Bob Lighthouse
Banned
No, they're not "rookie numbers."
LOL
You're clueless if you think so.
Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note
- Thread starter Rampant
- Start date
No, they're not "rookie numbers."
LOL
You're clueless if you think so.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
What are you talking about?
Every single ship comes with weapons.
There is constant war and military factions are the de facto economies.
You're just posting nonsense.
Mentioning the combat parts of the game doesn't make it a "military" themed game, the simple fact that there are specialized trader and exploration ships should make that evident. In any case, I don't see the "military" part of the game in buying and selling commodities nor in making a stellar survey in X region.
My 80 Ly Anaconda and my 70 Ly Aspx disagree, are you really expecting to catch me with such measly numbers?
Not all lies are agreement breaches, and I though you were smart...
The way I understand Player groups is that account is owned by an individual that paid real world money for the game. As such that account holder has every right to establish the rules of the "invited guests" to his account. If a "guest" breaks those rules then the account holder has the right to boot them.
I don't understand why the account holder of the player group can't set a flag for the type of game that PG wishes to play. For example set it as PvE.
After all these years, After so many posts it should be clear to Fdev that there is a desire by a large portion of the player base for a strict PvE mode and the ability to enforce it. Why is that so hard for them to understand?
I don't understand why the account holder of the player group can't set a flag for the type of game that PG wishes to play. For example set it as PvE.
After all these years, After so many posts it should be clear to Fdev that there is a desire by a large portion of the player base for a strict PvE mode and the ability to enforce it. Why is that so hard for them to understand?
Last edited:
I think they understand its popularity perfectly, they just know it would make all the people who bought the game just for PVP and PK'ing wail and gnash their teeth. Same reason open only isn't realistic.
The point we are considering is about a person (not their in game character) who opts to join a no PvP PG - that they *know* to be a no PvP PG - with the premeditated intent to disrupt the no-PvP PG by engaging
in PvP combat with others that have agreed to no-PvP combat - and the driving factor is *because* it happens to be a no-PvP group.
This behaviour is categorised by the definition of being a lie.
Be in no doubt that the individual is not just "breaking an agreement". It is actually a premeditated lie.
I'm glad you do opine that you despise liars more than those that simply break their agreements. Because in this case you have basically agreed that the act of lying to gain access to a group is a despicable behaviour.
I know we are powerless to "*prevent* it, but at least we can agree that it is a despicable behaviour after the fact and know afterwards which human individuals engage in despicable behaviour.
Yours Aye
Mark H
Last edited:
I must say I messed up my own quote, I dislike more agreement breaches than lies because lies can sometimes be quite harmless but an agreement has more weight to it than a simple social stunt.
But yes, I agree, there's no roleplay reason to enter a PG to mine salt, after all, the concept of PG, open and solo are non-cannon, if they were, it'd break the 4th wall but ED is not that kind of game.
Rep given.
The bit in bold...
...sadly, there are some player's who think it *is* that kind of game, or *want it to be* that kind of game.
Which is what this thread is intended to highlight.
Yours Aye
Mark H