I just don't get it..

[Zelos1983]

I take offence to you. I'm officially submitting a ticket against you.

I am not here to anger you. I point out that when you enable PvP/go open, then other CMDRs CAN and WILL attack you - especially in LAWLESS space where there is no ingame police around and you cannot get fines.

People there are free to be gullible, to blow others to pieces just for lulz or to be helpful and defend them. It's their choice. Again, if you CONSENT to being subjected to their actions you cannot complain about what they will do. Same as you are free to do whatever you like in such systems - it's the game's rules.

 

[Cdr Voorheez]

I'm not angry. But I know that things are sometimes hard to understand for people who don't have English as a primary language

That's offensive. I don't care how you want to explain your way out of it.
However I'm not here to fight. I'll drop this one here. Clearly we are in disagreement. Not worth fighting over it.

 

[Ian Phillips]

That'll do everyone.

Back off and calm down before posting again.

 

[Roybe]

This is why we need Open to remove friendly fire (cannot shoot other players) from the game. PvP serves no purpose, has no reward in the game, except the jollies folks get from killing others and causing them distress! This game is all about the PvE and indirect PvP...do away with direct PvP once CQC releases!

 

[Whiterose]

This is why we need Open to remove friendly fire (cannot shoot other players) from the game. PvP serves no purpose, has no reward in the game, except the jollies folks get from killing others and causing them distress! This game is all about the PvE and indirect PvP...do away with direct PvP once CQC releases!

I disagree. Whilst I dont like being shot at, I think it is a necessary part of the game.

 

[newman1702]

This is why we need Open to remove friendly fire (cannot shoot other players) from the game. PvP serves no purpose, has no reward in the game, except the jollies folks get from killing others and causing them distress! This game is all about the PvE and indirect PvP...do away with direct PvP once CQC releases!

Well, I'm not really convinced that trading between stations with a cargo full of valuables should be safe. I just think that the worst kind of antisocial behavior shouldn't be justified anymore - where someone isn't playing the role of a pirate, but rather getting their fun by ruining other people's instead - those kinds of players should be banned from open.

So, players who interdict and pirate or bounty hunt other players are fine by me. You fill your hold full of rares in an unarmed freighter while in open, you take a risk. I'd just rather not have the kinds of players who camp Sag A or stealth ram sidewinders into players so stations blow them up. Those can spend their time in solo and do it to NPC's until they grow up.

 

[JeffRyan]

Good job on your escape CMDR. For the record after hearing the reports an anaconda at Sag A* opens its hard points and comes towards me with no communications (his fault or the games is irrelevant) I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume he's going to kill me as the OP did.

Whether it was CMDR Metta or not is irrelevent, hell the reason he and others patrol Sag A* is for just the reason the OP mentions, so I'd cut him some slack on the 'ooh, you jumped right to the wrong conclusion' bull I've read in this thread.

I won't even touch the topic of the CMDR who thinks the only real interaction on Open is PvP (le sigh).

 

[Zelos1983]

Well, I'm not really convinced that trading between stations with a cargo full of valuables should be safe. I just think that the worst kind of griefing - where someone isn't playing the role of a pirate, but rather getting their fun by ruining other people's instead - those kinds of players should be banned from open.

Just as a side note: Such NPCs exist as well.
I have been attacked quite a few times in uninhabited systems, while I was clean and carried no cargo, while being PP pledged to no one. Granted, not at Sag A. But I also had NPC ships deliberately ram me in space dock. One Hauler came in full speed and hit the brakes hard, just so it would stop in front of my clipper's cockpit as I went out through the mailslot. It got headbutted and exploded.

There is/are PvE groups (e.g. Mobius ?) for those wishing to play with others and not have PvP, but this is not enforced by the game.

 

[Kancro Vantas]

Good job on your escape CMDR. For the record after hearing the reports an anaconda at Sag A* opens its hard points and comes towards me with no communications (his fault or the games is irrelevant) I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume he's going to kill me as the OP did.

Whether it was CMDR Metta or not is irrelevent, hell the reason he and others patrol Sag A* is for just the reason the OP mentions, so I'd cut him some slack on the 'ooh, you jumped right to the wrong conclusion' bull I've read in this thread.

I won't even touch the topic of the CMDR who thinks the only real interaction on Open is PvP (le sigh).

Good and sensitive reaction is commendable. Definitely better be safe than sorry. However, and just like every other thread on the Solo/Open debate, there are way too many people who are way too paranoid that every CMDR they see is out to get them!

The fact is that at no point he was attacked. Period. The Anaconda had interdictor deployed and was flying towards him with -factually unknown- intentions. Coming here and posting and berating about griefers in SAG A* after such encounter it's a tad too much when you do not have a confirmation of intention, regardless of what it looked like. He posted the pics in the SAG A* thread, mentioning a triangle in his radar was this CMDR. I didn't even see it, so it was clear they were far!

Funnily enough, nearly 24hrs and 50 posts later, OP hasn't answer my questions on the initial encounter. I'm not bullying, I'm just pointing out that alarming explorers based solely on an impression, not a confirmed aggression, is a little bit too much. Could have started the thread giving the benefit of doubt and warning about caution instead.

 

[JeffRyan]

Good and sensitive reaction is commendable. Definitely better be safe than sorry. However, and just like every other thread on the Solo/Open debate, there are way too many people who are way too paranoid that every CMDR they see is out to get them!

The fact is that at no point he was attacked. Period. The Anaconda had interdictor deployed and was flying towards him with -factually unknown- intentions. Coming here and posting and berating about griefers in SAG A* after such encounter it's a tad too much when you do not have a confirmation of intention, regardless of what it looked like. He posted the pics in the SAG A* thread, mentioning a triangle in his radar was this CMDR. I didn't even see it, so it was clear they were far!

Funnily enough, nearly 24hrs and 50 posts later, OP hasn't answer my questions on the initial encounter. I'm not bullying, I'm just pointing out that alarming explorers based solely on an impression, not a confirmed aggression, is a little bit too much. Could have started the thread giving the benefit of doubt and warning about caution instead.

This post isn't the one alarming posters. It's the other aggressive CMDRs who've given rise to people like CMDR Metta in the first place is what's alarming explorers.

Now let's be clear a man pulls a gun (similar to deploying hardpoints) and starts walking towards me on the top of Mt Everest... I'm going to assume (perhaps incorrectly like Arnie in Terminator 2 wasn't after John Connor) he's one of these here griefers killing people in Sag A* I've been hearing about.

 

[Alex Traut]

Yes, and they were all wrong.

Protip: mindlessly repeating "you're wrong" over and over again does not make it so. You have done nothing other than argue by assertion since you popped into this thread, and this behavior is neither persuading nor impressing anyone.

Your gratuitously snide "did you read the manual" comment to the contrary, nowhere in the "manual" does it even remotely say that Open = PvP--perhaps you should try reading it sometime. Open is exactly what it sounds like: a game mode that provides unrestricted interaction with other players, the equivalent of going outside and walking down a city street. That interaction can be PvP. It can also be, and frequently is, cooperative play, and most often is simply the awareness that there are other actual people in the world rather than NPCs.

But logging into open is not an invitation to be PKed any more than walking into a dance club is an invitation to be groped, or my going outside is an invitation for someone to start insulting me. This kind of smug, fact-free condescension towards people who object to the practice of griefing gets very tedious. Griefers have as much agency to make their own choices as anyone else does--and they made the choice to grief, so stop taking away their agency by shifting blame to their victims.

No, pointless murder is not against the game rules. But someone engaging in it is still a puerile jackhole who apparently needs to ruin the fun of others in order to have any of their own, and just like someone who's rude to waitstaff in the real world, their choices about how to treat other people who aren't in a position to fight back say a lot about the kind of person they really are when no one's looking.

 

[Katejina]

I completely support one's choice to play the game the way they want and, as there are currently no specific rules against it, choose to kill other commanders in a way that is both very inconveniencing and hardly justifiable. Open may not specifically say that you should expect to be killed by other commanders, but what else can you say is an interaction? Interaction is the broadest term possible with countless results possible. You will make friends and enemies. Combat is naturally part of the definition of interaction. That is the human condition.

But as much as it is possible for one to go the route of senseless violence, it is also possible for me to avoid it.

In my mind, no one is wrong. Unless F Dev specifically states otherwise, what these commanders are doing at Sag A is completely acceptable, even if most of us find it absolutely appalling.

I have played MMOs for the last 15 years. Most of that was in an open PvP environment. I know exactly what the risks are and what the best ways to avoid them are. It doesn't always work.

Solo and private groups are just another option. If people choose open, they should be well aware that it carries these inherent risks.


That said. I will do anything within my power to prevent the loss of my currently 4.5 months worth of data. If dropping into solo makes me a coward in your eyes, that's fine. The amount that I care is basically nonexistent. I will not be forced to interact with you and therefor, you mean nothing to me. Once I return to the bubble and sell my data and have the creds to roll around in a military grade conda, that will likely change.

Safe flying, y'all.

 

[Kancro Vantas]

This post isn't the one alarming posters. It's the other aggressive CMDRs who've given rise to people like CMDR Metta in the first place is what's alarming explorers.

Now let's be clear a man pulls a gun (similar to deploying hardpoints) and starts walking towards me on the top of Mt Everest... I'm going to assume (perhaps incorrectly like Arnie in Terminator 2 wasn't after John Connor) he's one of these here griefers killing people in Sag A* I've been hearing about.

Listen, I am fundamentally in agreement with you on that. Better be safe than sorry!

However, there are a number of other factors that play out, and some of them we don't even know from the OP:

-Interdiction, per se, is not lethal. So is not like pointing a gun at you. Is rather coming with shackles at you. So, not so similar to a gun.
-Yes, you have heard about the griefers, and if you were in Mt Everest, you probably would have also heard about the Rangers there. And it so happens one of them has an Anaconda.
-The chat communication is important. What was said -or not!? -we are on the blind here
-The distance: from the radar picture, this guy was nowhere near to be interdicted. In fact, so far, you can barely see it, if at all.

My point being that those conditions create a rather ambiguous situation for few seconds that requires sound judgement. Probability of being danger is one outcome and better be safe. But IS NOT the only outcome, nor should be the only assumption, after the fact.

 

[Zelos1983]

Protip: mindlessly repeating "you're wrong" over and over again does not make it so.

Nope, but being right in saying that does make it so ;-).

Your gratuitously snide "did you read the manual" comment to the contrary, nowhere in the "manual" does it even remotely say that Open = PvP--perhaps you should try reading it sometime. Open is exactly what it sounds like: a game mode that provides unrestricted interaction with other players, the equivalent of going outside and walking down a city street.

But enlighten me - where do I find the page in the manual that says I cannot be attacked by other CMDRs if I deliberately enter open mode?
If you find it, I'll buy you a beer.

That interaction can be PvP. It can also be, and frequently is, cooperative play, and most often is simply the awareness that there are other actual people in the world rather than NPCs.

PvP does not contradict the ability of working together. If you have played other MMOs, you'll probably have noticed that even on dedicated PvP servers, or under circumstances where people are PvP flagged, they work together.

But logging into open is not an invitation to be PKed any more than walking into a dance club is an invitation to be groped, or my going outside is an invitation for someone to start insulting me.

If you are in a civilized country / policed space, it isn't. Authorities are there to protect you. But if you're in a failed or lawless state / system, shaking your fists at the people who just robbed you while pointing a gun at you and calling them griefers doesn't get you your money back.
In this game, you have a choice if you want to allow other people to interact with you. Choose wisely.

This kind of smug, fact-free condescension towards people who object to the practice of griefing gets very tedious. Griefers have as much agency to make their own choices as anyone else does--and they made the choice to grief, so stop taking away their agency by shifting blame to their victims.

I'm not condescending on you, I'm pointing out that you have a choice not to be griefed. You deliberately ignore this choice and you condemn other people for pointing it out and then you condemn FD for allowing other people to grief you after you consented to it.
Again, I'm not here to make you miserable in any way. I'm just telling you that you have the choice. Instead of complaining about the behaviour of other players, you can explore in peace and choose not to be affected by them.

No, pointless murder is not against the game rules. But someone engaging in it is still a puerile jackhole who apparently needs to ruin the fun of others in order to have any of their own, and just like someone who's rude to waitstaff in the real world, their choices about how to treat other people who aren't in a position to fight back say a lot about the kind of person they really are when no one's looking.

It's called the human condition. People are always like that. In a game, that's easy to deal with. IRL, often not. You cannot change the human nature. But you can do something to protect yourself. On top of the list of priorities should be enjoying the game, not getting mad about others.

That's why I play solo most of the time. When I play open, I'm prepared to be griefed upon. When I turn my PvP flag on in WoW, I'm prepared that a group might gang up on me and have me run back from the graveyard without ever having stood a chance to do something about it.

 

[Motherhood of Bran]

Open World is just that - open.

It's a huge sandbox where we can all do what like. Unfortunately, what some people seem to like doing is blowing up explorers. Sadly, annoying and downright nasty as that is, it IS part of an open world experience, and not something I think FDev needs to waste time 'policing' or 'perma-banning' offenders. If games companies perma-banned people for being d*cks , then only you and me would be left playing..and frankly, I'm not sure about you.

I'm afraid we have to suck it up, and factor in the chance of meeting an utter b*st*rd as part of the exploring experience, and either pack some guns and shields, or be ready to run a bit sharpish.

When I got to Sag A, I did the usual selfies, scans and wotnots, whilst spending the whole time on my backfoot, ready to skidaddle at the first sight of anything popping up on my radar...while I'm happy to say hello to other players out in the wilderness, if you pop your hardpoints at any time, be prepared for me to give you a damn good 'running away from'.

The option is there to play in groups (I can't believe no one has started a dedicated Sag A group yet), or solo - if you choose not to utilize those, then good on you, but be prepared to take the bad with the good...being an explorer does not give us the right to expect special treatment, or demand to be unkillable by others.

Personally, the next time I head to Sag A (and lets face it, it's a big galaxy and Sag A is really the only place these plonkers know they can find us) I'm packing some big fat guns...nah. not really, I'll be running away again.

 

[Soulstain]

Well I have to wonder about the mental state of someone sitting in Sagittarius A, waiting for an unarmed explorer. I have never travelled to the Core, I'm out towards the rim by the Soul Nebula. I can only imagine how long it takes to fly to the core just to sit there and wait for a target to arrive...lol. Especially as we all end up in different p2p instances. On the other hand, one of these days an armed explorer is going to ruin this guy's day. And if he actually spent some time exploring on his way out there to grief, he is going to be mighty upset! I have to disagree with the op though. If you are in open, you are agreeing to pvp, whether you intend to take part in it or not. We tend to forget there are people out here when we go off into the black. That is suppose to be what open is all about. The danger of other commanders. If you just want to interact with other people there are groups for that and no need to worry about @$$hats. I don't agree with griefing or any of that sort of thing but I accept that it could happen any time I decide to enter open play. Due to the lack of targets for these people in this game, they will gravitate to the most delicious fishing holes they can find. Knowing they are mostly cowards, they will gravitate to where the most delicious fishing hole of unarmed opponents are.

 

[Cdr Voorheez]

Bullies are bullies no matter how much you dress them up. Whether they be on the street in your school or at Sag A. Best treating them all like this:

https://youtu.be/0KxTF7vUyNc

 

[Killasandara]

Good and sensitive reaction is commendable. Definitely better be safe than sorry. However, and just like every other thread on the Solo/Open debate, there are way too many people who are way too paranoid that every CMDR they see is out to get them!

The fact is that at no point he was attacked. Period. The Anaconda had interdictor deployed and was flying towards him with -factually unknown- intentions. Coming here and posting and berating about griefers in SAG A* after such encounter it's a tad too much when you do not have a confirmation of intention, regardless of what it looked like. He posted the pics in the SAG A* thread, mentioning a triangle in his radar was this CMDR. I didn't even see it, so it was clear they were far!

Funnily enough, nearly 24hrs and 50 posts later, OP hasn't answer my questions on the initial encounter. I'm not bullying, I'm just pointing out that alarming explorers based solely on an impression, not a confirmed aggression, is a little bit too much. Could have started the thread giving the benefit of doubt and warning about caution instead.

Sorry all for my delay in response. As stated initially, I only get on a bit each day.

you are correct Kancro, I was not at any point attacked. I try my best not to place myself in a position where I can be.

I play in open knowing that there are greifers out here. However, there are more good folks that are fun to talk with and share experience with. That is why i put up with the pirates, griefers and others that like to create a bit of havoc. to that point Motherhood of Bran is spot on.

Open World is just that - open.

It's a huge sandbox where we can all do what like. Unfortunately, what some people seem to like doing is blowing up explorers. Sadly, annoying and downright nasty as that is, it IS part of an open world experience, and not something I think FDev needs to waste time 'policing' or 'perma-banning' offenders. If games companies perma-banned people for being d*cks , then only you and me would be left playing..and frankly, I'm not sure about you.

I'm afraid we have to suck it up, and factor in the chance of meeting an utter b*st*rd as part of the exploring experience, and either pack some guns and shields, or be ready to run a bit sharpish.

When I got to Sag A, I did the usual selfies, scans and wotnots, whilst spending the whole time on my backfoot, ready to skidaddle at the first sight of anything popping up on my radar...while I'm happy to say hello to other players out in the wilderness, if you pop your hardpoints at any time, be prepared for me to give you a damn good 'running away from'.

The option is there to play in groups (I can't believe no one has started a dedicated Sag A group yet), or solo - if you choose not to utilize those, then good on you, but be prepared to take the bad with the good...being an explorer does not give us the right to expect special treatment, or demand to be unkillable by others.

Personally, the next time I head to Sag A (and lets face it, it's a big galaxy and Sag A is really the only place these plonkers know they can find us) I'm packing some big fat guns...nah. not really, I'll be running away again.

I have been the target too many times as a trader and explorer to wait and see what someones intentions are. If they are in front of me and do not try any communications then deploy hardpoints I will always err on the side of overcautious. Especially after two months of work to achieve a goal. However, I was unaware that anyone encountered in an anarchy system will show as lawless. To that point i will concede that i could easily be wrong. But, If an anaconda sees me arrive in a diamondback explorer I am defiantly no threat. So why not start the conversation rather than deploy hardpoints and start to maneuver towards me? As often as I have been interdicted or avoided interdiction, to me that smells funny. I did not note the CMDR's name and for that I do apologize. I was chastised before by mentioning a CMDR on forums so do not do that. If it was one of the good guys then i owe them a cool adult beverage. If not then i am just citing history, mine.

I am not trying to bash FD or how the game works. I love this game and have spent many hours on it since BETA. I know there are those that take great joy in the pain of others. But there are many, many more that will do all they can to help. my only point in starting this chain was that I just do not understand the mentality of those that prey on others weaker or unable to defend or fight back. I suppose there are those that will say look at human history and then call me multiple different things. Was I correct this time that the CMDR I encountered was only going to cause me grief? We won't know now. So to one point I am glad I did not note nor post a name.

and yes Motherhood.. watch me run right there with you

 

[Cdr Voorheez]

I suppose I owe a bit of an apolgy.

Yesterdays subject matter did grip my poop a wee bit, I find the topic irritiating to say the least.

I am sorry for acting like a tool.

 

[Jaeger]

Yup, little children who think hurting kittens is fun. Glad you got out of there, OP!

Z...

Except it's not children.. and while there is solo mode, the authors of the game (the kitten killing enablers) are the ones to blame.