Basic Behaviour

[GB Paralympian]

What is acceptable behavior between Commanders?

I ask as I am starting to build a list of Commanders whose motto is shoot first for the LOLZ.

The latest Commander is {Redacted}. I am in the Distress Zone, neither of us have picked sides. My weapons are retracted, im pointing at him as i type a greeting out to him. I decide pointing in his general direction could be considered aggressive, even though i have no weapons deployed and decide to head towards an NPC.

{Redacted}moves in behind me and indiscriminately starts attacking with laser fire and missiles. I let him know what i think of him and jump out. I am not a great combat pilot, that is why i am at the distress zone to brush up my skills.

I subsequently jump back in, leave him another message so he knows i had no weapons deployed but he decides to attack with a tirade of laser fire and missiles.

I wont use over descriptive words to sum up what i think of this player. He attacked for the sake of it,

1) he was showing neutral in the combat zone and hiding behind that
2) he never scanned me for cargo, so was just attacking for the kill
3) he never declared his intent to attack.

Suffice to say he is now blocked.

 

[Nemesis-T-Warlock]

No name and shame!

 

[GB Paralympian]

No name and shame!

Thanks Nemesis, i have updated post to reflect.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

My thoughts on players who shoot first?

They're prey.

My thoughts on any standard of ethics behind player behavior? There shouldn't be any. That's artificially restricting the variety of gameplay I can experience. I would be incredibly disappointed if every player I came across politely tipped their hat in my direction with a "Good day, sir." as I cruised by.

What a boring game that would be...

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

No name and shame!

That's the dichotomy. You can do nasty things but people can't name you. It's a strange situation. Independent sites will crop up and reputations will be hung out to dry one way or another.

 

[GB Paralympian]

My thoughts on players who shoot first?

They're prey.

My thoughts on any standard of ethics behind player behavior? There shouldn't be any. That's artificially restricting the variety of gameplay I can experience. I would be incredibly disappointed if every player I came across politely tipped their hat in my direction with a "Good day, sir." as I cruised by.

What a boring game that would be...

I'm certainly not proposing player ethics, them again I wasn't keen on bullies at school either.

 

[GB Paralympian]

That's the dichotomy. You can do nasty things but people can't name you. It's a strange situation. Independent sites will crop up and reputations will be hung out to dry one way or another.

Agreed
+1

 

[Nemesis-T-Warlock]

That's the dichotomy. You can do nasty things but people can't name you. It's a strange situation. Independent sites will crop up and reputations will be hung out to dry one way or another.

However you can respawn, reload weapons, return in silent mode and then fire a rack of missiles up their nether regions.

 

[hydraSlav]

He attacked for the sake of it,

Seriously, what is up with that argument? He didn't do it "for the sake of it". He did it for "game's sake".

He is playing an online multiplayer game, because he wants to interact with online multiple players (whether coop or vs). If he didn't want to interact with other players, he (or you) should have stayed offline.

 

[xaccers]

if every player I came across politely tipped their hat in my direction with a "Good day, sir." as I cruised by.

That would be so awesome! It would get more people interacting and wouldn't it be cool if we resurrection some old CB lingo? 10-4 good fella. Convoy!

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Seriously, what is up with that argument? He didn't do it "for the sake of it". He did it for "game's sake".

He is playing an online multiplayer game, because he wants to interact with online multiple players (whether coop or vs). If he didn't want to interact with other players, he (or you) should have stayed offline.

What's acceptable (in the spirit of the game) and what isn't wiil be decided by consensus.

 

[Druid]

What's acceptable (in the spirit of the game) and what isn't wiil be decided by consensus.

Disagree , it will be decided by the rules of the game itself nothing else. Unless you find an exploit of course.

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Disagree , it will be decided by the rules of the game itself nothing else. Unless you find an exploit of course.

Not the way large groups work, but have it your way.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

That would be so awesome! It would get more people interacting and wouldn't it be cool if we resurrection some old CB lingo? 10-4 good fella. Convoy!

Any such filth directed at me in the chat window will be considered a hostile action and I will open fire.

Note: attacking another player is interacting with them. Flying by to sell your cargo reach a mission objective isn't.

Disagree , it will be decided by the rules of the game itself nothing else. Unless you find an exploit of course.

Well isn't that a cute idea.

Players make up the community, not the devs. The devs can attempt to influence how the players are rewarded or punished for their choices, but the players have the final say in the matter. Any dictatorial behavior by game developers has always and will always be suicidal.

 

[Theaghan Black]

He is playing an online multiplayer game, because he wants to interact with online multiple players (whether coop or vs). If he didn't want to interact with other players, he (or you) should have stayed offline.

I want to play online Racing Sims because I like interacting with other players, but for some reason they don't like when I drive in the wrong direction...

However you can respawn, reload weapons, return in silent mode and then fire a rack of missiles up their nether regions.

Why it's always on the "victim"? "Go to solo", "Respawn a go for him", "Downgrade in a Sidewinder and ram him"... :smilie:

 

[hydraSlav]

Disagree , it will be decided by the rules of the game itself nothing else. Unless you find an exploit of course.

Druid is right, it will be decided by what's possible in the game. However, if a low-life scum-bag option exists, there will be a lot of people picking that option, and they will be in the majority. Don't expect of world of "honorable commanders". Online players will find the lowest they can do "for the lolz"

Just wait till Goonswarm gets here on release... you will think I am Saint Nick next to them.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

Whilst I understand your frustration to some extent, I wonder why you play in open online in the first place when you just want to improve your skills vs NPCs.

If I don't want to be shot at or shoot people - e.g. when grinding cash in an unarmed lakon type VI, I just go solo online and done.

On the other hand, if I go all online, I expect to be shot at and wouldn't even interpret as an hostile act. We're just two guys playing an online multiplayer game on our computers - what he does when he attacks me is actually playing the game with me.

One of us will probably lose his ship and pay some pixelmoney in insurance fees, but we both hopefully learned from the encounter and - most importantly - had a blast.

If I don't want that (which is often the case when I just want to relax a little in the game - not much of a PvPer myself), I just go solo online. If I want to encounter people and be sure there's no PvP, I'm sure there are also large groups for that.

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Druid is right, it will be decided by what's possible in the game.

What's possible and what's generally acceptable are two different things.

 

[hydraSlav]

what he does when he attacks me is actually playing the game with me.

Q F T

Unfortunately, if people can freely switch (with same account balance/ships preserved). No one would ever be flying a hauler with valuable cargo while in "Online" mode.

 

[hydraSlav]

What's possible and what's generally acceptable are two different things.

If the game let's me do (unless it is a bug/exploit), I will do it, no matter how many of your are riding on a high horse into the sunset.