Deleted member 115407
D
lol - you just said it yourself, in plain english!
PvP Gameplay...LOL!
- Thread starter whammo11224
- Start date
lol - you just said it yourself, in plain english!
I did? Can you point out where so I can correct it?
I mean I wouldn't want to risk suggesting you're making poor/misfound statements if you're basing it on something I've said in error...
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
Sorry, going to have to call you out here. In your rush to make a non-point/an unfair point/a knee jerk point, you've either mis-read me, and/or simply mis-quoted me (by only part quoting me out of context).
So you've suggestioned I'm somehow "anti-PvP" and for "total immunity"... And you've seemingly repeatedly quoted a partial sentence from my post above - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/399312-Gameplay-LOL!?p=6297838&viewfull=1#post6297838
Take a few seconds to read that post (again)? Can you point out anthing along the lines of requesting "immunity" or indeed anything "anti-PvP". To point out your mistake, the second paragraph is quite clear on my view on this matter surely?
Now, how does this suggest I'm pro-immunity? Can you suggest anything I've said that's anti-PvP? Alternatively you could man up and admit your mistake...
Note: TBH - I'll expect some non-point/splutter on the matter in your response, because it doesn't appear your out to make a fair point, simply spout rhetoric from a soap box. Hopefully you'll prove me wrong, please.
Last edited:
Doesn't "it will not make you immune to it" imply that you want a method which will make you immune?
That's how I read it, tbh.
No, it implies I said the words, "It will not make you immune to it." Quite simple really isn't it. ie: You can take what ever measure you want against griefing, it will not prevent (make you immune to) griefing. Now if you want to read this as I'm after immunity that's an assumption. The point being made is griefing cannot be overcome by current ingame methods (IMHO). And the fact a sentence in the same post is explicit on my views and clearly says I'm not for immunity makes the whole thing rather odd no?
So, rather than quoting part of a response, why not quote the whole thing? And indeed a specific statement I even made about "destruction"?
Infact I'll help, here is my entire post. How does me saying, "It's important to allow random (illegal) murder," leave any question mark on this? Why would someone repeatedly ignore that? Hmmm...
Well, when someone only quotes part of a comment, no longer in context, ignoring a far clearer comment on the exact point in question, that's hardly surprising... Maybe you can ask vindelanos why he chose to do that?
Last edited:
Personally, I think the game needs to simply hold habitual illegal destruction (no matter where it happens) accountable. I'd like to see CMDRs able to perform a few illegal destructions (over a given time frame) and it basically be ignored. But if they did it too much (over a given period) then for logical/sensible penalties to be applied, and ramped up accordingly.
Consider it this way? If a pirate threatens a victim and blows them up, fair enough. But if they are doing this over and over and over on a daily basis, surely they're not a very "good" pirate? And is it surprising the Pilots Federation might start taking notice of them destroying lots of other Pilots Federation members and penalising them? As such, each time the Pirate chooses to (illegally) destroy a victim it needs to be a considered choice. Because, if they start acting like a psycho, they'll get treated like a psycho! Problem?
On a side note, the games should also be orchestrating/promoting as much "legal" PvP (destruction) as it can! At the moment this really doesn't exist in a true sense!
Last edited:
No arguments here. The Habitual illegal destruction ( I think NPCs should also count) should have a difficult time especially if they want to continue doing it (perhaps not impossible but extremely difficult)
A pirate who continually blows up his prey is a very bad business person no need to blow up all the booty! Although piracy could use a lot of love (almost as much as exploration), but I am not a pirate at least not yet.
I also agree that the game should be offering more legal PvP either by missions or allowing players to join official defense/agitator forces with NPC support etc.
+1 virtulal rep
Agreed... If it doesn't wreck some other mechanic I don't see why NPCs should be treated any differently to CMDRs as regards their destruction ideally.
Likewise I see no reason why any C&P/karma mechanics should ignore "illegal" destruction in Anarchy systems too.
ie - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-Reputation-quot-and-quot-Risk-Hot-Spots-quot
Thanks for all of the suggestions. I have to be honest, ever since I watched the video, I'm actually starting to enjoy the open gameplay. I think I'm making these guys think, "hmm...is this target worth all of the trouble?" Until I figure out (and unlock) all the engineering stuff, this is what I'm going to have to do. If it takes longer to get to the station, so be it. One major difference is that you can see them coming on the radar as opposed to the npc's who just pop up behind you. When I see them making that long looping turn, the game's afoot! I'm sure I'll get caught every now and then, but it will be worth it to see the griefer/ganker fail.
Thanks
Thanks
Deleted member 115407
D
That's awesome, OP! Nothing wrong with being a master of evasion and escape!
Other, potentially hostile, players really do add a bit of spice to a game that can feel otherwise bland at times.
Now every once in a while, you may run across someone who gets the drop on you, but you'll find with your new knowledge and skills that those occasions are much fewer, and further between.
--------------
Cross reference for another player experiencing a similar problem...
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/399965-Going-to-solo-mode
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the suggestions in my C&P(karma) proposals is that on the scale of penalties applied to CMDRs responsible for habitual (illegal) destruction, is they are - once they reach a high enough "level" - highlighted for all to see as a known psycho. ie: So potential victims get an even more obvious heads up there's a psycho about.
Calling people "psycho" is kind of rude, almost trolling really. I prefer the term "insurance screen facilitator."
Huh? It's meant with a bit of levity, but if someone goes around quite literally destroying other CMDRs for no other reason than "feelings" (their enjoyment, the victim's grief), what term best fits this behaviour? I'd say "psycho" fits their ingame behaviour quite well...
Anyway, rather than "terms," surely the game response/penalties/rules are more worth discussing?
Last edited: