Bob Lighthouse
Banned
- Status
I don't think so. You confuse rules that allow you to perform actions with consequences.
What are real life rules? there are none other than those of physics. But there are human created laws with consequences. Just like in the Open mode. It's hard to compare conseqences of action in RL and those in game world though, because those in RL are more severe and definitive.
Anyway, as far as semantics goes, I do not give "consent" to being attacked in Open. I might maybe be aware and accept the risk of it, but that's not the same thing.
You (probably) don't give consent to being blown up, because you put up a fight.
Thank you very much for your valuable opinion, Bobby. Such stimulating discussion you're making.
In fact you're one of few people in this thread that made me reconsider my view.
I admit, i was miguided. I thought I wanted more interaction with people attacking me in the Open.
But perhaps not. Not all of them.
Just kill me. The quicker, the better.
Last edited:
the game rules are different from the rules in the simulated universe.
if someone attacks you in open you can complain and report him to the pilots federation (the game actually does that for you if you have crimes on). imaginary police will enforce, more or less, those imaginary rules. but you're still playing a game, which implicitly means you accept the game rules. and the game rules say about open ... guess what!
you may feel that the in-game simulation of rules is wrong, falls short or is inappropriate, and that's a valid (and ongoing) discussion like about everything that somehow shapes that simulated universe, from imaginary laws to mechanics to virtual objects.
you may even discuss the game rules themselves of course, but when it comes to playing you have to follow these, i.e. you have to consent to them. else you would be cheating?
that said, being a jerk in open is being a jerk, but that is still not against the rules unless some secret council at frontier decides it's harassment.
TheMegaTurnip
Banned
At the end of the day players make the choice every day to risk unsolicited PvP.
Open means exactly that. By clicking that button you sign yourself up for the potential of getting ganked/griefed/shot at.
Personally I dont see what all the fuss is about. the day is'nt complete unless I've both spanked a few folks and been spanked by a few folks.
One of the better things about PvP in Elite is that its Rock Paper Scissors as heck.
You might smash one guy oneday, but the next time you see him, he has an effective counter, even if you outfly your opponent in these situations you can still loose simply by not watching your opponents habits and weapons. Thats interesting gameplay.
Open means exactly that. By clicking that button you sign yourself up for the potential of getting ganked/griefed/shot at.
Personally I dont see what all the fuss is about. the day is'nt complete unless I've both spanked a few folks and been spanked by a few folks.
One of the better things about PvP in Elite is that its Rock Paper Scissors as heck.
You might smash one guy oneday, but the next time you see him, he has an effective counter, even if you outfly your opponent in these situations you can still loose simply by not watching your opponents habits and weapons. Thats interesting gameplay.
the game rules are different from the rules in the simulated universe.
if someone attacks you in open you can complain and report him to the pilots federation (the game actually does that for you if you have crimes on). imaginary police will enforce, more or less, those imaginary rules. but you're still playing a game, which implicitly means you accept the game rules. and the game rules say about open ... guess what!
you may feel that the in-game simulation of rules is wrong, falls short or is inappropriate, and that's a valid (and ongoing) discussion like about everything that somehow shapes that simulated universe, from imaginary laws to mechanics to virtual objects.
you may even discuss the game rules themselves of course, but when it comes to playing you have to follow these, i.e. you have to consent to them. else you would be cheating?
that said, being a jerk in open is being a jerk, but that is still not against the rules unless some secret council at frontier decides it's harassment.
What we're discussing is actually explicit vs implied consent.
When playing football I might not give explicit consent to be kicked in the groin, although nobody would treat me seriously if I would call the police
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I have no such illusions of changing anyone's views.
Nor am I here to have "stimulating discussion" with you about various brain farts.
But it is nonsense, what you posted and I am here to refute that on occasion.
It is explicitly against the law to shoot people in the US, but it is explicitly within the rules to shoot people in Elite.
How you manage in your head, to twist that into anything else, is quite a feat!
Yeah, that all might be true, but on the other hand when you're attacking someone who doesn't want to fight, you have nothing to gain by that, the fight isn't really interesting, or there is no fight at all, then why not leave him alone, or maybe at least try to make it somehow interesting for the fellow on the other end of your barrel?
By attacking unarmed ships of players not into PvP, if you don't have in-game reason to do so, you're not gaining much, but you might be loosing more lively Open.
It would be nice if some people would consider that. That's all.
Interestingly it can also be against the in-game law to shoot certain people in the game, depends on where you go & who you shoot, much like IRL.
Good to see you actually taking part in the conversation rather than just trying to stop it Bob. We are all saying pretty much the same things, we are just looking for the right words that everyone agrees with. The common ground
Last edited:
You're confusing things.
Real life rules are:
if you shoot someone, you'll cause harm (death, injury)
Real life law is:
if you shoot someone, you'll be punished according to law (simplifying)
Game rules are:
If you shoot another ship, you can cause damage and/or destruction
Game law:
you'll get fine or bounty for shooting innocents
Therefore what I ment was:
if you say that by playing Open i give consent to being shot at, this can also be said about real life, which I don't think you would agree is true.
Instead of making snarky or offensive remarks, maybe try explaining why you disagree, like you did just now. That's what is called a discussion.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
You are confused.
Snark is the appropriate reaction to your smarm.
C&P is gameplay, not punishment for breaking the rules.
Your analogy is terrible.
You explicitly give consent to those rules by clicking on open, since that is how the game is defined.
At no point in the US do you consent to being shot in a similar manner.
It's patently ridiculous to suggest there is a parallel.
Bob, you are offering an opinion, not laying down the law. Try to understand how your words can be interpreted as horribly spiteful and full of bile. I'm sure you don't intend them to be read that way.
What we're discussing is actually explicit vs implied consent.
When playing football I might not give explicit consent to be kicked in the groin, although nobody would treat me seriously if I would call the police
ok, i would argue that kicking in the groin is against the rules of the ball game, while blowing up any ship isn't against any rule of the space game, but i'm happy to settle for the explicit/implied distinction.
imo the current ruleset of the space game isn't much in tune with the intended audience (pegi 7 no less!). i'm fine with it (not particularly a fan given other aspects, but happy to play along) but i understand others might not immediately realize how crude it is, so a bit of fair warning to new players before they venture into open would indeed go a long way.
Last edited:
But do you accept that in an active sport like football, taking a hit in the groin is something that could happen? You just hope it doesn't and try to mitigate it (maybe by wearing a cup).
C&P is gameplay, shooting in game is gameplay...
you can't break in-game rules. Not unless you're cheating.
I was discussing that with Znort.
Explicitly? No, I did not give explicit consent to anything by clicking Open, just like you didn't explicitly consent to being shot at.
Edit:
btw, that's why I said that it's not a good idea to start discussion on semantics. Somehow it got mixed up with "Open is for doing whatever is allowed" discussion.
Last edited:
Yeah, probably "kicking in the groin" wasn't the best example I could come up with.
What I was trying to say is that I understand your point, we just define "consent" slightly differently. And you've made good argument there.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
There are other ways to break the rules but you're starting to catch on.
Well you might not be aware of the terms but you sure did.
And no there is no parallel with getting shot in real life.
That is explicitly against the law.
It's really a silly idea you keep trying to float!
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
It's not an opinion, LOL!
I also don't care whatsoever how you twist my words in your mind.
Your dishonesty and weird obsession with me is pretty hilarious.
You even bring me up when getting salty to other people!
LOL
Get a grip.
I think you are unable to see past your own blinkered and hypocritical view Bob. If someone isn't very good at fighting, should they continue to fight and lose? Or should they do something different (eg learn, or leave)? What's your personal rule of thumb in these situations? Or should the one they are fighting with realise they are against a much less capable opponent than they had thought & go easy on them?
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Why are you so interested in a "blinkered view?"
LOL
You're so worked up it's hilarious.
LOL
You're so worked up it's hilarious.
I think I understand your world view, and those that think like you, I have discussed this sort of topic many times over many years and have evolved a reasonably sophisticated appreciation for the spectrum of viewpoints. I am always willing and interested to learn more to refine that view.
So do you think the attacker that gives no quarter should go easy on the unexpectedly weak opponent? Or should the unexpectedly weak opponent learn to improve, or if they don't want to try to improve, maybe just avoid getting involved in the conflict?
Put yourself in each position, consider what you would do, and what you would want the other party to do. I think your position is hypocritical.
Last edited:
- Status