The flawed argument that people who do not wish to tangle with other players on their terms are bad at the game is pretty much the entire premise of everything you've posted.
Griefers make open impossible, and how easy the solution is.
- Thread starter NisseNeutron
- Start date
Are personal attacks really necessary? I used to think the Elite community was a friendly one.
No matter how clean a city is, there are always going to be dumpsters.
There's a little subset that just hates casual carebears. I don't know why. The filthy casual peasants don't even want to play with them.
Probably the same fundamental root cause - it seems to me that alot of people born after about 1995 (at least in the UK) seem lacking in the sense of initiative wrt actually asking for help or looking things up for themselves. There are at least some that have that sense of initiative (e.g. some that I have worked or do work with) but too many seem to depend on things being shoved in their face with the subtly of a 12-gauge (or bigger) shotgun at point blank range.
Researching products before you buy them (or when you encounter issues) seems to be a lost art mostly reserved for those that remember the era pre-Broadband/pre-Smart Phones.
Assigning legal or moral culpability after the fact doesn't alter the reality that these are knowable risks and that are almost always actions that can be taken to mitigate them. Refraining from these mitigations because you think the source of that risk is to blame is about as corrupted as logic can get. Blame is something you can fuss over later, if you survive...unless, of course your goal is to become a martyr.
Regardless, other players aren't criminals, even if they have their characters perform criminal actions in-game, and no rational degree of in-game punishment would deter all such activity. The deterrents we have are far less than rational, so that leaves in-game characters to look after themselves.
Ultimately, if my CMDR is subject to an interdiction he would rather avoid, I have made a mistake somewhere. Either I had him go to the wrong area, failed to notice a threat in SC in time to avoid the interdiction, failed to take appropriate maneuvers in SC to avoid an interdiction tether, etc. Whatever it was, I've squandered multiple opportunities to avoid the interdiction and am now given another chance to avoid problems for my CMDR via the tunnel game. I can fight it, and if conditions are favorable, escape this interdiction; I can minimax my losses and submit; or if I took the gamble and failed again, I find myself forcibly interdicted with a long cool down and perhaps the odds stacked against me in this continuing chain of choices I've been presented with.
Experience comes from experiencing. If even an abject novice has done their basic due diligence in paying attention to the game and it's instructional materials up until this point, the most they can lose is so trivial it's almost comical. The experience will almost certainly be more valuable. Even if they haven't bothered to skim the manual, play any of the tutorials, and have somehow avoided all the warnings about flying without a rebuy, well that only increases the value of the lesson they are going to need to learn sooner or later.
I'm sure someone will claim that there is nothing to be learned from being yanked and shot down in seconds. I'd argue that if they didn't learn anything, they weren't paying attention.
Yes, I generally find it safest to assume the attacker has the advantage in the tunnel game, which is why most relevant interdiction avoidance gameplay comes before the interdiction tether is established.
Subjective perceptions of fairness are difficult to shape. Make novices feel like they have control and they'll have far too much control over any given situation for the game to be more than an exercise in unmitigated self-gratification once they get a little experience. Better to discourage some of the more fragile types early on, IMO...for the sake of those that stick around.
Isn't that the sort of victim blaming you objected to at the beginning of this post?
Anyway, shields are just one tool of many. Novices often don't know how to leverage them well enough to matter, and many seem amazingly resistant to sound advice on the topic. More experienced players, who can make informed choices for their CMDRs, may well be able to omit shields and still be safe.
That's about the only way I I interpret calls for things like PvP flags, or people who abuse features like blocking and the log off timer to exclude or spite those who don't adhere to precisely their personal ideals of how others should have their characters behave.
Engineers had almost nothing to do with this.
Anyone who felt challanged by NPCs prior to Engineers was probably just much less experienced at the time, or is misremembering how impotent NPCs have generally always been.
Outside of those eight-Vulture gold traps I can't remember being challanged in PvE after my CMDR was able to afford a Viper III. ATR, wing assassination missions, and Thargoids, as silly as I think at least two of these are, are more challenging for a fully Engineered vessel than just about anything that existed before Engineers was for then contemporary CMDR craft. A single Vulture in 1.2 could lock down a CZ indefinitely and the Viper could do any assassination mission in the game.
NPC were challenging enough for the average player.
They haven't become less challenging.
MOBIUS, for all intents and purposes in my experience, is 'solo'. I have never seen another living soul in my time playing in it so it largely fails at the mission to be both a non-PvP environment AND a social one.
I used to see people at CGs and Shinrarta and that's about it when I was there. Then they changed all the group names according to region and I didn't bother rejoining the new ones since I work nights, which means that as an EU player I'm often awake and active at the same time as the US players on my days off.
I know. Thanks to topping them up with HRPs and engineered stuff. It's mostly just bulletsponge and the challenge is rather getting not a stroke from chipping away at their health. And you're right for one thing: Most ENCOUNTERS weren't challenging, but that was mostly because the real challenge was in getting something larger than a medium ship to spawn because "RNG God save us" - we might have gotten to much credits off the bounties and we can't have that in ED.
You can use Mobius for CGs. It ok'ish to good in that regard. I'm in pve eurasia and at the times I played there were always other players.
Open has more though.
I was nodding in mostly agreement up to here. There is no abuse of the block feature. It's available to all players for whatever reasons they want to use it. It's not a report of bad behavior. It simply means A dosn't wish to play with B. Not a thing at all wrong with that. It's a game.
I'll have to try that sometime. I have never seen anyone in there even at hot traffic locations so far.
Deleted member 110222
D
This community has never been friendly.
The words "space game" and "friendly" should never be used in the same sentence.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I definitely see less in mobius than there used to be . It stands to reason really. ED is over 5 years old now so obviously a lot of people will have moved on. Due to the lack of PG tools those players will probably still be in mobius...because of this the number of groups needs to keep expanding.
Ideally some sort of auto kick (but not with predudice) when not entered the group on over X amount of time would be better... That way the group's would take longer to fill and have more active players in. Anyone coming back after a long break could just sign up again.
Instead (on PC) we have 4 or 5 groups all of which may only have 25% active members
Thats certainly one interpretation. But not my actual intention.
My outlook is that hostile players of any level are simply part of a dangerous landscape.
For many, roleplaying this aspect IS the reason they bought and play this game.
For others this is confronting when attacked and killed seemingly for no reason.
For me, the reason is a moot arbitrary point. Maybe they just wanted to be a "bad guy" in a videogame simulating a dangerous futuristic galaxy.
This can only happen in one mode, Open.
There are two other modes that can disclude this and yet people who do not enjoy a robust,non scripted arena repeatedly choose this mode and then want to change it when these encounters take place.
To be quite honest most of these players do seem to display a very large lack of self presevation knowlege and ability, but rather than adjusting thier own skill level, they want to change the game to accomadate them.
If this view after nearly 10k hrs in game makes me a dumpster as you so politely put it, well ill just have to live with it.
For context ill add i have never ganked another player but i think gankers are singularly the most enjoyable and challenging element in the game.
It wasn't much of an interpretation when that is what you said, with your words. And you even repackaged it, but circled right back around:
You just put some hedges around the same statement.
Part of being good at the game is picking the appropriate mode for your mood and picking a location away from the barbarians.
Yup. And i stand by it.
Although id change the descriptor to "bad at understanding the game"
Its what i believe so its what i say.
There are endless examples of survival strategies that try to educate players how to survive the inevitable hostile encounters that open presents.
And yet you nicely sidestep the fact that not all players want to be collaborative in thier gameplay choices.
This lack of perception is perfectly illustrated by follow up posts that literally ask whats wrong with flying a shieldless , mrp-less T7 in open!
They're not hedges they're intentional points.
Last edited: