It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

<picture of sodium bicarbonate>

Now I'm intrigued. Why backing powder?

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Why are you so angry and rude, if no one can ever affect you?. You are acting like some who was effected.



Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

The second one would be "affected", btw.

You are acting like someone who has been affected by this.
You are acting like this had an effect on you.
You are acting like someone upon who(m) this had an effect.

That's right, I don't know the difference between who and whom. Laugh it up.

 

[sollisb]

Why are you so angry and rude, if no one can ever affect you?. You are acting like some who was effected.



Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

Not angry and only as rude as others are to me. It's pretty simple to read the EULA. Asking a poster to explicitly supply exact details is just being pedantic and trying to obfuscate the issue at hand. Someone calling me 'son' in some vain attempt to cast a disparaging tone, is always going to be met like with like.

The rest is just vapour. Like, 99% of these forums.

 

[voidwalker]

Which part of 'In addition taking action such as seeking out and targeting specific players purely for the purpose of being disruptive, to cause offence, or to upset players within the community can also be considered harassment. Do you not understand? Harassment is against the terms of the EULA.

What I'm reading here from you is that unless the EULA explicitly mentions all variations of an activity, it does not effect you.

Which is fine by the way, I don't care how you play, you can never effect me.

I'm sorry, but I asked for the part of the EULA that specified bans re: private groups. You didn't provide it. All you've done here is misdefine 'harassment' for your own narrative. You're wrong. It's that simple. Get over it.

 

[Muetdhiver]

They *are* engineered, G5 reinforced.

Now, what's the next line on the victim- blaming script?

Not blaming the victim in any way. Just being factual.

If you have G5 reinforced + boosters + engineerd HRP's and still get successfully ganked, it portrays a pretty bleak picture of open mode.

I usually get away fine with fat engineered shields and a pair of HRP's*, but as they say YMMV.

*I have rarely faced gank wings, as I stay away from CG's and other honeypots. The few times I faced those I got away mostly fine.

What I'm saying is that under the current implementation, open is : get engineered or get ganked.
Which is an other way to say that whatever you are doing in open, you have to fit to avoid the salt mining squad.

And then salt miners try to shame people asking for a PvE mode with restricted PvP. Joke's on them.

 

[Powderpanic]

The second one would be "affected", btw.

You are acting like someone who has been affected by this.
You are acting like this had an effect on you.
You are acting like someone upon who(m) this had an effect.

That's right, I don't know the difference between who and whom. Laugh it up.

Your right Engrish is hard.

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

 

[babelfisch]

Nothing I've posted is intended as an insult. Again, don't conflate insult with observation. I can't help it, nor is it my problem, that you take offence easily. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

Do you think it's possible to make a point, or ask a question, with relevance?

I am not hurt at all, but it's nice that you are caring about my feelings.

 

[voidwalker]

I am not hurt at all, but it's nice that you are caring about my feelings.

So you're just gonna keep doing this, are you?

At this point, you're just trolling, and I'm going to ignore you now. Feel free to have your 'last word' now that I can't see it.

 

[AlexAndTheDJ]

Been in court many times (military) boy.

Oh dear

Which part of 'In addition taking action such as seeking out and targeting specific players purely for the purpose of being disruptive, to cause offence, or to upset players within the community can also be considered harassment. Do you not understand? Harassment is against the terms of the EULA.

What I'm reading here from you is that unless the EULA explicitly mentions all variations of an activity, it does not effect you.

Which is fine by the way, I don't care how you play, you can never effect me.

Harassment is multiple forms of unwanted conduct or contact, hence why Fdev emphasised trying to circumvent PG bans.

One instance isn't harassment.

Keep up!

 

[sollisb]

Oh dear



Harassment is multiple forms of unwanted conduct or contact, hence why Fdev emphasised trying to circumvent PG bans.

One instance isn't harassment.

Keep up!

Harassment Law and Legal Definition. Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. ... "S 240.25

So much for the legal boy...

 

[sollisb]

I'm sorry, but I asked for the part of the EULA that specified bans re: private groups. You didn't provide it. All you've done here is misdefine 'harassment' for your own narrative. You're wrong. It's that simple. Get over it.

Show me the legal definition of Harassment please.

 

[paulca]

Apparently, if the perceived victim believes they have been harassed then harassment has occurred. At least that is how it work in sexual harassment causes. Entrapment anyone?

 

[voidwalker]

Harassment Law and Legal Definition. Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. ... "S 240.25

So much for the legal boy...

But the legal definition doesn't apply here, because it varies not just 'by state' but also by country. You can't prosecute someone overseas with harassment laws in your country. There is a BIG jurisdictional problem. So let's just stick to FDEV's definition of harassment, which was defined by Zac regarding private groups already, and in no uncertain terms, referring specifically and only to attempts to circumvent a a player ban or block, while also emphasising that it is still up to a player group owner to determine who they give permission to, and what rules the player group is bound by.

And that's really all there is to it, mate. Besides, if it's a legal issue, you're well within your rights to call the police and/or get yourself a lawyer, and attempt to sue for someone's identity. Good luck with anyone outside your jurisdiction, by the way.

 

[voidwalker]

Show me the legal definition of Harassment please.

THE definition? That depends on the nation/state. Which makes it largely irrelevant, with exceptions, for an online game.

Also, 'harassment' is not a proper common noun, nor a name. You don't need to capitalise it.

 

[bootsam]

In b4 thread resumes on topic or lock, whichever comes first.

 

[Chaparral]

Socialising is certainly one of them, but so is conflict. You're advocating for denying us that part of our human nature, but no one is advocating for denying you the part that you like. There is nothing stopping you from socialising with other players in open. Nothing at all. It's easy to mitigate the risk of players wanting to blow you up, but instead of learning how, you'd prefer to remove the risk entirely by implementing an instanced hugbox where there is no risk at all. And you're doing it using fallacious hyperbole and irrelevant value judgement.

Dominance hierarchies exist, not going to disagree about that. However, one person fighting within a dominance hierarchy in Alaska probably doesn't care about what is going on in New Zealand. In other words, If my sphere of concern is about social interaction, and yours is about erasing pixels, our little Venn diagrams don't really intersect. So the human need for "conflict" exists, but two players may not be climibing the same ladders in the same location.

You can have conflict without progress reset. The uncountable number of FPS games or Battle Royale games point this out.

You pointed out that NPCs pose little or no threat, yet state that you can still suffer the progress reset from other players. So the real threat to progress reset is much greater from exposure to other players. Therefore, FDEV places a higher risk for socialization instances. And yes, progress reset = punishment (player time wasted).

The restriction on socializing in open was very clearly pointed out at the launch of DW2. You're not going to deny that progress resets were applied to players at the launch of DW2 are you?

 

[Muetdhiver]

What I see is a willing economic transaction where one party get a dopamine shot while the other loses real time and supports the in-game cost of the interaction (rebuy).

Why would people engage in such a lopsided transaction from the losing side is a mystery.

What it ends up being is a tax on cooperative gameplay in open. Aka an invective to move to private groups as a regulated space for such coop activities.

Not much to do with harassment. Breaking windows is fun for some, especially if the victim always pays and when there is no law enforcement...

 

[sollisb]

But the legal definition doesn't apply here, because it varies not just 'by state' but also by country. You can't prosecute someone overseas with harassment laws in your country. There is a BIG jurisdictional problem. So let's just stick to FDEV's definition of harassment, which was defined by Zac regarding private groups already, and in no uncertain terms, referring specifically and only to attempts to circumvent a a player ban or block, while also emphasising that it is still up to a player group owner to determine who they give permission to, and what rules the player group is bound by.

And that's really all there is to it, mate. Besides, if it's a legal issue, you're well within your rights to call the police and/or get yourself a lawyer, and attempt to sue for someone's identity. Good luck with anyone outside your jurisdiction, by the way.

Oh I totally agree re state/jurisdiction.

I also agree, that the term 'harassment' is somewhat a grey area, which is why HR teams and indeed the online gaming industry are trying to combat it and variations of it. Look to OverWatch and harassment to learn more if interested.

Anyways, it's Friday, have a good weekend, I'll be off with DW2 (in PG)

 

[voidwalker]

Dominance hierarchies exist, not going to disagree about that. However, one person fighting within a dominance hierarchy in Alaska probably doesn't care about what is going on in New Zealand. In other words, If my sphere of concern is about social interaction, and yours is about erasing pixels, our little Venn diagrams don't really intersect. So the human need for "conflict" exists, but two players may not be climibing the same ladders in the same location.

You can have conflict without progress reset. The uncountable number of FPS games or Battle Royale games point this out.

You pointed out that NPCs pose little or no threat, yet state that you can still suffer the progress reset from other players. So the real threat to progress reset is much greater from exposure to other players. Therefore, FDEV places a higher risk for socialization instances. And yes, progress reset = punishment (player time wasted).

The restriction on socializing in open was very clearly pointed out at the launch of DW2. You're not going to deny that progress resets were applied to players at the launch of DW2 are you?

Point 1: Elite is not an FPS or a Battle Royal game. It's meant to have consequence. I suggest you learn to accept this fact post haste. If you want FPS or Battle Royale, you're on the wrong game. Log off, and go play one of them instead.

Point 2: no, it's not a punishment. I've explained why, and you haven't made a counterpoint, you just repeated a point I've already debunked with my explanation. Let me clarify this for you, though. If you choose to light your curtains on fire, and your house burns down as a result, is that a punishment? No, of course not. Punishments are explicitly handed out by a person, usually punitively. The word 'punishment' itself is not vaguely defined, so I suggest you stop using it in place of 'consequence', which is the applicable word here. All punishments are consequences, yes. Not all consequences are punishments. So back to my analogy, the consequence of lighting your curtains on fire is your house burning down. The PUNISHMENT for lighting your curtains on fire, is jail time for arson.

Point 3: yes, I deny progress resets happened. If it had only just begun, then no progress had been made anyway. However, let's say I accept that they did occur. It still amounts to a matter of choice that the player (whose progress was 'reset') made to be in a position whence his or her progress COULD be reset. It all comes back down to choice, and the consequences of choices you make as a player, especially when you make those choices knowing the risk of said choices, risks which are made clear to you now when you click the 'open' option, so there are no excuses on that front.

 

[Chaparral]

Point 1: Elite is not an FPS or a Battle Royal game. It's meant to have consequence. I suggest you learn to accept this fact post haste.

Point 2: no, it's not a punishment. I've explained why, and you haven't made a counterpoint, you just repeated a point I've already debunked with my explanation.

Point 3: yes, I deny progress resets happened. If it had only just begun, then no progress had been made anyway. However, let's say I accept that they did occur. It still amounts to a matter of choice that the player (whose progress was 'reset') made to be in a position whence his or her progress COULD be reset. It all comes back down to choice, and the consequences of choices you make as a player, especially when you make those choices knowing the risk of said choices, risks which are made clear to you now when you click the 'open' option, so there are no excuses on that front.

1) It is possible to have conflict without loss. You have not denied that. Elite's expectations and mechanics have shifted since launch. The point of this thread is to encourage a shift.
2) You and I will have to respectfully disagree on this point. We have different perspectives on what constitutes punishment.
3) No player chooses to have a progress reset. A player, within the context of ED Open accepts the risk of progress reset to socialize with others. That risk is not consistent with other game mechanics.

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this. I think we both care about giving the best possible experience to players.

Scaling challenges with rewards is always the toughest part of game design. In this instance, I think there is something off about FDEVs motivations and implementation.

If I understand you correctly, your perception is that the risk is appropriate for the reward. (Flying in open - whatever the motivation - has greater risks than not flying in open - suck it up and don't be a baby about it).


07