Griefing: Is it?

[GluttonyFang]

1) You suggest a compromise and encourage people to leave their comfort zone, yet the people you defend are less than willing to compromise and are well within their comfort zone.

I don't think I'm defending anyone, I appreciate both sides of the argument as long as they are substantiated.

2) Google.

Was not conversing with you on that subject but thank you for pointing it out.

3) Let's agree combat logging is an exploit and always will be, without being cynical.

Who knows, maybe FD will make it acceptable one day, I can't wait to see the reaction from that.

4) Horizons is for explorers and PvPers alike. Also. Kicking a man in the head is an "interaction" yet most would rather brand it as "antisocial behavior". Your point is null.

In comparison, I would say it's more of a explorer-focused update.

People brand hostile interactions to be non interactive because it is inconvenient for them to accept it as an interaction, typical.

 

[CorvusDove]

Why won't you let me construe whatever I want?

You know the thread has reached exhaustion when people on the same side start arguing about how they're arguing.

 

[Nara]

Any chance we could discuss the topic? Seems like some people want to derail this. Everyone take a deep breath....

 

[Cmdr Cunomaglus]

Sounds like you're happy with the current situation too then

I already said I don't give a toss what happens in open. Perhaps I just empathise more with the underdog and can understand their grievance (har har see what I did there etc) with the current situation.

 

[Soliluna]

One more mile....if gameplay is indicative of moral behavior, could you tell me what it means that the guy who was avidly against PvP in my old EVE corp, who did nothing but trading, mining, and production...killed two people and then himself shortly after his wife discovered his hard drive full of provocative underage images?

You can't really tie crazy gameplay to crazy people. You can only suggest that crazy people probably prefer entertainment forms that reward the body with seratonin to hold off depression and neurosis.

That is brutal.

I don't need to be a spokesperson for players of Elite to prove your statement of "It's clear that all parties are unsatisfied." as untrue. As you made the initial statement, apparently as a spokesperson for all parties (or in other words players of Elite?) I just wanted to correct you, that you do not speak for all of us.

I like that he tried to speak for all, then when you disagreed he said that you were trying to speak for all. I also agree with you Nara, I play in open for the danger, haven't done very much PVP myself (except for CQC), and every engagement I have been in has been against opposite sides in conflict zones so far. I'm a mediocre pilot at best, probably on the lower end of mediocre and haven't encountered any significant issue with any player. Most of them just go about their business.

I think a lot of the really passionate "anti-griefers!" on the forum do not realise how many people do in fact play in open without a concern over the fact they can be ground into dust at any moment, even if by a thirteen year old screaming about the sexual habits of our mothers.

People make blanket statements like that when they realize they are in an uncomfortable minority.

This.

If a party is satisfied, why are the debating in the forums? Surely their satisfaction would mean there's no need for them to discuss such problems with people.

And even if you're satisfied with "how FD have implemented the game", does your satisfaction not lie with how other players are unsatisfied with something that you're satisfied with?

- - - Updated - - -



Perhaps they do, but I made that statement because it's clear to anyone that doesn't live in total denial that a lot of people on this forum are unhappy.

Why would you debate anything? Because you want to. That is reason enough surely.

If the politicians are debating whether to make everyone in the country pay for TV license when I am satisfied that I do not need to pay it, should I not debate it, simply because I am already satisfied? Perhaps what they are debating has the potential to make me unsatisfied?

A lot of players on the forum are unhappy... but you can't make everyone happy. The question is, how much is a lot, how does that compare to the entire ED playerbase and how does the vision of those unsatisfied players compare to Frontier's vision - and the vision of those who are happy? Would you make more people unhappy if you made changes? Is the net increase of people being happy even worth the change, the development time etc.


I'm certain you are not suggesting that simply because some players are unhappy we should dramatically change how open is played. (I am not insinuating that it shouldn't be discussed)

 

[Lowievisser]

Also as pointed out by Glutton and others, wy not one mega tread about griefing? soon as it smells like open v solo it get merged in seconds , while this topic you can make tread after tread. i really dont get this. new ppl must be thinking WoW! griefer paradise , but only in reality there is no WOW!

 

[Buglet]

I don't think I'm defending anyone, I appreciate both sides of the argument as long as they are substantiated.


Was not conversing with you on that subject but thank you for pointing it out.



Who knows, maybe FD will make it acceptable one day, I can't wait to see the reaction from that.



In comparison, I would say it's more of a explorer-focused update.

People brand hostile interactions to be non interactive because it is inconvenient for them to accept it as an interaction, typical.

1) You're clearly defending one side of this debate. Argue it all you want, it's obvious.

2) This is a discussion forum. I can converse with whoever I want and butt into any thread I like. Deal with it.

3) That's a rather unlikely scenario - I suppose you used it to cover up the fact that you agree with me.

4) Yes, whatever you said. Woe is me. Again, deal with it.

 

[CorvusDove]

Any chance we could discuss the topic? Seems like some people want to derail this. Everyone take a deep breath....

The problem is, the topic was discussed, then someone asserted that how you game is a direct reflection on who you are as a person, and that if you behave like a sociopath in a game you are a sociopath IRL. It was at that point the shark was not only jumped, but a trampoline was placed on either side of said shark so as to perpetuate jumping it.

I play GTA, Fallout, etc...so if RL morality = VG morailty and by mathematical properties the inverse is true, I'm well and truly going to hell. A lot.

 

[-Pv-]

1) You suggest a compromise and encourage people to leave their comfort zone, yet the people you defend are less than willing to compromise and are well within their comfort zone.

Who is this person "defending" exactly?

3) Let's agree combat logging is an exploit and always will be, without being cynical.

Combat logging has been expressly proclaimed by FD as being an unwanted exploit. The above quote was not defending CL, but stating it exists and that someone else may believe it is valid.

4) Horizons is for explorers and PvPers alike. Also. Kicking a man in the head is an "interaction" yet most would rather brand it as "antisocial behavior". Your point is null.

The game has within its rules context the ability to be anti-social. As long as the game remains structured the way it is (probably always will be) anti-social behavior will always exist.

What do players do about it? Complain? Or perform practical mitigations which are already known?

-Pv-

 

[Nara]

The problem is, the topic was discussed, then someone asserted that how you game is a direct reflection on who you are as a person, and that if you behave like a sociopath in a game you are a sociopath IRL. It was at that point the shark was not only jumped, but a trampoline was placed on either side of said shark so as to perpetuate jumping it.

I play GTA, Fallout, etc...so if RL morality = VG morailty and by mathematical properties the inverse is true, I'm well and truly going to hell. A lot.

You are probably right. I'll just patiently wait for Buglet to get the thread closed then

 

[Lowievisser]

The problem is, the topic was discussed, then someone asserted that how you game is a direct reflection on who you are as a person, and that if you behave like a sociopath in a game you are a sociopath IRL. It was at that point the shark was not only jumped, but a trampoline was placed on either side of said shark so as to perpetuate jumping it.

I play GTA, Fallout, etc...so if RL morality = VG morailty and by mathematical properties the inverse is true, I'm well and truly going to hell. A lot.

Ah well , at least you wont be alone.

 

[Buglet]

You are probably right. I'll just patiently wait for Buglet to get the thread closed then

As will I.

 

[CorvusDove]

Ah well , at least you wont be alone.

I hear there, you can only play in Open and all systems are Anarchies, so you're probably right.

 

[Alice Margatroid]

Stating one enjoys a something does not equate full satisfaction. There will always be desires that are unmet, if humans learned how to be content, the world would be drastically different than what it is.

You're on point that I have no knowledge of bartles' taxology, if you would like to explain it or point to a source where I can read about it, it would be great.

From your explanation, however, you claim that the majority supports combat logging therefore it is justified. First of all, where is the statistical data that supports your claim? Second of all, does having a majority on a certain perspective justifies it?

The entire Horizon update is explorer content-heavy, and also player killers is a type of interaction, therefore should not be excluded from the category of "social players".

I never said that combat logging is supported by anyone. as it very much is a clear exploit so please dont try and twist my words.

for bartle. this and its sequal video will cover the basics.
[video=youtube;yxpW2ltDNow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow[/video]

as far as how satisfied people are. its important to realise that everyone is different, quite a few people have enjoyed it and are happy with what they have got. its important to remember that improvements matter, but, its impossible to make everyone happy.

to sum up what I am saying. I do want ed to get better, but, I do feel people need to take more responsibility with what they say on the forums, and need to remember that they can only speak for themselfs. if we want the game to be better, we need to work with each other to improve the community aspect.

 

[Soliluna]

4) Horizons is for explorers and PvPers alike. Also. Kicking a man in the head is an "interaction" yet most would rather brand it as "antisocial behavior". Your point is null.

You call others out for "being the spokesperson" yet you are constantly making sweeping remarks like what I have bolded above. Then you wrongly assume you can dismiss other's points because of these generalisations.

Ignoring how you know what most would brand it, democracy is not faultless and is certainly not the only choice paradigm that should be considered in social situations. Even if "most" wanted something, what if that something greatly effected the minority while barely affecting the majority?

There was a time when (we are lead to believe) most white people thought that black people should be enslaved. There was a time when 'most' people in Britain believed in a Christian God.

I am taking this to the extreme but simply: owning a majority does not automatically make something right or correct.


MMA is not anti-social. Some people watch MMA, some people referee it, some people compete in it, some people commentate it - some people write articles and report on it, some train for it. You will get a lot more than a kick in your head in MMA.

ED - some people play as pirates, some as explorers, some as traders or smugglers, miners or bounty hunters etc.

Need I arrive at a conclusion or should I just end the point I am making short with a pithy quip?

"Your point is null"...

 

[Buglet]

You call others out for "being the spokesperson" yet you are constantly making sweeping remarks like what I have bolded above. Then you wrongly assume you can dismiss other's points because of these generalisations.

Ignoring how you know what most would brand it, democracy is not faultless and is certainly not the only choice paradigm that should be considered in social situations. Even if "most" wanted something, what if that something greatly effected the minority while barely affecting the majority?

There was a time when (we are lead to believe) most white people thought that black people should be enslaved. There was a time when 'most' people in Britain believed in a Christian God.

I am taking this to the extreme but simply: owning a majority does not automatically make something right or correct.


MMA is not anti-social. Some people watch MMA, some people referee it, some people compete in it, some people commentate it - some people write articles and report on it, some train for it. You will get a lot more than a kick in your head in MMA.

ED - some people play as pirates, some as explorers, some as traders or smugglers, miners or bounty hunters etc.

Need I arrive at a conclusion or should I just end the point I am making short with a pithy quip?

"Your point is null"...

If your point is that kicking someone in a head is social behavior, I'll just go ahead and ignorantly brand you as a pigeon that plays chess.

 

[o2thaZ]

Omfg month old thread rebooted.
is everyone that bored?

 

[Buglet]

Omfg 2 week old thread rebooted.
is everyone that bored?

Apparently so.

 

[GluttonyFang]

1) You're clearly defending one side of this debate. Argue it all you want, it's obvious.

You may interpret it to be the case, but as I've clarified that I'm not, and I've made it clear that I support the flag system.

2) This is a discussion forum. I can converse with whoever I want and butt into any thread I like. Deal with it.

The problem with "google it" is that any material can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, thus why I've shown genuine interest in asking the individual to perhaps elaborate his interpretation or a source he would like me to read from.

I suggest that you separate your emotion from your argument and try to stow you unnecessary attitude and aggression toward others.

3) That's a rather unlikely scenario - I suppose you used it to cover up the fact that you agree with me.

Why do I need to hide anything? I do agree with you to an extent, as I've said before, if you remember.

4) Yes, whatever you said. Woe is me. Again, deal with it.

I believe you've devolved into an unproductive state of tantrum. Not that I see throwing a tantrum any less of value, but I believe it is highly unproductive toward the discussion, I suggest you leave the conversation and collect your emotions before approaching the subject further. However, that is your discretion, of course.

 

[Buglet]

I believe you've devolved into an unproductive state of tantrum. Not that I see throwing a tantrum any less of value, but I believe it is highly unproductive toward the discussion, I suggest you leave the conversation and collect your emotions before approaching the subject further. However, that is your discretion, of course.

Ugh. Here we go.

You may interpret it to be the case