Frontier confirmed - Murder/PKing is a valid gameplay choice, can we all move on now?

[CMDR Sheehy]

If these people were doing in real life, you might have a point. But in real life most of these people have families and hold down jobs - they wouldn't be getting very far playing a video game and being a murderer of thief.

Point I'm making is it's a video game, and people are playing a role in that - you know role playing.

Kids do it in the playground all the time, same with adults the bedroom. Do you hate all of them too?

DO YOU HATE D&D PLAYERS?

No need to shout CMDR!!!

When someone loses a load of cash, a ship, a months game-play to someone who just appears on the scene and kills in a few seconds/rams/uses a (faulty) game mechanism to get a station to blow you up, when he goes on to the forum to moan about it because it's like going down the pub and mouthing off to let of steam, you then invariably get a gamut of players who heave in and tell the poster to grow one or go play in Solo/Groups. That's not on, but no one challenges that.

Here is what I have to say about that. If you don't like the response, don't play the role. Don't expect people to like you after wasting them, their time and then insulting them to boot on the forums. It's just a game? You know, I work in a school. Do you know what we teach about bullying? Just because it's a game, just because it's anonymous, does not make it *not* bullying. Social interactions have consequences. If you don't get it now, when it will really hit you is when there's a knock on the door and the men in uniform want a word. This is no joke. Laugh it off now and say to yourself there are no consequences.

I love that FDev are developing this so that PKing is not going to be cheap. Agree that it will make that role better and that it should be in the game. What I don't agree with is general anti-social behaviour, not in-game, nor on these boards (http://www.bullying.co.uk/cyberbullying/what-is-cyberbullying/). Game or no game. We are all here to enjoy Elite for what we can each take away and for that we need to be able to sometime pull back from our own wants just a bit, just sometimes, so that we can ALL be a part of the Elite Universe. (Check out "Social Contract")

 

[Dabba]

Yes but not everyone who does PvP or even murder in this game, as defined by Frontier as a valid game style, are griefers.

If you keep thinking you see griefers everywhere, you brain will trick you into thinking everyone is a griefer.

I assume you think I am one?

My status would confirm otherwise

#NotAllPVPers

I judge everyone on the content of their character, and their individual actions. I have not had any interaction with you outside of the forums, so other than judging you as a drama queen based on your post history I hold no opinion on your status as a griefer, pvper, or other, nor do I care. Everyone reading this, everyone playing, knows their own intentions, and knows if they are a griefer or not. I don't really care what any of the random anonymous people on this forums opinions of me are, anyone that does is probably pretty desperate for attention or interaction. There is just no reason to care how people you dont know judge you. I know who I am, you know who you are. Don't make assumptions on what I think, or worry about what other people you don't know think, and you'll be a lot happier.

I only know of a handful of certain griefers that have announced themselves on the forums as such, otherwise I dont prejudge anyone. I play pretty much exclusively in the Mobius group, unless I am specifically looking for pvp, in which case I go on Open and look for killers and pirates that are attacking traders. Find bad guy, kill bad guy, or at least damage bad guy until they combat log, which being cowards at heart they usually do. Playing a bad guy is a valid choice in this game. If you play a bad guy, you probably are a bad guy, and you should expect to get treated like a bad guy. End of story.

 

[Dogoncrook]

I don't make sweeping generalizations. I know many D&D players, I dislike some of them, and I like some of them. I dislike all griefers, I believe them to be damaged goods. By griefer I mean someone that derives pleasure from causing another human grief. I have no doubt that a lot of damaged people and overgrown bullies have families and hold down jobs, I also have no doubt that I would have no problems identifying them as rotten people and disliking them if I met them in real life, unfortunately I know quite a few of those too. What you do in an anonymous setting with no consequences reveals your character. So yes, the people that get off on causing other people grief are people that I dislike, in real life, in video games, in any setting. Damaged goods are damaged goods. You can try to justify and rationalize it all you want, its not going to change how people that act that way are viewed.

First of all you do make sweeping generalizations regularly and your whole post kinda shows it.

Secondly I'm as friendly as can be in this game and in rl life let's just say you wouldn't like me at all. Your generalizations are stupid. I personally don't care how you view me, but it's pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Gibbonici]

Most of the pvp proponents are for greater punishments for pvp killing and balancing via the in game mechanics whilst the traders posting here are shouting "instaban for pkers" instead.

It's nowhere near as tidy as that.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

<snip>I just don't support people who want to do that complaining that everyone who enjoys PvP is also a griefer.

They are not. However, this may be a bad assumption, you started this thread at a time when threads were going up about the actions inside stations. Using a faulty game mechanism to cause another player to suffer loss is one definition of griefing. So it's relevant as part of this discussion or not?

 

[pdizzle]

I donno why these topics keep popping up. The two sides are so polarized, it doesn't matter how many dev quotes are posted; they'll both to the bitter end. Either way, I will continue to pull over traders and blow away the ones that refuse tribute. Yarr!

 

[evilquesadilla]

If these people were doing in real life, you might have a point. But in real life most of these people have families and hold down jobs - they wouldn't be getting very far playing a video game and being a murderer of thief.

Point I'm making is it's a video game, and people are playing a role in that - you know role playing.

Kids do it in the playground all the time, same with adults the bedroom. Do you hate all of them too?

DO YOU HATE D&D PLAYERS?

There's a difference between role playing vs doing it for the lulz. The kids were role playing. Also there was consent. Try playing without your SO's consent. I guarantee you the "role playing" excuse won't get you very far. But with consent on the table, hey, have fun. And that's the difference.

PvP is valid, so is PvE, so is role playing. The three do not mix. Best thing to do is to seperate them. No game mechanics in the world can satisfy everyone. I think it's self centered and entitled for PvP player to expect everyone to engage in PvP, I think it's self centered and entitiled for PvE players to expect no one to engage in PvP, and I think it's self centered and entitled for roleplayers to expect everyone to not have uber1337 gamertags or chat about their favorite sports teams.

Someone made this suggestion, so I can't take credit. If FD can make it more obvious that you should play in your preferred group, and make it easy, that would be the best solution. IMHO.
- Rename Open as PvP.
- Create PvE (basically groups).
- Create Roleplay (basically groups).
- Keep Friends/Groups and Solo as is...people have a right to want to play only with their buddies or on their own, especially since offline mode is removed.

Ideally game mechanics would reflect that, something like in PvE, you can't do damage to other players... etc. But being that the community feels so strongly about this, they can probably self-police, so FD won't have to do much game mechanics work other than creating these groups and making them obvioous.

If the PvP people complain that they don't have any traders to shoot at, since the current game mechanic pushes people to trade in non PvP then fight in PvP, then make it so that you can't switch back to PvP once you switch out of it. If you want to PvP, great, you have to do trading in PvP as well. Everyone take turns being the sheep/wolf. I feel that makes sense. But if you don't want to PvP anymore, there isn't such an issue, so you are free to get out to do whatever you want.

PvP is already difficult to handle because any game imbalance is immediately utilized. In PvE, the computer is the punching bag and it will never complain. In roleplaying it matters even less, what's the point of exploits when you are trying to be immersed in a story? In fact in most single player games, the hero is usually overpowered. Can't do that in PvP, because everyone is "the hero". So it makes sense that PvP would be more restrictive, have more rules... etc. But really the only rule I'm proposing is you can't switch out of PvP then switch back.

PvE, PvP, roleplayers, they do NOT mix, no matter how much your try. Any attempt to combine them is an effort in frustration and will only end in failure.

 

[djbrianw]

Stick a fork in this thread Mod's - it's done.....

 

[Daffan]

I cannot believe people defend combat logging.

 

[Distance]

It's nowhere near as tidy as that.

Nothing ever is. even with balancing for pking there's always going to be somethings that slip through the cracks. It just seems that the more passive play style majority on the forums are concerned with enacting draconian changes to remove pvp from open.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Nothing ever is. even with balancing for pking there's always going to be somethings that slip through the cracks. It just seems that the more passive play style majority on the forums are concerned with enacting draconian changes to remove pvp from open.

That's silly, even hyperbole. Open is the place for PvP. One man's PvP though...

 

[pdizzle]

I only know of a handful of certain griefers that have announced themselves on the forums as such, otherwise I dont prejudge anyone. I play pretty much exclusively in the Mobius group, unless I am specifically looking for pvp, in which case I go on Open and look for killers and pirates that are attacking traders. Find bad guy, kill bad guy, or at least damage bad guy until they combat log, which being cowards at heart they usually do. Playing a bad guy is a valid choice in this game. If you play a bad guy, you probably are a bad guy, and you should expect to get treated like a bad guy. End of story.

Pretty sure you just prejudged there! You need some space rum, let me go pilfer a few traders and get you some!

 

[Dabba]

Nothing ever is. even with balancing for pking there's always going to be somethings that slip through the cracks. It just seems that the more passive play style majority on the forums are concerned with enacting draconian changes to remove pvp from open.

I feel like we are reading totally different forums. I don't recall ever seeing anyone tons of people, nor even really a few people, asking for permabans on PKs or removing PvP from Open. People are asking for the risk / reward balance to be reworked, because currently there is a ton of risk and loss on the shoulders of the traders, and no risk or loss on the shoulders of the pks and pirates.

 

[Distance]

That's silly, even hyperbole. Open is the place for PvP. One man's PvP though...

You obviously haven't read the whole thread then :

Ive already put forwards a solution that will be fair but harsh and END station griefing entirely.

On the first offence of opening fire in a station:

IMMEDIATE 25k bounty applied to the player.
Docking permission for that station is permanently revoked and they may NEVER land at that station again.
Player ship is destroyed by the station in a single shot and NOT offered the chance of ANY insurance.


On the SECOND offence:

Any current bounty for the faction whos territory the player is in, is immediately tripled.
The players ship is immediately destroyed in a single shot, no insurance is offered.
The player is forever banned from landing in any station controlled by that faction.
The player is forbidden to come within 100km of any station controlled by that faction on pain of death.
Whenever the player enters territory controlled by that faction, they are actively hunted down by system authorities and security.
A KOS marker is placed on the player, granting everyone in the factions territory the right to kill and claim the bounty on said player with or without a warrant scanner.
Dying does not negate these penalties and clearing the save file does nothing to these penalties either.

Harsh? Yeah...but no one will ever grief in a station again. The current Dev offered solutions dont solve the problem. This will.

 

[Helvellyn]

I donno why these topics keep popping up. The two sides are so polarized, it doesn't matter how many dev quotes are posted; they'll both to the bitter end. Either way, I will continue to pull over traders and blow away the ones that refuse tribute. Yarr!

There are more than two sides. IMO there's your side, there's the side that complains about any PvP interaction, and there's a side that just likes annoying people (the station firing mechanic issue exploiters). There are also those who are looking for a good fight rather than just blowing away those who they easily can, they may be a fourth. There are those who'll happily surrender or fight a pirate but can't stand the station point defence missile people. I think a lot of the argument (but not all) is caused by shoving all those various groups into one side or another, thus associating them with people they don't want to be associated with.

 

[pdizzle]

There are more than two sides. IMO there's your side, there's the side that complains about any PvP interaction, and there's a side that just likes annoying people (the station firing mechanic issue exploiters). There are also those who are looking for a good fight rather than just blowing away those who they easily can, they may be a fourth. There are those who'll happily surrender or fight a pirate but can't stand the station point defence missile people. I think a lot of the argument (but not all) is caused by shoving all those various groups into one side or another, thus associating them with people they don't want to be associated with.

Right, I just think it's silly, because there are many many ways to make sure you can play the way you want with the people you want. *shrug* People gotta complain!

 

[Jorlin]

Nothing ever is. even with balancing for pking there's always going to be somethings that slip through the cracks. It just seems that the more passive play style majority on the forums are concerned with enacting draconian changes to remove pvp from open.

at the moment there is no reason to remove PvP from open (not even to restrict it).
we have groups and solo to prevent it.
but at the moment those options get removed or limited, i'll do my best to give PvP a real hard time... just by doing it

but that's not the point of the thread i think....

 

[Dabba]

You obviously haven't read the whole thread then :

The in station griefing situation isnt pvp, and needs to be addressed in a harsh manner, although I wouldnt go nearly as far as the post you quoted. That is very, very different from asking for bans or balancing for pvp.

 

[Phier]

I feel like we are reading totally different forums. I don't recall ever seeing anyone tons of people, nor even really a few people, asking for permabans on PKs or removing PvP from Open. People are asking for the risk / reward balance to be reworked, because currently there is a ton of risk and loss on the shoulders of the traders, and no risk or loss on the shoulders of the pks and pirates.

Exactly. I'm hoping in some future they have different shards with somewhat different rulesets (and you can't switch between them freely).

 

[pdizzle]

Exactly. I'm hoping in some future they have different shards with somewhat different rulesets (and you can't switch between them freely).

That's easily done now with groups, unless you're talking pure rule sets... which I highly doubt that the devs will do.