Oh, I'm sure they did. I bumped them off too.
Ethics in a Literal Video Game
- Thread starter RELSPI
- Start date
h4 Check mate.
-Always boost through the slot, whether coming or going.
I'm pretty much a law-and-order, golden rule type. Pirates are bad guys, so I hunt them. I don't kill innocents without cause, I smuggle a bit here and there as needed, but mostly I avoid breaking the law if possible. Obviously Powerplay and CZs require a CMDR to fight for his allies, I'm fine with that. It's war, nothing personal.
Funny thing, I don't even feel inclined to break the law in games like Skyrim. Paladin with a messiah complex right here.
Funny thing, I don't even feel inclined to break the law in games like Skyrim. Paladin with a messiah complex right here.
Slightly OT...
That's because there's no incentive to. Hostile Reputation and Notoriety are implemented purely as "punishment" states, without any counterbalanced 'reward'... for example I'd happily become Hostile if it meant more effectively being able to fight the faction I'm hostile to; it doesn't, it actually curtails it. I'd equally happily gain Notoriety if it meant access to more criminal services, or significantly increased rewards; it doesn't.
I can see a rival faction getting jiggy with you, but getting some kind of extra status for being hostile?
The 'counterbalanced 'reward' you are looking for is Friendly/Allied states with that faction. A rival/hostile faction that appreciates your efforts makes more sense, but to just magically ask for benefits for being hostile is not intuitive at all. Create relationships between factions that are controlled by a political/ethical comparison between local factions. When you work for one side of the spectrum, the opposite side gets irked. That's real life.
sigh I didn't want to link this again...
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/time-to-buff-antagonistic-pve.472325/
More OT:
I'm not looking for reward for being hostile from the same faction I'm hostile to... of course that's ridiculous.
But there is almost definitely entities who would be looking for "The enemy of my enemy". e.g 'We want a political figure taken out, but we don't want some joe to do it... we want someone who will strike fear into the hearts of our enemies. You carry a reputation for ill deeds, and would be suitable for our needs... how about we achieve some mutual benefit?'
Just take a look at the forums though. How many more threads of "Why is there no Famine?" (and commensurately, there's barely any systems in lockdown, compared to the thousands in Boom/Investment/Civil Liberty) do we need to highlight there's a mismatch between the incentivisation and accessibility of mechanics with negative effects, and their positive effects.
And if you have any doubts... answer me this: Does it make any sense that, in the pursuit of war with my enemy, that my "reward" for success with that activity is constrained ability to hurt them, simply because "they don't like me". That's what currently happens... get hostile to the enemy in a war, and (for systems with a single port, or ports all owned by the enemy) you lose the ability to hand in bonds and thus, decreased effectiveness at the war. That's beyond stupid.
But there is almost definitely entities who would be looking for "The enemy of my enemy". e.g 'We want a political figure taken out, but we don't want some joe to do it... we want someone who will strike fear into the hearts of our enemies. You carry a reputation for ill deeds, and would be suitable for our needs... how about we achieve some mutual benefit?'
Just take a look at the forums though. How many more threads of "Why is there no Famine?" (and commensurately, there's barely any systems in lockdown, compared to the thousands in Boom/Investment/Civil Liberty) do we need to highlight there's a mismatch between the incentivisation and accessibility of mechanics with negative effects, and their positive effects.
And if you have any doubts... answer me this: Does it make any sense that, in the pursuit of war with my enemy, that my "reward" for success with that activity is constrained ability to hurt them, simply because "they don't like me". That's what currently happens... get hostile to the enemy in a war, and (for systems with a single port, or ports all owned by the enemy) you lose the ability to hand in bonds and thus, decreased effectiveness at the war. That's beyond stupid.
I mean, you're fighting behind enemy lines. Within enemy lines, rather.
I do think remote bond-handing does make sense, though. No idea why it doesn't work.
I don't want to totally derail this thread, but: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/hostile-from-fighting-in-cz-no-missions-taken.510915/
. . Contains some good discussion and suggestions
I also look forward to seeing how many people get blocked from supporting Segnen in the latest II, if FD don't address this: https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/1842
Anyways, I'm leaving this there.
Last edited:
Recon that would leave out doing combat for the majority of player then.
Non-consensual PvP is
raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaape
HE COMES!
Ethics in Elite are not really my own, but those of the Character I play. I'm a roleplayer for a long time now, both pen and paper and larp, and I can't really play a game without having a character in mind.
My CMDR does not trade slaves, does not shoot random ships, not even for getting materials and doesn't do much combat. He wouldn't pledge to any Power and also disdains the Superpowers, being independent himself. He's taking jobs and doesn't mind going rogue for a bit, but wouldn't take contracts for killing or kidnapping people.
I actually never took a single assassination mission in my 3+ years of game time.
Off topic:
What the hell???
I've only dabbled in the black market, and only to unlock The Dweller. I don't trade in slaves.
I've never assaulted a clean ship.
I answer detected distress calls.
If I'm in a position to help famine/outbreak systems I do, if I'm not in the middle of something else.
I don't think I'm a jerk, but I'd need independent verification.