New policy on player kills in private groups?

[Rampant]

Not at all.



The guy intentionally removed himself from open because he knew we could stop him from completing those actions against our progress. Listen to what they say at the end.

So if thats okay to do. Why is it so wrong for PVPers to infiltrate a PG and do the same with no consequences?

How is one better than the other? They aren't.

They are definitely very very different.

Here is why:

One is actions in a game that has a mode system deliberately programmed into it as a fundamental way the game has been designed.

The other is where a *player* agrees to a set of rules for player behaviour prior to beginning the game. In this case, it is a player who has deliberately and with forethought decided to go into that agreement with other players with the fill intention of not observing the standards of play they have given all other players their word that they agree to play by.

One is acceptable. The other is not.

Quite simple.


Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

Which is fine. But let's not pretend it isn't (1) Arbitrary, (2) A departure from the norm and (3) Frontier playing favorites.

Within the framework of the game itself, there is no such thing as a PvE private group. There is no way to set up a message, agreement, or in-game description for your group, so there is no in-game way to establish that any group is PvE or that any group has rules which must be followed. It's just a name that you can type in and ask to join, which the admin of a group can choose to invite you or not. Disputes about following "the rules" or breaking "the rules" are entirely outside of the scope of the game. It's agreements that people may or may not have made on various websites, on discord, in email, or in-person conversation, agreements which may or may not have been made before, during, or after joining the group. It's completely unaccountable and completely outside of the scope of anything having to do with the game. It's a he-said-she-said situation.

You can set up a private group and you can call it a "PvE" group, or a "sidewinders only" group, or "no engineering" group, or an "ironman only" group, or "everyone must wear ship kits" if you want to, but it is ultimately meaningless because there's nothing about those agreements that are even a little bit binding, none of it is enforceable, and none of it, frankly, is any of Frontier's business.

Your argument boils down to horse poop. It really does. You say that there is no way within the game to impose rules for a PG or advertise what the rules of a PG are. This is the horse poop part. Players "infiltrated" Mobius with the full and certain knowledge that it was a PvE *only* and in fact gained access *because* they knew it was PvE only. It wasn't their in game character that chose to shoot at unarmed ships with the tenuous justification of "role play". It was the players themselves that made the dee-bag decision to do this before applying to access the group.

You understand that this player behaviour is entirely unacceptable, right?

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

That's hilarious.

Shared universe bro!

 

[Rampant]

That's hilarious.

Shared universe bro!

That's pretty sad.

Personal standards, bro.

Slàinte Mhath

Mark H

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Yes, I have them.

You should try it some time.

 

[Rampant]

Yes, I have them.

You should try it some time.

^^^ "Sets self low standards then consistently fails to meet them" kind of personal standards?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

^^^ "Sets self low standards then consistently fails to meet them" kind of personal standards?

Don't set your sights too high now.

 

[Rampant]

If I were that guy in that house, Id be able to defend myself with a gun.

In this case, there would be a ghost taking my stuff in my world. And I am unable to stop them.

Like that movie poltergeist, how one side affected the other without seeing it?

Same thing.

We have been playing Elite Dangerous : Poltergeist

Deliberately obtuse.

To defend against a poltergeist in your house, simply become a poltergeist in the other guy's house.

Saying that "you don't like that idea" is worthless, because it is available to you and every other player.

On the other hand, if you want to be the guy who goes into the other guy's house, uninvited, who you know doesn't have a gun, and you take a gun with you... We'll, that's the level we appear to be at here in this analogy...

The fact that you don't like it doesn't change the analogy.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

I chose a good time to play something else.

 

[Rampant]

Don't set your sights too high now.

Perhaps you should be cognisant that any third party can browse through both of our forum posts and be able to quickly recognise which possesses integrity and which does not? Which are baseless or obtuse or simply put down quips (I hear that in the court of bro humour is regarded more highly than truth?) In direct contrast, they can also recognise, which are precipitated by pragmatic observation and explained accordingly?

(Perhaps some hold the court of bro in far too high a regard?)( Personally I have no respect for anyone who regards humour more highly than truth...)

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Havvk]

All those people care who gank to mine salt. No rebuy, less salt. Sad griefers. Same reason they hate PGs. Less salt, sad griefers.

For some(like me) it isn't about rebuy. It's about the ship. We name them, we care for them, we have our adventures with them. It's a shame to lose some of our most beloved particular ships.

The Nightingale is not just any Krait Phantom, she is *mine*. I would be heartbroken if I lost her. For roleplay reasons, of course.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

For some(like me) it isn't about rebuy. It's about the ship. We name them, we care for them, we have our adventures with them. It's a shame to lose some of our most beloved particular ships.

The Nightingale is not just any Krait Phantom, she is *mine*. I would be heartbroken if I lost her. For roleplay reasons, of course.

Is it really your ship though, if you artificially restrict who can see it?

I'd argue that your ship is nothing if you don't risk its very existence in Open.

 

[sewerratuk]

Is it really your ship though, if you artificially restrict who can see it?

I'd argue that your ship is nothing if you don't risk its very existence in Open.

Its Schrödinger's ship

 

[sollisb]

Is it really your ship though, if you artificially restrict who can see it?

I'd argue that your ship is nothing if you don't risk its very existence in Open.

Who needs open?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Perhaps you should be cognisant that any third party can browse through both of our forum posts and be able to quickly recognise which possesses integrity and which does not? Which are baseless or obtuse or simply put down quips (I hear that in the court of bro humour is regarded more highly than truth?) In direct contrast, they can also recognise, which are precipitated by pragmatic observation and explained accordingly?

(Perhaps some hold the court of bro in far too high a regard?)( Personally I have no respect for anyone who regards humour more highly than truth...)

Yours Aye

Mark H

I am absolutely truthful here.
I also don't care what anyone browsing our responses here can find.
That's because I stand behind everything I've said.

"Putting on airs" isn't showing integrity.

That's the whole reason I use the language I do with you.
Your formal delivery belies the truth.

It's fooling no one but yourself.

 

[Insects]

A private group should have the option controls to disable player vs player damage, or reverse it so that the shooter/rammer gets their own damage applied to themselves which means you still have to be careful not to friendly fire.

It would save group admins and FDev time dealing with offenders who violate very clear private group rules.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Is it really your ship though, if you artificially restrict who can see it?

I'd argue that your ship is nothing if you don't risk its very existence in Open.

Mode choice is not an artificial restriction. L2 blocking is more an artificial restriction, as that is not inherent to the game. Modes are.

 

[Brrokk]

Is it really your ship though, if you artificially restrict who can see it?

I'd argue that your ship is nothing if you don't risk its very existence in Open.

That is rubbish.

 

[Insects]

I believe all players, whether or not they belong to a special PG club, deserves access to a PVE experiences with a high likliehood of social interaction.

Mobius isn't really a special club though, joining is basically automatic it just takes up to a couple of days for one of their volunteer admins to check the name isn't already blacklisted and perform the cumbersome invite process.

If a dedicated PvE mode is created it basically kills Mobius.
But the problem is that even in PvE people can jam the slot and stuff to grief, who is going to moderate that in "global PvE"?
The advantage of Mobius is that it self moderates that stuff, of you "spoil others game" you won't last long when someone records the incident.

Options like no PvP damage or Auto Boot would make the group admins job easier though and save FDev support from having to look at requests for restore.

 

[Rampant]

I am absolutely truthful here.
I also don't care what anyone browsing our responses here can find.
That's because I stand behind everything I've said.

"Putting on airs" isn't showing integrity.

That's the whole reason I use the language I do with you.
Your formal delivery belies the truth.

It's fooling no one but yourself.

Delivery only appears to be "formal" to you, that's a misunderstanding on your part. I'm not putting on airs at all, simply constructing language that I hope can't be misinterpreted, either by mistake, or more poignant in your case, it would appear, misinterpreting deliberately.

One liners like "Haha if only" are a very poor form of discussion, because they can be misinterpreted. In fact I don't really have any clue what it meant at all, never mind having any concrete direction.

So do us all a favour and drop the deliberate misinterpretations of "your posts are too formal therefore you are "putting on airs"", childishness. Moreover, if that's the straw man/as hominem argument you bring, then that's more a reflection that you can't bring anything worthwhile to the discussion.

Don't you think?