I thought that their idea (FO 76) of PvP was pretty terrible in the first place, tbh, enough so that I wouldn't even consider buying the game. Are you saying they've made it worse?
PvP Does Frontier need to Re-Think PVP rules of Engagement
- Thread starter Red Rocket
- Start date
I thought that their idea (FO 76) of PvP was pretty terrible in the first place, tbh, enough so that I wouldn't even consider buying the game. Are you saying they've made it worse?
I’m not sure of any changes since release but my friends (and spouse!) who are hardcore Fallout fans won’t touch it.
I mean, when Obsidian puts out a trailer for Outer Worlds and everyone loses their minds you start to realize how bad Bethesda screwed up with this title. It’s the old make something appeal to everyone just appealing to no one.
Keep this trash away from Elite. I swear to all the gods.
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
How can we have a conversation about PVP rules of engagement if people have differing, and in some cases outright wrong definitions?
It was pointed out early in the thread.
and pigeon-holing is mentioned here, later:
People often want to throw around labels, and do so with improper terminology and a poor understanding of the rules.
That renders the conversation impossible, so I submit that is the more important conversation.
Many of the arguments/positions don't hold water once we do that.
Following fallacious lines of reasoning is a fool's errand.
It was pointed out early in the thread.
and pigeon-holing is mentioned here, later:
People often want to throw around labels, and do so with improper terminology and a poor understanding of the rules.
That renders the conversation impossible, so I submit that is the more important conversation.
Many of the arguments/positions don't hold water once we do that.
Following fallacious lines of reasoning is a fool's errand.
Deleted member 115407
D
Hey OP or anyone else, what system do you suggest be put in place to prevent griefing that doesn't involve the firing of weapons? Like blocking someone from going anywhere by pinning their ship against the mailslot?
Any ideas or suggestions?
Any ideas or suggestions?
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing that hasn't been suggested before.
For entering an instance likely to contain 'content' the player doesn't want to be involved with switching out of Open before entering the instance works.
If the instance has already been entered & the situation becomes untenable for the player for whatever reason the 15 sec timer is a legitimate option.
But neither of these are choices the Cmdr can make. The player can make them, but the in-game character needs to be wary & avoid the trap or accept the 'griefer' has the upper hand & accept the consequences (ie eat the rebuy & learn from the experience). Generally I just don't visit places where activities that don't interest me at that time happen.
As others have said there are players that enjoy this, they can find each other just as easily as others can avoid them.
If I come across a pad blocker or similar inconvenience I don't have a problem with switching to solo to dock as a last resort.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I'd like to see the OPs definition of griefing.
Also ganking.
Eg there are wing mechanics built into the game.
Simply getting killed by a wing can't be considered griefing or ganking imo.
It's part of the normal, expected gameplay and it's consistent with how the real world works.
Even a wing killing a lone beginner would be a stretch, in Elite.
Last edited:
Gankers aren't ganking when they kill alone. The clue is in the name. Gang kill = gank. So a lone player making a kill is not a gank. Your claim of non sequitur is therefore invalid. Take the rebut and learn from your forum mistake.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Incorrect because someone who identifies as a ganker isn't precluded from killing noobs alone.
That was the context.
Gankers can also take on tough opponents, alone or in groups.
No it wasn't the context.
We are talking about ganking. Not gankers.
When a group is ganking, they are BY DEFINITION targeting an opponent who is weaker than the group with the sole reason to KILL that target.
Of course gankers can do other things.
I said do already so go read my posts.
The analysis is this: gankers by their name suggests are players who gank. Never said that's all they did. But they do gank. It follows that these gankers also must enjoy ganking or why else would they do it. And since "variety is the spice of life", no matter what else the game offers, those players would still gank. That's just a fact of human nature. So regardless of how many other things are available in the game, gankers would still gank. Because they enjoy it. So saying "if there was *this* or *that* available to us, we wouldn't gank" is a barefaced lie. That's a sequitur, my friend. At least be honest about it.
Thanks
Mark H
Witness that nobody else has disagreed with the sequitur, and avoided that conversation in favour of "the court of bro", which values humour greater than truth (apparently!). It was clearly written above - when humour presents itself, avoid the truth by digression into humour. Which is a tacit agreement that I was uncovering the truth.
Solo killers were called gankers as far back as Asheron's Call, and that was in the 90s. Think the last time I heard someone say "Gang Kill" was in Ultima Online
Are you a time traveller?
Wouldn't that be a pretty legitimate use of logging out to the menu?
Deleted member 115407
D
Philosophical, I think.
To start (and in short), according to FD the use of the menu to log out is always legitimate.
As for player feelings on it, some folks have very strong feelings about logouts of any kind in certain situations. Now, on the one hand, it isn't actually combat. On the other, it is a player interaction, technically a hostile interaction, but not necessarily hostile according to the game mechanics.
So if we are going to call logging off during such a scenario combat logging (menu logging), does it mean that any time I log out of an instance with other CMDRs in it I am combat logging? But like you said, if it's a menu log does it even matter? Especially since there was technically no mechanical hostility taking place.
And you could argue that without mechanical hostility, the scenario is one of pure griefing. But then you can't argue that the game gives us free reign to shoot each other and that's OK, but gives us free reign to passive-aggressively pin each other and that's not ok. Because if both are considered unwanted actions then you have to treat both equally in regards to "logging" etiquette.
I think we could go deep down a rabbit hole with this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
No need to go down a deep rabbit hole. You should've stopped after "FD considers Menu Log legitimate".
At all times.
By clicking on Open, you agree that any player can exit the game via menu at any time of their choosing.
End of discussion, really, regardless of the feelies of any player. Let's adopt a consistent standard, eh?
Slàinte Mhath
Mark H
Deleted member 110222
D
That's fine.
The player using menu log has also agreed that I can try and destroy his ship within that 15-second timeframe.
It appears that we have an accord.
Do you realise how many times I've seen the conundrum of forumites commending "sanctions" against players for combat logging, while also evangelising that menu logging is "unacceptable" or "needs to be changed"?
As already suggested - let's adopt a consistent standard...
Yours Aye
Mark H
Sounds like art (or pornography!) in that 'you know it if you see it.'
I mean if you're trying to destroy the ship and they're able to log out on the pad before you do, oh well, them's the breaks? Feels like to me you could've been a bit more patient and nabbed them some other way.
If you're trying to destroy the ship and they're able to log out and then you jump down their throat for combat logging? I'm a lot less sympathetic there because that behavior hasn't done anything to reduce cheating. It's obviously just another (low quality) weapon to try to get at the person behind the flight stick.