The modes just don't support enforcing certain rules and FDev obviously doesn't want to change that. I guess custom rules would open up new ways for exploits.
It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.
- Thread starter Chaparral
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kingziggy pvc_community
That would be fascinting, and I suspect VERY telling.
Let pretend in a DW2 Private Group a flag of some sort had been enabled such that when Mr Griefer needlessly picked on a DW2 explorer, at the moment of destruction, up on his screen came...
"Well Done! You Win CMDR!"
...but the explorer's ship does not blow up, but simply disappears to another instance totally fine to carry on unscathed (or something to that effect).
I think we all know that for many of these individuals, that would take away a significant driving force for their activities. I wonder how many would carry on, knowing that they are not actually causing their victim unnecessary pointless grief?
Last edited:
Wait, banned from the GAME?
The hefty stink of authoritarianism just wafted over me. I agree with bans for cheating, hacking, demonstrating that you have no interest in playing according to the rules as established by the mechanics. But banned for being ACCEPTED into a private group by its owner? FDEV has absolutely zero responsibility for who the owner of a private group lets into the group. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Ban them from the private group, by all means. But that's up to whoever runs the group. Not FDEV.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Can't mine salt if there's no salt to be mined....
That you think I owe you one is telling of your narcissism. I was never apologising. I don't apologise if I've done nothing wrong.
I don't play in PvE groups so I admit I don't know the ins and outs. Are these fdev rules, or the players rules?
Yes, I suspect you're right. I would guess that a big driving force for many PKers is to ruin someone else's fun. But allowing a ship to continue, when it has just been blown to shreds certainly isn't worthy of being included in the game. Would love to see it as a social experiment though
Powderpanic
Banned
FDEV have been very clear.
Going into any group requires the consent of the group owner.
Once in that group, you can do whatever you want. It is down to the group owner to enforce HIS rules. He can, of course, do this by banning.
People say, groups, like its a mode. It's not, its ONE player with a play style he wants to force on others. It is down to him to enforce it.
FDEV only get involved if after banning, you sneak back in with an Alt.
Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing
Fdev rules... Read the EULA/Code Of Conduct
Read the EULA/Code Of Conduct
Joining a PG with PvE only rules with the sole aim to kill players is against EULA/Code Of Conduct.
Argue all you want, it doesn't make it any less true. Whether FDev enforce theie EULA/Codes Of Conduct is up to them however. But if was killed by a known PKer in a PvE group I'd looking to have them banned, citing EULA etc.
Last edited:
Powderpanic
Banned
Good luck with that buddy.
If you are feeling that lucky, today is the day to buy that Lotto ticket!
Powderpanic
The Voice of Griefing
If you are feeling that lucky, today is the day to buy that Lotto ticket!
Powderpanic
The Voice of Griefing
Oh! I'm well aware of the 'chances'.. but then if they fail to uphold EULA then it becomes a free for all in all aspects of the game. We simply can't, nor can you ask for, 'certain Eula to be enforced' and not others. Right?
A shadow ban, would be cool, so it just seems like the ganker killed another CMDR. But since it is within the rules of the game, it is fine. (Man, now I almost sound like Mr. Stiggly Bob.)
As you're the one pushing this point, I'd appreciate if you could copy and paste the relevant information, or at least point to which section/paragraph/line it is mentioned. We do it in the legal business and it makes for a much easier time for all.
Given the number of players who play Solo because they don't want to meet the players who *don't* shoot at them either - because they can still block the landing pads, or have a silly name, or try to chat, or whatever it is they object to - this is not going to work.
I don't get this idea of "getting more people into Open by changing how it works". By far the most effective thing Frontier has done over the last four years for "getting more people into Open" has been to sell the game in general to more people, thereby increasing the number of players in Open. And by far the second most effective thing they did was improving the instancing so that if you were in Open in the same place as another player you stood a decent chance of actually seeing them.
When I first started playing (a few months after release), I saw about five other players in Open in the first four or five months - most of which was spent in the Alliance core systems, so it's not like I was somewhere obscure. The first time someone tried to talk to me I was so surprised that they'd given up and left the instance before I remembered what key the comms panel was bound to... Nowadays I regularly see that many players in a day. Sometimes I see that many just docked at a single station. And I'm out in Colonia, so these are not "busy" systems by the standards of the main bubble.
There's not a problem in the first place with the number of players in Open. And given the choice between "significantly redevelop the 'rules' of Open so that maybe a net 5% extra players find it appealing" or "add some more general content to all modes so 20% more people buy the game or play it 20% longer having bought it" ... well, I know which I'd rather Frontier spent their time on.
How about, you go read the Codes Of Conduct and the EULA. I'm amazed you're unaware of these. Are you posting without knowing what they contain?
Of course. Barely anybody reads such things
but if you want me to entertain your argument you need either supply a direct quotation, or index the relevant information.