PvP Is nonconsensual PvP really that much of a problem?

[CMDR Big Mike]

They're "objectively bad for the game." That's a pretty powerful statement, Big Mike. Got something factual and statistical to back it up with, something besides your feelings? Because my standpoint is that the game not only condones it in term of the rules, it actively encourages the behavior. Couple that with the fact that the dev's themselves have said that Open is the most popular mode and I'd have to opine that you're full of horse apples right up to your ears.

Except they don’t encourage the behavior. Hence the forum posts of the poor gankers complaining that there is no meaning to their ganking. Like I said, gankers are the price of having a free and open game, not the intention.

The fact that more people play in open doesn’t mean that they like ganking. It could just as easily be the fact that it’s the first option, or people haven’t encountered a ganker yet and don’t know any better.

Logically, over time the murder hobos will drive people from the game. Since their “gameplay” is a means to NO END, it frustrates other players for nothing. Therefore, it does nothing good and only makes people mad (objectively worse).

I’ve not seen any compelling argument that has convinced me that ganking brings value to the game/ experience.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

"Killing other Cmdrs" with no other qualifications/conditions is perfectly acceptable.

I’m telling you that there is a distinction between “technically allowed” and wanted/needed/appreciated. I’m not saying it’s against the rules. I’m saying killing without context is not good for the game, it’s an ignorant way to play. If you want to shoot at other people, join the PVP leagues.

Maybe you’re not good at PVP so you like to squash loaner sidewinders because it’s “allowed”?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I’m telling you that there is a distinction between “technically allowed” and wanted/needed/appreciated. I’m not saying it’s against the rules. I’m saying killing without context is not good for the game, it’s an ignorant way to play. If you want to shoot at other people, join the PVP leagues.

Maybe you’re not good at PVP so you like to squash loaner sidewinders because it’s “allowed”?

Again, you're just making stuff up.
What I do or don't do has no bearing.


"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

"PvP will drive people away from this game, I tell you!

Yes, it's been four years and open is the most popular mode, but it'll happen!

Any day now.

What about now? No?

You just hold on. Maybe once the new content is released.

Maybe I need to write an Open Letter to Frontier.

But seriously! The community is about to flee just because of the gankers.

Anyone?"

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

Again, you're just making stuff up.
What I do or don't do has no bearing.


"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

What evidence is there to say that serial killing random CMDRs is good for the game then? Actions taken against other humans does have consequences. That style of gameplay es people off, as evidenced by the many threads of people angry about it, as well as the existence of Mobius.

 

[Riverside]

They're "objectively bad for the game." That's a pretty powerful statement, Big Mike. Got something factual and statistical to back it up with, something besides your feelings? Because my standpoint is that the game not only condones it in term of the rules, it actively encourages the behavior. Couple that with the fact that the dev's themselves have said that Open is the most popular mode and I'd have to opine that you're full of horse apples right up to your ears.

Gotta say I agree, the game has very loose rules on player interaction & doesn't restrict player interaction by equipment, rank or anything other than latency and mode. It's a free for all, with in-lore rules on crime as much for entertainment as anything, the game offers moral dilemmas & allows the player to explore all avenues with virtually no restriction.

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say it's encouraged, but only because no particular activity is encouraged.


But.

The player map in this game is a 1:1 scale simulation of the entire Milky Way galaxy, even the bubble is an enormous area and any player in any random populated system is pretty unlikely to meet another unless they want to or are too stubborn to leave a hotspot. Even without modes it's easy to limit your personal threat level.

 

[Riverside]

What evidence is there to say that serial killing random CMDRs is good for the game then? Actions taken against other humans does have consequences. That style of gameplay es people off, as evidenced by the many threads of people angry about it, as well as the existence of Mobius.

Killing players is bad for the individual but creates conflict and motivation for the playerbase overall, with players uniting to achieve a common goal. Or to complain about it, either way it motivates player to come together. Some people enjoy it

 

[Red Rocket]

Ehhhh no. Ganking is a symptom of the freedom allowed in this game. I’m all for criminals if it makes sense, like piracy or killing an opposing PP group. Again, there is a difference between “technically allowed” and intended gameplay. It is allowed because there’s no good way to stop it without intruding on other freedoms.

Nobody wants serial killers and they are objectively a detriment to the game

Right on I agree 100 %

I can’t think of where ganking or griefing is good for ED or any online game it’s the plague of all on line games

Definition of ganking = group of griefers

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

What evidence is there to say that serial killing random CMDRs is good for the game then? Actions taken against other humans does have consequences. That style of gameplay es people off, as evidenced by the many threads of people angry about it, as well as the existence of Mobius.

You're the one making the big claims.
That's not how evidence works, sorry.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

You're the one making the big claims.
That's not how evidence works, sorry.

What a cop out. So everyone has to prove thing to you because you’re some mighty arbiter of truth?

In all honesty, with the way you conduct yourself in the forums, it appears that you just like annoying people and not contributing anything useful.

Evidence works both ways. I’m arguing serial killers are bad for the game. You must think they are good? Put forth an argument or pipe down and let the adults hash things out.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

What a cop out. So everyone has to prove thing to you because you’re some mighty arbiter of truth?

In all honesty, with the way you conduct yourself in the forums, it appears that you just like annoying people and not contributing anything useful.

Evidence works both ways. I’m arguing serial killers are bad for the game. You must think they are good? Put forth an argument or pipe down and let the adults hash things out.

The best evidence available is what the devs share. So far they have indicated that:

1) The game is doing well.

2) Open is the most popular mode.

This would seem to outweigh the anecdotes and conjecture of those who predict that the game has been, is, or will suffer because of unwanted PvP. I understand that emotionally you might disagree, but if you want to talk about "evidence working both ways", well... it doesn't really work like that. I don't see how you could have access to what's been publicly stated by the game's devs and still insist on the narrative of a game in danger because of PvP. No doubt some players have been turned off to open because of some unfortunate setbacks, but... big picture, you know?

 

[jasonbarron]

The best evidence available is what the devs share. So far they have indicated that:

1) The game is doing well.

2) Open is the most popular mode.

This would seem to outweigh the anecdotes and conjecture of those who predict that the game has been, is, or will suffer because of unwanted PvP. I understand that emotionally you might disagree, but if you want to talk about "evidence working both ways", well... it doesn't really work like that. I don't see how you could have access to what's been publicly stated by the game's devs and still insist on the narrative of a game in danger because of PvP. No doubt some players have been turned off to open because of some unfortunate setbacks, but... big picture, you know?

One of these days Big Mike will learn that his emotions aren't the same as "objective facts."

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

The best evidence available is what the devs share. So far they have indicated that:

1) The game is doing well.

2) Open is the most popular mode.

This would seem to outweigh the anecdotes and conjecture of those who predict that the game has been, is, or will suffer because of unwanted PvP. I understand that emotionally you might disagree, but if you want to talk about "evidence working both ways", well... it doesn't really work like that. I don't see how you could have access to what's been publicly stated by the game's devs and still insist on the narrative of a game in danger because of PvP. No doubt some players have been turned off to open because of some unfortunate setbacks, but... big picture, you know?

Coming out of nowhere with the big stttttrrrrreeeeettttcccchhhhhhhh. Open is popular and the game is doing well, gas prices are down, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Correlation =/= causation. The conclusions/ causes of your evidence are so broad, it’s not proof of anything.

With the lack of meaningful/ specific stats on the subject, deductive reasoning is a better tool. I doubt any person ever picked this game up looking forward to being randomly killed. Being a space serial killer is not marketed, nor rewarded within the mechanics of the game.

Being a space serial killer is not useful to anyone. I fully support FD giving more reasons/context for players killing players. However, blasting peaceful CMDRs remains an ignorant and ultimately harmful activity.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

One of these days Big Mike will learn that his emotions aren't the same as "objective facts."

What emotions? I’ve laid out a clear logic as to why random murder is bad, and there’s not been one solid counter point. Find me one “objective fact” that shows serial killers are good for the game

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

Coming out of nowhere with the big stttttrrrrreeeeettttcccchhhhhhhh. Open is popular and the game is doing well, gas prices are down, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Correlation =/= causation. The conclusions/ causes of your evidence are so broad, it’s not proof of anything.

With the lack of meaningful/ specific stats on the subject, deductive reasoning is a better tool. I doubt any person ever picked this game up looking forward to being randomly killed. Being a space serial killer is not marketed, nor rewarded within the mechanics of the game.

Being a space serial killer is not useful to anyone. I fully support FD giving more reasons/context for players killing players. However, blasting peaceful CMDRs remains an ignorant and ultimately harmful activity.

Alright. Some people need the Director's Cut.

Evidence isn't based on what you want to be true or feel to be true. Evidence is based on that which can be independently verified- in this case, when the developers of a video game have made it clear that a certain mode is the most popular and that the financial and participatory health of the game is considered good. The words mean the exact same thing no matter who reads them. No, it isn't as detailed as releasing exact numbers or the methods used to interpret them, but it's the best we have to go off of. It's for dang sure better than anecdotes and one's feelings about the matter.

And please don't make vague appeals to "deductive reasoning" with zero follow-through like some novice debate student hoping to impress an ignorant judge. Deductive reasoning is when one is able to take a general statement and use it to arrive at a specific conclusion. The application in this case would be to take the general statement that we can deem credible- "open is the most popular mode"- and employ it to arrive at a more specific conclusion - "PvP is not, in fact, driving people out of open in significant numbers." It isn't as tidy as "all cars have steering wheels > Fords are cars > Fords have steering wheels", but it's a far more reasonable use of such than wherever you were going with it. What you were attempting to do is actually an example of inductive reasoning- starting from something specific and using it to arrive at a generalized conclusion, e.g., "I have an anecdote of a player or players leaving the game because of gankers, and therefore the game's participatory health is or will be in jeopardy". That in itself is technically solid inductive reasoning, but has the disadvantage of being contradicted by the best available evidence. This is why you can't make these kinds of arguments by logic alone- both deductive and inductive logic can be employed to make statements that are logically sound but either untrue or even absurd. You also can't rely on singular anecdotes or the emotional weight of these anecdotes- we're talking about the behavior of a video game community, which means taking a large number of samples and evaluating them as a collective whole- which simply can't be done accurately by any except those with access to all the information.

Is it even worth explaining how people who have access to the entirety of the game's metrics are a more credible source of information than those who deal in anecdotes and assumptions? Or will you simply dismiss that, too?

 

[Florenus]

It's called being concise.

No, Bob, it's called being a troll.
Nobody is interested in any first thing that comes to your mind, you're not that fascinating.
If you don't agree, use arguments to explain your point of view, or keep your fingers out of the keyboard.

(...)I doubt any person ever picked this game up looking forward to being randomly killed(...)

Actually I think that's not true. Some really enjoy that, I've red some statements on this forum and I have no reason to not believe them. The problem is that there is more than one type of player - some just treat this game as Open world Arena and don't bother with roleplaying f.ex. Others play differently, and some of those playstyles that Elite allows just don't click right together.

I'm a Solo player myself. I've bought this game because of this mode and never thought I would be playing in Open. But I do now. Risk of being killed is one of the reasons, although I have my objections as to how it happens sometimes.
Turns out PvPers are content for me as much as I am for them, even if on occasion I might see them as poorly designed one

Actually participating in threads like this one helps me to make sense of some things in game and I've learned to accept existance of those players that enjoy only shooting others. Mostly because they're not that many and even more importantly, because it is avoidable by switching modes - modes is the most brilliant thing Devs came up with in this game, because it allows coexistence of players with extremely different playstyles.
And changing the way someone likes to play by telling him he shouldn't, when obviously he can, is counterproductive. Makes more sense to try to change what we can, which is something within ourselves (Or rules of the game if you can convince devs). Less frustration that way.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Being a space serial killer is not marketed, nor rewarded within the mechanics of the game.

It is marketed:

Spoiler

And if you're killing Commanders of a similar Combat rating, it rewards your own Combat rating.

 

[Gobo]

Npc's are just not enough of a challenge if you like combat which I do , so hunting other players is the only way to get a decent fight.

 

[AP Birdman]

Ehhhh no. Ganking is a symptom of the freedom allowed in this game. I’m all for criminals if it makes sense, like piracy or killing an opposing PP group. Again, there is a difference between “technically allowed” and intended gameplay. It is allowed because there’s no good way to stop it without intruding on other freedoms.

Nobody wants serial killers and they are objectively a detriment to the game

Criminals if it makes since? I kill people whether they like it or not, therefore I'm a criminal, so fight me.

Why do you need an actual in-game system to dictate who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

I used to be with IED because I liked the idea of being a space cop but it turned out to be boring as hell so I decided to be a bad guy and it turns out I meet more people this way.
I dont't need an in-game system telling me if I'm good or bad, why do you?
And now that I'm a "bad guy", I have a bunch of "good guys" to shoot at.

You all act like this is real life, like I need to apply my same life morals to this game, but it's a video game that allows you to play any way you want, including being a bad guy, and I find that enjoyable.

I hear all this "I want to play my way. I want to fly shieldless in open, with no consequences!"
Well what about how I want to play? I want to shoot the dumb commanders that think it's ok to fly shieldless in open play.

Am I not allowed to play the way I want to play because YOU deem it immoral?

Im not trying to tell you how to play. I'll give you suggestions on how to survive an encounter with me but if you decide to continue flying shieldless in open, that's fine, good for you. Just know that I'm still going to blow you up if I find you.
And to be honest, the more you squeal and cry about it, the more I'm going to come after you.

 

[Florenus]

The explodee in that video came prepared for paint damage, perhaps the occasional jump-too-close-to-stars damage and maybe the odd parking ding on a planet. Who in their right mind would prepare a starship for exploration in the unknown like that? Even in their most happy happy joy joy let's join hands and sing around the campfire stage, Star Trek had weapons and shields on their exploration vessels.

In Star Trek you can't take two steps without tripping on some aliens.
On the other hand no Apollo mission had weapons as far as I know, and when we'll finally see some people going to Mars, I seriously doubt they will do so in armed spacecraft.
And it's not like we're not considering the possibility of intelligent, hostile alien life somewhere. But the chances are so extremely small, that it's not on priority list to prepare.
ED teaches us its rules too. On my first exploration trip I packed a lot of things that seemed reasonable to have, but proved useless for me after all.