Apologies to the PvPer I just offended

[Riverside]

Which words and actions are being subjectively defined?

Here's an example Robert. You are a disruptive influence on all conversations of this type, and turn a sharing of views that can be educational into a mind numbing chore to respond to. I am not a PvPer yet you argue pointlessly with only one side of my even-handed approach with pointless bickering that has come to be known on this forum as 'Hotel California' because you simply don't accept when a point has been discussed before.

The PvPers all left the forum Robert (well all the cool, interesting ones), the complaints of ganking are massively reduced, yet here you continue to point out such obvious things as mode choices being available in a topic where even the OP acknowledges that.

I acknowledge that you do not approve of ganking/griefing/sealclubbing, and I hope that you will eventually come to understand that your quibbling in threads like these shows that your views come across to me as less tolerant of different playstyles than those you disapprove of.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Here's an example Robert. You are a disruptive influence on all conversations of this type, and turn a sharing of views that can be educational into a mind numbing chore to respond to. I am not a PvPer yet you argue pointlessly with only one side of my even-handed approach with pointless bickering that has come to be known on this forum as 'Hotel California' because you simply don't accept when a point has been discussed before.

The PvPers all left the forum Robert (well all the cool, interesting ones), the complaints of ganking are massively reduced, yet here you continue to point out such obvious things as mode choices being available in a topic where even the OP acknowledges that.

I acknowledge that you do not approve of ganking/griefing/sealclubbing, and I hope that you will eventually come to understand that your quibbling in threads like these shows that your views come across to me as less tolerant of different playstyles than those you disapprove of.

He's just stating the norm against the flood of trolls, open-only enthusiasts, self-righteous and entitled players. There is always multiple sides and if you stick around long enough there is always the kind that pushes silly ideas. Maynard is a bit like the rock in the tide - you don't need to like it but he's always polite and I have yet to witness the passive aggressiveness from him I often see from so-called pvp players trying to mine salt on the forum.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Here's an example Robert. You are a disruptive influence on all conversations of this type, and turn a sharing of views that can be educational into a mind numbing chore to respond to. I am not a PvPer yet you argue pointlessly with only one side of my even-handed approach with pointless bickering that has come to be known on this forum as 'Hotel California' because you simply don't accept when a point has been discussed before.

It has all been discussed before - on both sides - these threads are simply reruns with many of the same participants. Holding an opinion that is contrary to those held by some of those participants may be seen as unhelpful - however there's no need to agree with those participants or not share ones own opinion.

The PvPers all left the forum Robert (well all the cool, interesting ones), the complaints of ganking are massively reduced, yet here you continue to point out such obvious things as mode choices being available in a topic where even the OP acknowledges that.

They are as much a part of the game as the ability to shoot at other players. Some players have indeed left the forums - whether by choice or not.

I acknowledge that you do not approve of ganking/griefing/sealclubbing, and I hope that you will eventually come to understand that your quibbling in threads like these shows that your views come across to me as less tolerant of different playstyles as those you disapprove of.

One need not be tolerant of the all of the behaviours that players can consciously choose to engage in - the game may not immediately stop them engaging in them but the players are not in control of the consequences of their actions, whether that manifests as the opinion of other players or actions taken by Frontier.

 

[Riverside]

One need not be tolerant of the all of the behaviours that players can consciously choose to engage in

One can accept that they are no better though.

 

[Robert Maynard]

One can accept that they are no better though.

Why would one consider oneself "better"?

 

[Riverside]

Why would one consider oneself "better"?

One need not be tolerant of the all of the behaviours that players can consciously choose to engage in

Intolerance is not the 'better' state of mind.

Menu logging is 'legal' but is still pretty weak. The game points this out. I described this earlier as being like a 'you should' instruction in the Highway Code (rather than a 'you must' which would be analogous to immediately disconnecting when the player is in danger).

Griefing, or sealclubbing or however the reader describes this behaviour is not analogous to CLogging, it is not against the rules, it is not even something allowed but not recommended like menu logging. It's fine, just part of the game, and there are plenty of ways to wind other players up (or attempt to) that don't involve direct PvP.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Intolerance is not the 'better' state of mind.

Menu logging is 'legal' but is still pretty weak. The game points this out. I described this earlier as being like a 'you should' instruction in the Highway Code (rather than a 'you must' which would be analogous to immediately disconnecting when the player is in danger).

Griefing, or sealclubbing or however the reader describes this behaviour is not analogous to CLogging, it is not against the rules, it is not even something allowed but not recommended like menu logging. It's fine, just part of the game, and there are plenty of ways to wind other players up (or attempt to).

Griefing is against the rules, no amount trying to normalise antisocial behaviour is gonna change that. It's just hard to prove and detractors have a field day hiding their toxic behaviour behind role-play or pvp. It's a grey area and since the game is designed the way it is it causes friction - who would have thunk.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

I think if you were introduced to ED as a shooter 'Game' it's no problem.... But I'm guessing a lot of people was introduced to ED as an alternate life 'Simulator'. My first 2 vids I saw was the girl that was crying when she finally Earned her permit to go home to Sol... and the other vid(s) was from Isinona....

Isinona played the rawest form of ED... Absolutely no rebuy ever... if he was destroyed he always takes the stock sidewinder... (Hes an old school youtuber). Always flies FA-off and if you look at the youtube comments, even vets looked up to him. But the point was people played ED as a lifestyle, you learned the rules of engagement, and felt respect for other players like a badge of honor cause you know they struggled and spent hundreds and thousands of hours learning to 'live the ED experience'... I'v had times when I was on the phone with people and told them 'I gotta go, they running out of stock on agronomic treatment'..... Like I'm really at the store. ED can be magical in the way it sucks you in as an alternate life.... like the matrix...... So my first time getting ganked fo no reason or role play was like the most Grand Violation, I was raised to never treat other people like that. so with this being an alternate life, it was personal.... That was an awesome question by the way, really curious to see how other people connect to ED as well.

Edit... Plus I play in VR so the immersion of the attack was scary as hell!!!

Edit 2.... It was also the intensity of the youtubers that I watched while still in the beginners zone.... The way The Pilot gave every ship a 'life' as it's own character.... the way Obsidian Ant showed you the beautiful places waiting for your arrival.... The way Exigious broke down all the data for you like training... The pure passion from D2EA with all his NASA stuff behind him.... The belief from HawkesGaming that if you follow 'these' steps, you too can get all the Space Cheddar'.... and I think it was Ghost Giraffe that show how real and accurate the original devs took ED to be exact replicas of NASA's profile data of all our planets even down to the reason for the gaps in Saturn's rings..... They (and many others)made this place real!

I played the original back on the NES plus the X series. Obviously single player games.
I also play subsims, as a trader I move around as though I'm in potentially hostile territory, though as I tend to hang around the fringes of the Bubble I rarely see anyone and open is barely distinguishable from solo.
The exception is when I do CGs which I view as an opportunity to meet up with other traders.
Enter the gankers and the atmosphere changes.
Block them and the atmosphere is restored.

 

[Riverside]

Griefing is against the rules, no amount trying to normalise antisocial behaviour is gonna change that. It's just hard to prove and detractors have a field day hiding their toxic behaviour behind role-play or pvp. It's a grey area and since the game is designed the way it is it causes friction - who would have thunk.

Yes much like CLogging the issue is with intent.

In general, in Deciat say, a sealclubber type player is attacking random 'victims' (they attack each other too). They may be prioritied based on loadout or ship type but they are not being singled out because of who they are. That's fine. OTOH identifying a specific individual and repeatedly attempting to frustrate them is not allowed. That's griefing.

 

[Brrokk]

But you don't approve of the playstyle, do you? That's the bias I mentioned earlier.

In general I'm relaxed about ganking because the game gives me tools to deal with it, but I don't think we should defend the indefensible. We saw players who were so desperate for weak or unarmed targets that they were prepared to travel a huge distance to get them. There was the added attraction of spoiling a community advertised event (both by exploding players back to the Bubble and making Open unavailable for the event) and the extra-salt possibility of exploding players who would be carrying several day's worth of exploration data. All this was clearly focussed not achieving any in-game benefit for themselves but on ruining other people's gaming.

All completely within the game's ToS, not using any exploits, perfectly valid gameplay... and utterly obnoxious.

If anyone wants to object that I'm second-guessing their motivations just from in-game activity, well, yes I am. This was one of the clearest examples of the griefer mentality I've seen.

I don't usually go in for "name and shame" lists, but when they published a list of themselves I took it as a signed confession and put the top few in my block list.

<Edit> Not all players are PvPers. Not all PvPers are gankers. Not all gankers are griefers. But in DW2 we saw the behaviour of griefers.

 

[TobiasFuzz]

Intolerance is not the 'better' state of mind.

Menu logging is 'legal' but is still pretty weak. The game points this out. I described this earlier as being like a 'you should' instruction in the Highway Code (rather than a 'you must' which would be analogous to immediately disconnecting when the player is in danger).

Griefing, or sealclubbing or however the reader describes this behaviour is not analogous to CLogging, it is not against the rules, it is not even something allowed but not recommended like menu logging. It's fine, just part of the game, and there are plenty of ways to wind other players up (or attempt to) that don't involve direct PvP.

It is pretty lame to look at the topic this one-sided. Ganking is legal but also pretty weak. And where did the game point out that menu logging is weak?

Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is desirable or good or reasonable adult behaviour. And to be frank... Ganking, griefing sealclubbing is very childish and should be named as that.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Yes much like CLogging the issue is with intent.

...

Exactly. And to close the circle to the propositions of C&P: How would an algorithm be able to interprete intent when not even a human would be able to decide? And that's why rigid rules how players meet and interact are better to funnel activities. When the framework doesn't enable pvp in any situation there is no need to worry about intent.

 

[Riverside]

It is pretty lame to look at the topic this one-sided. Ganking is legal but also pretty weak. And where did the game point out that menu logging is weak?

Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is desirable or good or reasonable adult behaviour. And to be frank... Ganking, griefing sealclubbing is very childish and should be named as that.

Society, not the game rules suggest ganking is bad form, the game doesn't. We are all flying ships & wearing suits capable of being armed & armoured. Some people are going to shoot at each other.

The game literally has an 'are you sure?' reminder that maybe instead of logging out with the Cmdr in danger you should wait until the player is no longer in danger. There is no 'are you sure? dialog box when you fire on another player.

 

[Riverside]

Exactly. And to close the circle to the propositions of C&P: How would an algorithm be able to interprete intent when not even a human would be able to decide? And that's why rigid rules how players meet and interact are better to funnel activities. When the framework doesn't enable pvp in any situation there is no need to worry about intent.

A topic that I've written a lot about (a long time ago now). A proposal I like is to restrict that player to log back into the mode they left (with the Cmdr in danger) when they rejoin. If a player accidentally disconnects there will be no problem, just carry on where they left off.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Less of the potty mouth please folks.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Intolerance is not the 'better' state of mind.

It's a state of mind - whether it's better, or worse than one in which someone who is tolerant without limits has is undetermined.

Menu logging is 'legal' but is still pretty weak. The game points this out.

The game inserts a delay to menu exit if the player has been "in danger" within the last 15 seconds - it does not moralise.

Sandro's statement was clear and simple:

Hello Commanders!

To clarify: the official stance on exiting the game via the menu, at any point, is that it is legitimate. I suspect at some point we may increase the "in danger" countdown, but for now you just have to wait fifteen seconds.

However, we can't speak for how other Commanders view such actions.

For the record, when we talk about "combat logging" at Frontier, we mean the act of ungracefully exiting the game (either by ALT-F4 type procedures or by cutting the network traffic).

I described this earlier as being like a 'you should' instruction in the Highway Code (rather than a 'you must' which would be analogous to immediately disconnecting when the player is in danger).

Except that the idea that there are "you should" ways to behave in game is a user created construct, i.e. personal rules that don't actually apply to the game.

Griefing, or sealclubbing or however the reader describes this behaviour is not analogous to CLogging, it is not against the rules, it is not even something allowed but not recommended like menu logging. It's fine, just part of the game, and there are plenty of ways to wind other players up (or attempt to) that don't involve direct PvP.

There's no "not recommended" about menu exit - even though Sandro clearly acknowledged that not all players would agree with Frontier's stance. Actual Combat Logging, i.e. ungraceful exit from the game is against the rules, as is griefing.

 

[Riverside]

It's a state of mind - whether it's better, or worse than one in which someone who is tolerant without limits has is undetermined.

The game inserts a delay to menu exit if the player has been "in danger" within the last 15 seconds - it does not moralise.

Sandro's statement was clear and simple:


Except that the idea that there are "you should" ways to behave in game is a user created construct, i.e. personal rules that don't actually apply to the game.

There's no "not recommended" about menu exit - even though Sandro clearly acknowledged that not all players would agree with Frontier's stance. Actual Combat Logging, i.e. ungraceful exit from the game is against the rules, as is griefing.

You are confusing (or attempting to confuse) guidelines that are written with those that are not written (by the game).

The menu log timer is there to make the player consider their choice. That it makes no moral judgement is simply the wording, the presence of it is enough for the morals of doing so to be considered. If the game were unconcerned there would be no warning. There is no warning when firing on other players no matter how asymmetric it is.

As far as tolerance vs intolerance is concerned my position on that is clear. Intolerance of the way another player behaves is clearly not better than tolerating it (you don't have to like it but you should (not must) accept it as a part of interacting with others).

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are confusing (or attempting to confuse) guidelines that are written with those that are not written (by the game).

The menu log timer is there to make the player consider their choice. That it makes no moral judgement is simply the wording, the presence of it is enough for the morals of doing so to be considered. If the game were unconcerned there would be no warning. There is no warning when firing on other players no matter how asymmetric it is.

The timer is indeed to make the player consider their choice - in the many instances where the in-danger flag is set, only one of which applies to other players. There's no increase in the timer due to the presence of players - so the in-danger flag being set due to being shot at makes no distinction between NPCs and other players.

The game does not place limits on what can be shot at in any situation where the player can deploy weapons - although it would be "interesting" to watch the aftermath of the introduction of an "are you sure?" delayed dialog to shooting at other players....

As far as tolerance vs intolerance is concerned my position on that is clear. Intolerance of the way another player behaves is clearly not better than tolerating it (you don't have to like it but you should accept it as a part of interacting with others).

That's another of those personal rules based on opinion that don't actually apply to others.

 

[Riverside]

Snipped the irrelevant guff:

That's another of those personal rules based on opinion that don't actually apply to others.

Thank you for confirming my point Robert (your view is no better than those you berate).

 

[TobiasFuzz]

Society, not the game rules suggest ganking is bad form, the game doesn't. We are all flying ships & wearing suits capable of being armed & armoured. Some people are going to shoot at each other.

The game literally has an 'are you sure?' reminder that maybe instead of logging out with the Cmdr in danger you should wait until the player is no longer in danger. There is no 'are you sure? dialog box when you fire on another player.

I am personally not against any form of reasonable PvP. RP Pirates or aggressiv behaviour with a narrativ background is not only understandable it is desireable. That enriches my personal RP gameplay. But, as i wrote in uncountable threads before, the overwhelming existence of killer maniacs destroys the game World. How can i justify that within one hour 4 different people try to kill me while i only try to enjoy the earth in sol? Thats ridicoulus. There are countless examples of mindless attacking that i can not explain to my in game Character.

Again, i am deeply convinced that ED is a role-play game, not a CTF or LMS shooter. Violence is part of the World, yes, but please there where it is following a goal, a narrativ or political stands.