PvP Distant Worlds? More like Distant Jerks

[Old Duck]

The 'moral' or 'ethical' claims are out of bounds, IMHO.

I say that because the game is designed for PvP and offers PvP free zones for those that find it offensive.
Your claim here is akin to sitting down to a game of chess and then being offended when the other guy starts knocking pawns off the board.

On the other hand, when a CMDR flies all way to Sag A with the sole intent to destroying other CMDRs who are going there to enjoy the exploration side of the game, for the "lulz" as some call it, that qualifies the perpetrator for the title of "jerk". Players who do this are doing it to maximize the suffering of other players, not for actual PvP, as there is plenty of PvP to be found in the Bubble. Yes, I know "suffering" is a relative term, but it's the equivalent of erasing your roomate's term paper after he spent days working on it - it may not be illegal, but it's a doushy thing to do.

So all things considered, I agree with the OP in that these particular CMDRs are jerks, and there is an actual human behind the HOTAS that is grinning at the knowledge of another human's suffering, so do with that what you will.

 

[Smecca is BMFE]

So all things considered, I agree with the OP in that these particular CMDRs are jerks, and there is an actual human behind the HOTAS that is grinning at the knowledge of another human's suffering, so do with that what you will.

I play keyboard and mouse, good sir

 

[Wargfoot]

So all things considered, I agree with the OP in that these particular CMDRs are jerks, and there is an actual human behind the HOTAS that is grinning at the knowledge of another human's suffering, so do with that what you will.

Although the temptation is real, I think it is a mistake to imply that you can read someone else's mind in regard to intent.

I don't doubt that there are people out there 'jerky' enough to enjoy that sort of behavior.
I doubt the ability of the OP to determine with any level of certainty the disposition of the person who destroyed his ship.

Serious Question: Do people have the ability to join the PvE caravans in solo/group play until they get far enough out there to be beyond PvPers - and then drop into open space?

 

[Barracudina]

On the other hand, when a CMDR flies all way to Sag A with the sole intent to destroying other CMDRs who are going there to enjoy the exploration side of the game, for the "lulz" as some call it, that qualifies the perpetrator for the title of "jerk". Players who do this are doing it to maximize the suffering of other players, not for actual PvP, as there is plenty of PvP to be found in the Bubble. Yes, I know "suffering" is a relative term, but it's the equivalent of erasing your roomate's term paper after he spent days working on it - it may not be illegal, but it's a doushy thing to do.

So all things considered, I agree with the OP in that these particular CMDRs are jerks, and there is an actual human behind the HOTAS that is grinning at the knowledge of another human's suffering, so do with that what you will.

Suffering? Are there electrodes that zap you if you get sent to the rebuy screen now?

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Although the temptation is real, I think it is a mistake to imply that you can read someone else's mind in regard to intent.

I don't doubt that there are people out there 'jerky' enough to enjoy that sort of behavior.
I doubt the ability of the OP to determine with any level of certainty the disposition of the person who destroyed his ship.

Serious Question: Do people have the ability to join the PvE caravans in solo/group play until they get far enough out there to be beyond PvPers - and then drop into open space?

If you believe in free will, and strangely enough most people do that without having any clue, you are responsible for your actions. That goes for real life and what you do when sitting in front of a monitor fumbling whatever. It's called acting responsibly, and as I wrote, there are many more or less succesful attempts to define what ethics are all about. They all end up with horrible paradoxes, but the Golden Rule, Kant's Imperative etc. all state the simple fact, that the right thing to do is only right, if you accept that behavior from anyone else. (Horrendously simplified, some would say). Some people only have two brain cells and those bump into each other all the time, but the basics of ethics are not that complicated, unless you ask a philosopher to explain. Then you end up with the paradoxes

 

[jasonbarron]

On the other hand, when a CMDR flies all way to Sag A with the sole intent to destroying other CMDRs who are going there to enjoy the exploration side of the game, for the "lulz" as some call it, that qualifies the perpetrator for the title of "jerk". Players who do this are doing it to maximize the suffering of other players, not for actual PvP, as there is plenty of PvP to be found in the Bubble. Yes, I know "suffering" is a relative term, but it's the equivalent of erasing your roomate's term paper after he spent days working on it - it may not be illegal, but it's a doushy thing to do.

So all things considered, I agree with the OP in that these particular CMDRs are jerks, and there is an actual human behind the HOTAS that is grinning at the knowledge of another human's suffering, so do with that what you will.

As Smecca already elucidated, it's not just HOTAS users my good man. Also, in addition to the grinning, there is a great deal of laughter as well

 

[Zoltah-Talion]

Although the temptation is real, I think it is a mistake to imply that you can read someone else's mind in regard to intent.

I don't doubt that there are people out there 'jerky' enough to enjoy that sort of behavior.
I doubt the ability of the OP to determine with any level of certainty the disposition of the person who destroyed his ship.

Serious Question: Do people have the ability to join the PvE caravans in solo/group play until they get far enough out there to be beyond PvPers - and then drop into open space?

You don't need to be a mind-reader to know the attitudes and mindset of the Distant Gankers. This whole thing kicked off before you showed up Wolfman, but let's just say that there's been quite a lot of fuss about it, and Old Duck nails it in his comment above.

As for your question, sure you can 'join the caravans' in Solo/PG, but the Distant Worlds explorers have been quite deliberately targeted and chased by PvP guys, many of whom are quite determined to pursue them for the whole trip. There would be no point, and considerable risk, to start off in PG and then switch to Open. (All the savvy explorers are in PGs however, 90% or more have no intention of showing their faces in Open.)

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

The thing about ED is that it reflects life in many ways, including the dumpsters who have decided to be idiots with no moral or ethics. To those of you who support that behavior: Are you equally stupid in real life? Or are you just trying to be something that you've always wanted to be without having the guts to be so?

Morals are personal so with that you are trying to make the subjective objective.
Ie, that's baloney.

Ethics?
Well, those are generally professional.

Cmdrs serving under The Overlord are ethically obligated to blow the likes of you, into smithereens.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

As Smecca already elucidated, it's not just HOTAS users my good man. Also, in addition to the grinning, there is a great deal of laughter as well

There is nothing wrong with having fun, and even though I'm an old fart who started gaming back in 1978, I do understand why some people decide to prank some of the Ned Flanders types. But there's a radical difference between having fun and doing what this thread is about. That is just plain stupid being evil, for some strange personal pleasure or relief, and I think that's wrong. When Yamick did the giant jump formation video in all it's glory, or when he talks about playing with his "private parts" all the time, I find that pretty funny, and I've seen some of his videos more than once, because they are funny. The difference between what he does, and this thread all comes down to what some people call intelligence. That might also be really hard to difine properly, but Yanick obviously got it, and the griefer/gankers don't.

You don't seem to agree, so explain?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

On the other hand, when a CMDR flies all way to Sag A with the sole intent to destroying other CMDRs who are going there to enjoy the exploration side of the game, for the "lulz" as some call it, that qualifies the perpetrator for the title of "jerk". Players who do this are doing it to maximize the suffering of other players, not for actual PvP, as there is plenty of PvP to be found in the Bubble. Yes, I know "suffering" is a relative term, but it's the equivalent of erasing your roomate's term paper after he spent days working on it - it may not be illegal, but it's a doushy thing to do.

So all things considered, I agree with the OP in that these particular CMDRs are jerks, and there is an actual human behind the HOTAS that is grinning at the knowledge of another human's suffering, so do with that what you will.

False equivalence much?

I suspect breaking into his computer and deleting files could get you expelled and maybe even arrested.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Morals are personal so with that you are trying to make the subjective objective.
Ie, that's baloney.

Ethics?
Well, those are generally professional.

Cmdrs serving under The Overlord are ethically obligated to blow the likes of you, into smithereens.

No, you misunderstood that one. Simplified (again), the main differnece between moral and ethics, is that moral is related to "what you do", and ethics are the theory behind why some actions are wrong and some are right.

I haven't got a clue who The Overlord is and honestly I don't give a flying duck. They are welcome to try...

 

[Scytale]

Sounds to me like you got dunked on.

If only the Distant Worlds 2 organisers would communicate with The Overlord: Zarek Null, then this Top Tier PvP would end....

" The Overlord " ???
Whooooo ! [haha]

 

[Wargfoot]

If you believe in free will, and strangely enough most people do that without having any clue, you are responsible for your actions. That goes for real life and what you do when sitting in front of a monitor fumbling whatever. It's called acting responsibly, and as I wrote, there are many more or less succesful attempts to define what ethics are all about. They all end up with horrible paradoxes, but the Golden Rule, Kant's Imperative etc. all state the simple fact, that the right thing to do is only right, if you accept that behavior from anyone else. (Horrendously simplified, some would say). Some people only have two brain cells and those bump into each other all the time, but the basics of ethics are not that complicated, unless you ask a philosopher to explain. Then you end up with the paradoxes

The question isn't about the value of the golden rule, but rather, whether or not it applies to people playing a role in a game.
I've already countered with the example from a game of chess - does the golden rule apply there?

If I capture the other guy's rook in a game of chess - something I wouldn't want to happen to me - is that violating your golden rule?

 

[WeComeInPeace]

The question isn't about the value of the golden rule, but rather, whether or not it applies to people playing a role in a game.
I've already countered with the example from a game of chess - does the golden rule apply there?

If I capture the other guy's rook in a game of chess - something I wouldn't want to happen to me - is that violating your golden rule?

Seriously?!? You can't see the difference?

You can easily win a chessgame without ganking, and you can easily have fun in ED and shoot at people if that turns you on without ganking. I don't have a problem with fighting, or chess games, but I have a problem with stupidity. When hooligans meet in some dark place to mess each other up, it's fine with me, as long as they only break each others bones. The point is that both parties agree to participate. You could say "yeahr but the rules in ED...", but then you miss the point. Your actions in ED are only OK if you accept ganking from anyone else, and from what I've seen gankers are whiners once the manure hits the fan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_s8dpz2f10

It's not "my" Golden Rule btw. That one goes way back, and perhaps that's because it's pretty easy to understand.

 

[Han Zulu]

Open = Open hunting season. Anyone is a target. Anyone is prey.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

No, you misunderstood that one. Simplified (again), the main differnece between moral and ethics, is that moral is related to "what you do", and ethics are the theory behind why some actions are wrong and some are right.



I haven't got a clue who The Overlord is and honestly I don't give a flying duck. They are welcome to try...

No, I am using more nuanced definitions.

Morals

Morals have a greater social element to values and tend to have a very broad acceptance. Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.

Dictionary.com defines morals as:

n : motivation based on ideas of right and wrong


Ethics

You can have professional ethics, but you seldom hear about professional morals. Ethics tend to be codified into a formal system or set of rules which are explicitly adopted by a group of people. Thus you have medical ethics. Ethics are thus internally defined and adopted, whilst morals tend to be externally imposed on other people.

If you accuse someone of being unethical, it is equivalent of calling them unprofessional and may well be taken as a significant insult and perceived more personally than if you called them immoral (which of course they may also not like).

Dictionary.com defines ethics as:

A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain"

The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/values/values_morals_ethics.htm


If you don't know who people are working for, eg The Overlord, how can you judge their ethics?

Case in point, you may find defense attorneys morally abhorrent for fulfilling their explicit ethical obligations, even if you know that's what they are supposed to do.

That doesn't mean anything untoward is happening.

Just like in Elite.

 

[Smecca is BMFE]

Seriously?!? You can't see the difference?

You can easily win a chessgame without ganking, and you can easily have fun in ED and shoot at people if that turns you on without ganking. I don't have a problem with fighting, or chess games, but I have a problem with stupidity. When hooligans meet in some dark place to mess each other up, it's fine with me, as long as they only break each others bones. The point is that both parties agree to participate. You could say "yeahr but the rules in ED...", but then you miss the point. Your actions in ED are only OK if you accept ganking from anyone else, and from what I've seen gankers are whiners once the manure hits the fan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_s8dpz2f10

It's not "my" Golden Rule btw. That one goes way back, and perhaps that's because it's pretty easy to understand.

Ok. So you're calling me a stupid person because I ganked a hapless dude at the core. Nice reasoning. Please tell me my IQ.

For the record, all of my brothers and sisters on Distant Ganks 2 are PERFECTLY fine with other players trying to gank us. We openly welcome all pvp interaction. Not sure what you're referring to when you say gankers are mostly whiners who are afraid of a fight. By your own saying, that means my actions are OK.

I'm following the Golden Rule as well. I interdict and shoot people because I want the same to be done to me.

 

[Wargfoot]

Seriously?!? You can't see the difference?

You can easily win a chessgame without ganking, and you can easily have fun in ED and shoot at people if that turns you on without ganking. I don't have a problem with fighting, or chess games, but I have a problem with stupidity. When hooligans meet in some dark place to mess each other up, it's fine with me, as long as they only break each others bones. The point is that both parties agree to participate. You could say "yeahr but the rules in ED...", but then you miss the point. Your actions in ED are only OK if you accept ganking from anyone else, and from what I've seen gankers are whiners once the manure hits the fan:

When you buy a PvP game, join a PvP server, and then go to a PvP zone you are agreeing to participate.


The thing is, you don't know how much I agree with you. I don't like people with the mindset of "how can I ruin someone else's fun?". That is a weak and immoral person to my way of thinking. No. Doubt. About. It. However, you cannot know the mindset of the person on the other side of the interwebs (unless they tell you) and you cannot blame them for thinking that you're okay with PvP when you buy a PvP game, enter a PvP server, and fly around in a PvP zone.

What do we expect a PvP player to do - they've already gone through the trouble of selecting a game they enjoy - what extra steps do they have to take to make it all okay in your mind?

CMDR Gank: "Greetings, Sheepfoot, I see you're mining there, do you mind if I attack you?"

CMDR Sheepfoot: "Hello Gank, uh..now is a really bad time."

CMDR Gank: "Well you're in a PvP game, in a PvP server, in a PvP zone so I thought you might be okay with some PvP"

CMDR Sheepfoot: "Yeah, lol, that is a common misconception. Maybe you should read some books and ethics and learn to think."

CMDR Gank: "Sorry for wasting your time."

So everyone else has to go through this routine every time because people don't read the box before buying a game?
So everyone else has to go through this routine every time because people don't stay in solo/group play?

You see, I'd agree quite a few gankers are sick in the head - but at least they know how to pick a game that fits what they want to do.
The sense of entitlement in the PvE community (some, not all) is immense.

 

[Wargfoot]

Please tell me my IQ.

32?

For the record, all of my brothers and sisters on....

LOL, girls don't gank, silly. (1)

I'm following the Golden Rule as well. I interdict and shoot people because I want the same to be done to me.

This is a solid point.
What about people who want to gank and get ganked in return?
What about people who want to play an open world PvP/Chaos game?

Do they get to have that game/zone/server or does the moment a PvE person logs on all the rules have to change and everyone has to play nice?




NOTES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I've already have some large vegetables after me, why not give a shout out to the ladies so they can represent?

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

You can easily win a chessgame without ganking

It is not constructive to compare ED and chess. Chess is 2 player, turn based, and includes perfect information. ED is none of those things.

Chess is much more asymmetric when it comes to skill than ED. I have been playing chess my whole life and can't even draw most serious coffee shop players. I've been playing ED for 5 months and can draw any ganker.

No one would entertain complaints from casual chess players about getting obliterated by devoted players who've memorized opening books and tirelessly rehearsed mid/end game play. In terms of game-play, this is akin to the complaints about ganking. The major difference is outside the game - player expectations.