"Getting it": A Definitive Discussion

So, if they get a bit of competitive satisfaction from blowing up a bunch of other people's virtual spaceships then that's perfectly understandable because they are playing a game, and playing it against other people may be the only way that gives them that competitive context!

There are a couple of arguments going on here. One seems to be 'but if people just want to blow stuff up, the should be able to'. Which works, short term, and your character won't progress.

There's another argument in this thread which is 'I think PvP is great! We should have that!' And nobody is really arguing AGAINST that.

The other question isn't really a question but is looking for an answer anyway which is obvious really. 'Does it matter the motivation of the person killing you?' And on one level the answer is no, dead is dead. The other answer is yes. Was I a bounty? Did I deserve it? Was I given a chance to surrender my cargo? Because one is just random violence. The other is part of a developing gameworld with context.
 
Freedom does not mean we are free to try and wreck other people's game. When somebody does that enough, they will be shown the door or put into restricted match making with people similarily hellbanned. Note, this is not an "All PvP is bad" argument. It is me pointing out that "I'm roleplaying a crazy terrorist" will ultimately not fly.

Well, the point I was trying to make is that declaring a role-playing based approach to ED the only "correct" way of playing is 1. not a panacea to players being a pain or otherwise interfering with other players in ways they may not like and 2. not realistic because there will probably always be people who want to play this game in a less deep, more "just killing some time and some doodz" oriented style. I'm not talking about griefing, ie stuff like ramming ships in the station entrance etc., but people who either play exceedingly malicious roles (note that they are not really part of an RPG party - they can do this completely on their own) or play it simply like an elaborate arcade game.

Both is possible and basically legitimate in my opinion. So my point is that simply declaring this a role-playing game and throwing some kind of a specific ethical code on top of it is neither justifiable not will it solve the problems some people see.
 
The other question isn't really a question but is looking for an answer anyway which is obvious really. 'Does it matter the motivation of the person killing you?' And on one level the answer is no, dead is dead. The other answer is yes. Was I a bounty? Did I deserve it? Was I given a chance to surrender my cargo? Because one is just random violence. The other is part of a developing gameworld with context.

Alright, so the question this provokes is: The freedom of this sort of game world brings with it people who are simply less into the whole RPG/immersion/etc aspect and use their freedom to play the game in other ways. Will you let them spoil your experience by saying "baaah, look at this guy, he so doesn't get it, and now my immersion went right through the window" ... or will you just deal with it?

Sorry, but this is what I'm taking away from all these meta discussion threads: Is a bunch of people playing this as an arcade shooter really all it takes to make you worry about your ED gaming experience?
 
If you believe that people who just want to fight will be unable to deal with the game mechanics well enough to support that, you're burying your head in the sand.

It's an online game. There will be plenty of people who are just as capable of earning money as the rest of us, only they use it to attack people all the time. And if they just want to fight, how is getting a big bounty on their head so people come looking for them going to put them off?

It isn't. There will be people who attack random targets for the fun of it, and are well capable of supporting that habit.

You might think it's an immersive simulator of a sci-fi universe where you just want to be. They might think it's a computer game with fun space combat. Both are legitimate views, and if you're going to play online in an open group then you have to accept that not everyone is playing the game for the same reasons as you.

The truth is, it's not their problem whether their actions make sense to you in the game universe as you're playing it. It's yours.
 
Alright, so the question this provokes is: The freedom of this sort of game world brings with it people who are simply less into the whole RPG/immersion/etc aspect and use their freedom to play the game in other ways. Will you let them spoil your experience by saying "baaah, look at this guy, he so doesn't get it, and now my immersion went right through the window" ... or will you just deal with it?

Sorry, but this is what I'm taking away from all these meta discussion threads: Is a bunch of people playing this as an arcade shooter really all it takes to make you worry about your ED gaming experience?

What I'm saying is that they can't. The game itself will perhaps not immediately, but eventually punish that sort of gameplay.

Your position is 'It's absurd that people are upset that players will be upset being shot at for no reason!' That isn't absurd at all.

Personally I don't mind PvP, I even welcome it. Also surprisingly here, most of the Old Guard, (I actually don't know an exception) have all played EVE. I only left a few months back (though I haven't played seriously since 2012), so I'm amused that people continuously assume we're EVE haters. We simply don't want that turkey shoot mentality to repeat itself here. For many of us it's a reason we left EVE.

TLDR: The game itself will regulate random turkeyshooters so I don't have to worry about them.
 
Gah, to elaborate, let me repeat a post I made on another thread over the weekend, that had a lot to do with people claiming David Braben had promised some sort of PvP paradise. It covers a lot of the same ground. The post follows:

One of the most disturbing things in this thread is the people politely asking for PvP whilst saying David has promised it in various interviews and diaries.

As far as I'm aware, David has in various interviews and diaries spoken about the rarity of player combat and his keeness to make griefing (which isn't pvp but continous unwanted pvp) as little a problem as possible and pvp itself something rare, even special:

David Braben said:
One of the biggest worries with MMORPGs is gamer griefing if you allow PVP kills and the ways we can balance that. We’ve done that on several different layers. At the top level, the game rules make it harder to [be a griefer], simply because if you attack another player, you immediately become a pirate and then you get a bounty on your head, which means it’s fair game for other players to attack you. There’s already this top level of balancing, so it’s then how the game responds to that.

That only outlines his desire to keep griefing low, how about this interview with us on the forums:

Davd Braben said:
It is important that players enjoy the experience. We are writing this game for ourselves, and the fun of the game is the most important thing. Player-player encounters should be interesting, and part of this is the ability to hide - whether from other players or AIs.
Most of the ships you encounter will be AIs - and in many cases you will kill them - which is why we want the majority to be AIs. Generally speaking we expect players, even beginners, to be more of a challenge than an AI ship, and something that players will tend not to attack, but more cooperate with, and we are designing the bounty system (and others) to discourage PvP and encourage player cooperation.
Here he clearly talks about discouraging PvP and encouraging co-operation. That's not making it impossible, but definitely not a career choice in and of itself. Another example:

David Braben said:
What I want is the sort of game that you play with PVP enabled, so players can kill other players, but it happens only very rarely. I think in some ways that’s the best of both worlds because it balances having that feeling of danger and threat without the absolute of ‘players cannot kill players’.

Which sort of summarizes everything. David Braben has been clear from Day 1, in almost every interview I've seen. That he wants PvP in the game, but almost like a special event. Players of Elite Dangerous live in a world that sometimes pits them against other ships. Most of the time those ships are NPCs and sometimes they're PCs. The point here is that whatever people think, Elite Dangerous is a PvE game. Where the enviroment includes players. Sometimes they're your friends, sometime they're your enemy. But always in context, of a mission, of a bounty or as the victim of your piracy (which is encouraged as 'drop your cargo and can go' rather than 'I'm gonna kill you to take your cargo').

I hope the mechanics of Elite Dangerous live up to that. And I hope people who just want to randomly attack other players find that very very difficult to do.

I think David's vision is clear.

TLDR: David Braben has never promised a pvpers paradise.
 
Your position is 'It's absurd that people are upset that players will be upset being shot at for no reason!' That isn't absurd at all.

Yes, it's a bit absurd to define "reason" and "no reason" in terms of some kind of elaborate code of conduct that everyone logged into ED must subscribe to. In other words: If you're being shot at, somebody obviously saw a good reason for it.

TLDR: The game itself will regulate random turkeyshooters so I don't have to worry about them.

Well, I agree with that, of course. As I said, right now repercussions for criminal behavior are terribly soft and I hope they will be dialed up by at least an order of magnitude.
 
Yes, it's a bit absurd to define "reason" and "no reason" in terms of some kind of elaborate code of conduct that everyone logged into ED must subscribe to.

At no time have I advocated a 'code of conduct' or 'code of honor'. Nor have I said people should behave in a certain way. The game will take care of it. If the systems work properly. My suggestion has only been 'immerse yourself enough to learn how to behave where you are'. Whether that's behaving yourself in the core systems or acting like a mad psychopath out in the Frontier. And that's for getting the most out of the game and not quickly finding your position untenable.
 
TLDR: Immersion is the key to "getting it".

Insightful post, but your tl;dr unnecessarily devalues it imho.

I personally play for immersion and the feeling of presence and escapism.

Since getting stuck for 30 seconds or more until p2p did all its handshakes with everyone is highly detrimental to that experience, I mostly play solo online.

The downsides clearly outweigh the benefit of seeing a hollow blip on my scanner every once in a while and that's fine with me.

However, I'd consider the tl;dr as a tad narrow-minded and I wouldn't feel entitled to tell anyone to play the game for the same reasons I do.

Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
 
The point here is that whatever people think, Elite Dangerous is a PvE game. Where the enviroment includes players. Sometimes they're your friends, sometime they're your enemy. But always in context, of a mission, of a bounty or as the victim of your piracy (which is encouraged as 'drop your cargo and can go' rather than 'I'm gonna kill you to take your cargo').

But isn't this an attempt to prescribe context rather than context that exists absolutely? The way I see it, context is largely internal to the individual player, especially in an open-ended free-roaming game. To give an example, it is perfectly possible for a group of players to make the "player kills" value on their statistics page their main game context. Maybe they compete with each other for the highest number of kills. They could even deepen this context through role-playing. Maybe they are members of a Lovecraftian sect, worshippers of Hastur, The Unspeakable One who dwells near Aldebaran (in ED, they could even go there and say hello...) and required to bring human sacrifices.

Yeah I know, being a bit silly there, sorry. :) My point is that the context that exists solely in the individual player's head should not be underestimated. It may be completely contradictory to yours.
 
Yeah I know, being a bit silly there, sorry. :) My point is that the context that exists solely in the individual player's head should not be underestimated. It may be completely contradictory to yours.

I think the game, the setting, the rules, the game mechanics etc provides the context, but maybe I'm being silly :)

Insightful post, but your tl;dr unnecessarily devalues it imho.

I don't disagree just for my longer posts I try to provide one, or I get complaints.
 
Back
Top Bottom