Question for Open players who don't like PVP/ganking... help me understand

I'd leave them to it & go play with people that wanted to play with me.

What would you do?

Probably wonder out loud if they knew what game they were playing.

That he's not playing Monopoly perhaps?

You'd tell a salty Monopoly player that they're somehow not playing Monopoly?

Right out of the carebear playbook, that one.
 
This is a great answer ;) (ETA to clarify: You would judge them by their actions & behaviour).

Play your own way, let them play theirs.

Except that such isn't always possible. One can't arbitrarily exempt oneself from certain gameplay possibilities (like owing money when landing on an opponent's space in Monopoly or expecting perfect safety from others in Elite's open mode) and call it "playing your way".


Oh, you actually were serious about it. 😬

Ah. I might have misinterpreted what you wrote. Did you mean to say that the hypothetical salty player is not playing Monopoly as intended (or is failing to understand a fundamental aspect of the game)?

Because if that's the case we're in general agreement.
 
Last edited:
Except that such isn't always possible. One can't arbitrarily exempt oneself from certain gameplay situations (like owing money when landing on an opponent's space in Monopoly or expecting perfect safety from others in Elite's open mode) and call it "playing your way".

House rules. If you are playing with someone you would usually agree the rules beforehand. If the situation changes (eg there is some dispute over what the rules should be, regardless of how facile you may think their argument is) the answer is simple, you judge them (make a decision based on the information presented) and react (find someone 'sensible' to play with, shoot them in the face & go to prison for 25 years, whatever way you would react) and get on with your life, dealing with the consequences (which may be trivial or severe).

If you go back a few pages we covered 'consent' in some detail.
 
House rules. If you are playing with someone you would usually agree the rules beforehand. If the situation changes (eg there is some dispute over what the rules should be, regardless of how facile you may think their argument is) the answer is simple, you judge them (make a decision based on the information presented) and react (find someone 'sensible' to play with, shoot them in the face & go to prison for 25 years, whatever way you would react) and get on with your life, dealing with the consequences (which may be trivial or severe).

If you go back a few pages we covered 'consent' in some detail.

Ah. Very good. Since we're all playing in Frontier's house, the issue is settled, then— regardless of what one has "consented" to.
 
Ah. Very good. Since we're all playing in Frontier's house, the issue is settled, then— regardless of what one has "consented" to.

Yes exactly. Play your own way, let them play theirs.

So for example a player blows up another player. The game allows this. Or just decides another player is a jerk for any reason really, this is not something the game tries to control.
That player that got blown up (or offended or whatever) retaliates, by calling a few buddies.
Those buddies blow up other players thought to be close to the original player, while other buddies attack stuff they think matters to the original player.

It's just cause & effect really, fun :)

Some people just don't get that, I'm glad you do though.
 
What does that even mean?

Who's not playing 'their' way?

It means you do what you like, and others will too. For any reason or no reason. And then deal with the consequences, if there are any.

ETA to add a monopoly example: What if the tantrum throwing opponent is your partner, or your boss? Or the head of the local Mafia?
 
Yes exactly. Play your own way, let them play theirs.

So for example a player blows up another player. The game allows this. Or just decides another player is a jerk for any reason really, this is not something the game tries to control.
That player that got blown up (or offended or whatever) retaliates, by calling a few buddies.
Those buddies blow up other players thought to be close to the original player, while other buddies attack stuff they think matters to the original player.

It's just cause & effect really, fun :)

Some people just don't get that, I'm glad you do though.

Oh, it's great fun indeed— especially when those buddies prove totally ineffective at everything they attempt, turning randoms against them every time they bellow their hypocritical moral code on the forums.

Nothing in the game's rules stipulate that one must be good, after all— in any sense of the word!



ETA to add a monopoly example: What if the tantrum throwing opponent is your partner, or your boss? Or the head of the local Mafia?

1) That would be strange.

2) That would be even more strange.

3) That would mean that I'm smoking peyote and the game's rules don't actually matter after all.
 
Last edited:
What if the tantrum throwing opponent is your partner, or your boss? Or the head of the local Mafia?
What if we lived our lives entirely in hypothetical nonsense? Hmmm?


cddcaabed495cd26a63d66eb5475c1a1.jpg
 
There seems to be some 'puppy loose in a pet shop' type of suggesting all along.

In otherwords, it's all over the place. I don't know what you're contending. Sir Ganksalot is a bully but he's not but he is but consequences but he's not but he is......
This is my first post in this thread:

My favourites are those that kick the beehive & complain when they get stung. Then sometimes it escalates & it gets all grindy. Some people are sore losers.

Some are sore winners too though, nobody wants to play with that kind of jerk again regardless of how they play.

Same basic message really :)
 
Back
Top Bottom