use the example of Chuck Norris playing the role of Chuck Norris since only he can play himself and he always plays the good guy since no "good guy" would be able to defeat an evil Chuck Norris.

 

[Kaa Mchorror]

It's funny isn't it. Some of us think it's natural to deduce what someone is like from their behaviour when we interact with them. Others are offended at the very idea. I wonder if there's a correlation with any other trait?

What is absolutely hilarious is that some people are so emotionally attached to pixels that their world goes into a melt down if they get killed. Blaming anyone other than themselves for their crappy loadout/skill level because they should be allowed to get a participation award for everything. I wonder if there's a correlation with any other traits?