Just gonna butt in here...
Absolutely! If you do, harden up cupcake and get jumping! You wanna live forever?! [haha]
Last edited:
- Status
Just gonna butt in here...
Absolutely! If you do, harden up cupcake and get jumping! You wanna live forever?! [haha]
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
A man of fine and eclectic tastes...
I think it is.
Since PvP being a minor thing even in Open is a problem only to a few, a rare occurrence indeed. Play in Open as often as you can, it is in its very nature a friendly playground. Prepare for interception or avoid events, get your gear together. A good shield is your best friend.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Non-consensual PVP is pretty much an oxymoron, in open.
Absolute
It may be that some are interpreting that phrase differently from others. Clearly by implication you welcome all (or almost all) encounters with other players.
Consensual PvP is organised - everything from an agreed spontaneous fight to an organised competition.
Non-consensual could encompass the spontaneous end of that spectrum as Bob defines it, but for others it is where they have a goal to achieve and that spontaneous fight is in conflict with their goal (to reach a station or whatever). One side does not want to fight but instead to achieve their goal, the one initiating the engagement may be trying to prevent the goal from being achieved. Players involved may be prepared to defend themselves but are looking to avoid conflict.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Your definition of 'non-consensual' is not the same as for others Bob. There is no right or wrong definition, just differences.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Who thinks that Bob? Have you considered that you may be mistaken, or that you failed to understand a joke? Seems more likely than anyone thinking that picture is a 'kitty cat', Occam's razor & all that. Are you the one that thinks it's a 'kitty cat'?
Every player consents to the rules of the game to even be able to play it. They state very clearly that players are free to attack other players in the game for any reason, and even for no reason at all.
Which means that non-consensual PVP doesn't exist in open mode, both parties have already agreed to play by the same rules.
Which means that non-consensual PVP doesn't exist in open mode, both parties have already agreed to play by the same rules.
Sure it does. If I'm trying to achieve a goal and someone is trying to prevent me from achieving that goal by blowing up my ship, it's non-consensual. Personally I prefer the terms freeform & organised.
I think the difference of opinion on how the terms are defined could play a part in mis-understanding the position of another poster. Consent is not implied or assumed, it is explicitly given (or not).
If it helps I don't think either are a problem in a game where players fly spaceships with guns & armour and reporting crimes can be turned off, but understanding the vocabulary someone taking what looks like an opposing view is a worthwhile exercise, particularly when the definitions of consent are so well established IRL.
I prefer the terms freeform & organised, they are less ambiguous & offer less opportunity for offence to be taken.
ETA So I interpret the title of this thread to be 'is freeform PvP a problem?'
Last edited:
following that example ... you consented to anything that can happen in open (within the tos) by entering open. you also consented to the possibility of bumping into another cmdr and wing up and be best friends. you also consented to the possibility of becoming a target to anyone. however if that happens, you're still free, of course: you don't have to consent to fight by fighting back! you can also escape. or try to remain undetected in the first place. that's all pvp, to which you consented by playing in open in the first place, and open explicitly includes pvp.
otoh you have the option of protecting your non-consent by playing solo. and then you have an infinity of different custom 'consent' options to choose from, namely each and every private group which will have its own rules.
to put a different example, i'm guessing you wouldn't like to consent to smashing your ship onto the ground, but you gave consent for that happening to you the moment you spotted a high gravity planet and decided to land on it.
the problem with your interpretation is that you want a granularity of consent the game doesn't offer, possibly because the game has a very crude and rudimentary pvp model. well, then play another game, or blame the designers but not the players. or just simply don't go into g open!
you explicitly gave it, see above.
well, that's mainly because you are pushing a twisted interpretation of consent that is not really applicable here, simply because you are deliberately ignoring the necessary context.
i find these terms pretty unrelated to consent. plus they are even more confusing. what is organized pvp in elite? cqc? cz? duels? so ... anything except pirating, bounty hunting and ganking? so those a freeform pvp?
see the trouble you get into by choosing random different words just because the obvious, commonly accepted and appropriate term just doesn't suit your agenda? 
I would argue, that by that logic, if you live in America, you give consent to anyone shooting you on the street, because people have the right to bear arms, you know that and take the risk of encountering unstable individuals just by leaving home. And no law tells people they cannot do something, it only tells them what actions warrant punishment, therefore people can do anything.
Riverside makes good point, although I'm not sure it will do this discussion any good if it will go into semantics.
Wow, this really took of. I’m really happy to see so much participation, and I’ll be sure to read them all. I’m glad that there’s only one version of Open: there’s more tension, and there are already ways to be social and not PvP (Mobius). I’ve been in PvP, some consensual and asked to duel, some just opened fire..and I never had anyone chase me around and stalk me.
A couple days ago I got rammed and blown up in a station. I jumped in my unarmed canyon runner that was stored there and as I left the pad, he tried to boost into me again, but I easily dodged him. Then later I got back to the station, and he was just sitting in place inside the station, with the nose of his ship pointing toward the airlock. Maybe he was having a bad day and was trying to ruin other people’s day.
It fortunately is rare finding people like that in the game. And I could understand that it might turn people off to Open. A solution might be:
A couple days ago I got rammed and blown up in a station. I jumped in my unarmed canyon runner that was stored there and as I left the pad, he tried to boost into me again, but I easily dodged him. Then later I got back to the station, and he was just sitting in place inside the station, with the nose of his ship pointing toward the airlock. Maybe he was having a bad day and was trying to ruin other people’s day.
It fortunately is rare finding people like that in the game. And I could understand that it might turn people off to Open. A solution might be:
- if someone repeatedly boosts into a ship in a no-fire zone and it results in the other’s ship’s destruction, a bounty is issued to the offender. (Repeated, because once might be an accident, or some punk who’s in a shieldless eggshell). And if the other person is reasonably close to the speed limit they’re safe from getting a bounty, when someone does a kamikaze attack
- And if someone boosts into a ship and their own ship is destroyed, the other doesn’t get a bounty.
- And if they’re both relatively close to the speed limit and not flying wrecklessly fast, a murder warrant isn’t issued (so you can’t use a shieldless Sidewinder and glue yourself to another ship until your ship’s hull get whittled away, even if their ship gets pushed to 101m/s).
- or...if someone gets too many reports of griefing, put them on their own instance with other griefers
Last edited:
following that example ... you consented to anything that can happen in open (within the tos) by entering open. you also consented to the possibility of bumping into another cmdr and wing up and be best friends. you also consented to the possibility of becoming a target to anyone. however if that happens, you're still free, of course: you don't have to consent to fight by fighting back! you can also escape. or try to remain undetected in the first place. that's all pvp, to which you consented by playing in open in the first place, and open explicitly includes pvp.
otoh you have the option of protecting your non-consent by playing solo. and then you have an infinity of different custom 'consent' options to choose from, namely each and every private group which will have its own rules.
to put a different example, i'm guessing you wouldn't like to consent to smashing your ship onto the ground, but you gave consent for that happening to you the moment you spotted a high gravity planet and decided to land on it.
the problem with your interpretation is that you want a granularity of consent the game doesn't offer, possibly because the game has a very crude and rudimentary pvp model. well, then play another game, or blame the designers but not the players. or just simply don't go into g open!
you explicitly gave it, see above.
well, that's mainly because you are pushing a twisted interpretation of consent that is not really applicable here, simply because you are deliberately ignoring the necessary context.
i find these terms pretty unrelated to consent. plus they are even more confusing. what is organized pvp in elite? cqc? cz? duels? so ... anything except pirating, bounty hunting and ganking? so those a freeform pvp?
I appreciate what you are saying Znort, the reason why I went to such lengths in the post you quoted was to highlight how the definition can be interpreted in more than one way. This therefore can create confusion (and in the case of the word consent, offence) for some.
Hence why I prefer to use the descriptions 'freeform' and 'organised'. They are less ambiguous, unoffensive terms than non-consensual and consensual.
The definition of the word consent is debatable and it's okay to disagree
What's important to understand that it is a word that can be interpreted differently by different people. Most conflict comes from misunderstandings ime. Usually accidental, sometimes deliberate. I accept that when people say non-consensual they mean they understand combat is a possibility but want to avoid it, which is different from hanging around in supercruise waiting for someone to interdict them.This kind of thread is like publishing cute kitten movie on YT
im some way you do. america has no modes, so you have no other option, except living elsewhere (with more gun control, maybe?). otoh, in america you have a right to walk on the street and shooting you is against the laws. in open, shooting at you has game consequences but is not against the rules, it's perfectly valid gameplay (you have given consent to by playing). so, yet another irl comparision busted?
semantics is one of the few topics of any anti-pvp thread that is even possible to discuss. the rest is just salt and lulz exchange
but didn't we call that 'emergent gameplay'?
well, i just jumped in, i indeed should have read at least a few pages from this thread. the issue was already clear on the first page.
The definition of the word consent is debatable and it's okay to disagree
true. and i understand the confusion. the game doesn't have a big red disclaimer to click through, warning that you can be shot at at any moment and for no apparent reason in open. but that's what it is, so there's always that first experience. and the confusion is natural, as much as the complaints and the following discussion. at some point, however, i would assume the confused part to become aware of that misconception, and from then on make an informed, responsible decision. to consent or not to consent, that's the question! i also agree that if these people are then just mocked and laughed at, there's little room for that insight to happen. whichs what i meant with 'salt&lulz'.
which again has nothing to do with liking or not liking this, or any discussion about the way the game could create mechanisms for that consent to be manageable in open.
- Status