**2020 META**

[Phisto Sobanii]

There are no rules at all in Open. How can you describe this as 'consensual'? Consensual always requires an agreement to a certain rule set. Now, redefining this to 'agreeing to no rules at all' is a prime example of how the truth can be distorted beyond all recognition. If you look at the term 'consensual' outside of the game context, there's usally the word 'law' involved. For a reason, don't you think so?

Or lets try to approach this from the other side. If what you say would be true, and if we agree that the term 'non-consensual' exists, what would be an example of non-consensual in your world? Why would we need such a term AT ALL?

Quick side note before I go on: I have zero knowledge about Black Desert Online so I'm sure I'm missing a lot of context.

First off, there are rules in Open Play. From the game mechanics themselves to the BGS, crime and punishment, and everything else the framework of how Elite is played is created. Whether or not this satisfies you is a different question, but you absolutely can't say "there are no rules at all in Open." It's just like chess, where you have a board, black pieces, white pieces, and all the things that dictate how those pieces can be used to successfully play chess.

I don't have to go outside Elite to provide an example of non-consent. Don't want the possibility of PvP? Pick Private Group or Solo. Job done. You've successfully not consented to PvP in the context of Elite: Dangerous.

 

[Just Paul]

There are no rules at all in Open. How can you describe this as 'consensual'? Consensual always requires an agreement to a certain rule set. Now, redefining this to 'agreeing to no rules at all' is a prime example of how the truth can be distorted beyond all recognition. If you look at the term 'consensual' outside of the game context, there's usally the word 'law' involved. For a reason, don't you think so?

Or lets try to approach this from the other side. If what you say would be true, and if we agree that the term 'non-consensual' exists, what would be an example of non-consensual in your world? Why would we need such a term AT ALL?

From my perspective in Elite consent is given by clicking on the open mode tap.
Non-consensual would be somebody engaging somebody else in an PG like Mobius there PvP is not allowed.

If you play in an environment where hostile player contact is allowed you consented to it by entering that environment.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

You missed my edit. Not your fault, I was too slow...
And btw, you can't be a chess player if you seriously compare the 'rules' in ED with that of chess.

I went back and read it. No worries. I guess all I can say is in my view it is consensual. If you didn't know that, it's your fault for not understanding the rules of the game.

Which is ultimately my point in bringing up other games, like chess or (elsewhere) sport. To me, calling PvP in Open Play non-consensual is just as silly as saying my chess piece isn't allowed to capture your chess pieces.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Then the way you use the term consensual doesn't make any sense at all and is pretty much on an esoteric level of "Everything is ONE". No one needs such a term cause it describes nothing.

Doesn't it mean to agree to do something? To go along with someone else in a proposed activity?

How do you think I use the term consensual?

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

As I said: like an equivalent to a PvP flag. And nothing else is Open. It's just non-consensual PvP, no more no less.
But this conversation leads to nowhere. Let's agree to disagree and not wasting any more time on this nonsense.
You will have the last word, chose it wisely.

I'm beginning to think another issue with the phrase non-consensual is that it really doesn't work in the context of Elite.

It's too bad you don't want to speak further. This was an interesting sidebar.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Since you brougth a new twist into the conversation... I was actually thinking something similar, in that I probably fall for a language trap and this term might have different connotations in German, I don't know. But you might have a point: you can have consensual PvP in ED, but then it usually always is a matter of mutual agreement and it already started with pushing the Open button. Maybe from my point of view, mainly that of a chess player, I have a hard time to take voluntary rules seriously. That's a total no go in chess. That's why I got a little upset when you compared ED Open 'rules' to those of chess.

Is your first language German? I didn't realize! Suppose that's a compliment with me being a native English speaker?

Fair point about the chess. I don't actually play chess. I was just using it as an analogy to try and explain my view.

I'm going to try and consider the totality of our conversation and formulate something.

OK, so let's talk PvP in Elite: Dangerous. When you click Open Play you consent to the possibility of PvP happening. Since Elite is a sandbox, players have found tons of ways to do PvP. It can be very structured, like formal dueling or the kind of arranged fights you see at San Tu or PvP tournaments. It can also be very open ended, like what you see in BGS wars, Powerplay, or so called "ganking" and "griefing." Whatever you prefer, know that when you click Open Play you're exposing yourself to these possibilities.

The only thing for sure is that when you click Open Play you may experience (either as the attacker or defender) combat between yourself and another player. Within that context, there are many different ways that could happen.

OK, done. Having just wrote that I suspect thinking in terms of non-consensual or consensual PvP with Elite is too limiting. Whether or not that's good I don't know. Elite is a very nebulous sandbox. It's always going to be difficult to nail down, you know?

 

[A C Ender]

There are no rules at all in Open. How can you describe this as 'consensual'? Consensual always requires an agreement to a certain rule set. Now, redefining this to 'agreeing to no rules at all' is a prime example of how the truth can be distorted beyond all recognition. If you look at the term 'consensual' outside of the game context, there's usually the word 'law' involved. For a reason, don't you think so?

Or lets try to approach this from the other side. If what you say would be true, and if we agree that the term 'non-consensual' exists, what would be an example of non-consensual in your world? Why would we need such a term AT ALL?

I just had a look and learned that the word 'nonconsensual' actually exists, a pretty loaded term often used in context with sexual harassment. So all you can say is, that playing in open is an agreement that shooting is possible at any time without further agreements. Which is something I've never disputed BTW. And yet, it's non-consensual PvP.

It's exactly for those loaded real world uses why I dislike the use of the word for PvP - it implies that it's a highly destructive and nefarious activity to attack someone.

Is your first language German? I didn't realize! Suppose that's a compliment with me being a native English speaker?

Fair point about the chess. I don't actually play chess. I was just using it as an analogy to try and explain my view.

I'm going to try and consider the totality of our conversation and formulate something.

OK, so let's talk PvP in Elite: Dangerous. When you click Open Play you consent to the possibility of PvP happening. Since Elite is a sandbox, players have found tons of ways to do PvP. It can be very structured, like formal dueling or the kind of arranged fights you see at San Tu or PvP tournaments. It can also be very open ended, like what you see in BGS wars, Powerplay, or so called "ganking" and "griefing." Whatever you prefer, know that when you click Open Play you're exposing yourself to these possibilities.

The only thing for sure is that when you click Open Play you may experience (either as the attacker or defender) combat between yourself and another player. Within that context, there are many different ways that could happen.

OK, done. Having just wrote that I suspect thinking in terms of non-consensual or consensual PvP with Elite is too limiting. Whether or not that's good I don't know. Elite is a very nebulous sandbox. It's always going to be difficult to nail down, you know?

That's how I think too - I don't think the word consent have any use for PvP in the Elite game. To my knowledge there is no way to do PvP with someone without them having to opt-in with open. Closest I think is if you would trick a player to join open/PG and then kill them.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Funny thing is, we actually have no dissent about what Open actually means in ED. It's all about a silly quarrel about a terminology in the end.
That said, thanks for the compliment, not sure whether I earn it though. I'm more or less cheating and got mighty helpers like DeepL (but that's also why I'm often utterly slow with my responses or editing). The rest comes mostly from hanging around with this community for way too long now. But thanks again, a little feedback is much appreciated so I know my spelling isn't totally worthless.

But now I'm also done.

Thanks for the conversation. You gave my brain a workout! Very enjoyable.

 

[SergMx]

...
Activating PvP by clicking the icon or by pressing Alt+C
...

Excuse me, can at least one example of an open game, at least one, where a player can attack another player with impunity when he does not wait for this? How, for example, this is done in the Elite in secure systems even within stations!

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Excuse me, can at least one example of an open game, at least one, where a player can attack another player with impunity when he does not wait for this? How, for example, this is done in the Elite in secure systems even within stations!

Last time I opened fire inside a station the station shot me. Last time I interrupted someone landing on a pad for too long the station shot me. Last time I rammed someone to death by a station the station shot me. Last time I blocked someone's pad until they were rammed to death the station shot me for it. All great fun. Where's the problem?

 

[SergMx]

Last time I opened fire inside a station the station shot me. Last time I interrupted someone landing on a pad for too long the station shot me. Last time I rammed someone to death by a station the station shot me. Last time I blocked someone's pad until they were rammed to death the station shot me for it. All great fun. Where's the problem?

the station was named only to show how deep impunity is. Is money a problem? I'm sorry that you didn’t understand anything

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

the station was named only to show how deep impunity is. Is money a problem? I'm sorry that you didn’t understand anything

Attacking a player inside a station and then getting blown up by the station sounds like the opposite of impunity.

 

[SergMx]

Attacking a player inside a station and then getting blown up by the station sounds like the opposite of impunity.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt3R5Xt7b7M

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt3R5Xt7b7M

That's an outpost. I agree they are not on the same level as stations.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

They get 11km out by 1 minute of that video, it's not until later the target thinks of using the station for protection and the fully engineered DBS escapes with 6% hull from the outpost opening fire on him. Doesn't sound like that's impunity. It looks like a calculated attack with measured risks.

 

[SergMx]

They get 11km out by 1 minute of that video, it's not until later the target thinks of using the station for protection and the fully engineered DBS escapes with 6% hull from the outpost opening fire on him. Doesn't sound like that's impunity. It looks like a calculated attack with measured risks.

Has any of the gankers ever paid attention to the arriving help forces?
I wrote that I was exaggerating. Or do you need to nail someone straight in the hangar to wake someone up?

 

[Deleted member 192138]

No cos chaff

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

The attrition from NPCs is real, but thanks to speed and chaff it's not the end of the world for anyone.

 

[SergMx]

the main thing is that they help protect the real person.

NPC pirate will always check your hold, you can even give him part of the load and survive. People pirates do not care about your hold.

 

[A C Ender]

the main thing is that they help protect the real person.

NPC pirate will always check your hold, you can even give him part of the load and survive. People pirates do not care about your hold.

Then it wasn't a pirate you met.