I would say that if a pirate is recognised as such then he has more chance of the trader/miner stopping to negotiate, assuming the victim is not a noob.
Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
BGS might indeed be a reason. For the fun of it might be another valid reason, wether you and I would condemn such, or not.
Fair enough, the 'usually weaker' bit i can live without.
Last edited:
And that would be a good place to unload it, and I usually do for that very reason.
My only question is why should you have to? If you have nothing other than that in your hold, you're not pledged, you have no bounties, no missions... What possible logical reason is there for anybody not psychologically maladjusted to blow you up? I mean, in-game, lore appropriate, what if this was real life reason?
I don't do it, why would I, but why on Earth is it even anything I should worry about in that particular situation?
We don't need to submit moral justifications for how we act in a video game, do we? I mean if you want to attack another player, no rules are stopping you in open. There is a lot of defending this position, in these terms. Why would anyone have to justify how they see the actions of other players in a video game?
If it's cool because the rules allow it, it's cool right? Across the board? Choosing any one of the three modes is cool, because the game allows it. Right? Attacking the mythical unshielded, empty, T9 is cool because the game allows it. Right? Blocking a player you don;t want to spend game time with is cool because the game allows it. Right? Skulking around an Engineer's base is cool because the game allows it. Right? Menu logging on an attacker is cool because the game allows it. Right?
The point here is you can't have it both ways. Open has made it's bed. Now they have to lay in it. Strict attention to the actual rules of the game will indicated that FD are ok with players avoiding PvP. Because FD made PvP non-essential to how the game is played. That fact is demonstrated by the rules FD apply to us all.
Lobby for the rules to be changed, that's totally ok. Trying to enforce some kind of 'space bushido' over the actual rules is folly, and only leads to frustration. If ganking is possible, it will happen. Nothing will change that, so fortunately, we are given a way to just ignore that type of player, no matter which mode you are in, or what sort of allegiances one acquires in game.
If it's cool because the rules allow it, it's cool right? Across the board? Choosing any one of the three modes is cool, because the game allows it. Right? Attacking the mythical unshielded, empty, T9 is cool because the game allows it. Right? Blocking a player you don;t want to spend game time with is cool because the game allows it. Right? Skulking around an Engineer's base is cool because the game allows it. Right? Menu logging on an attacker is cool because the game allows it. Right?
The point here is you can't have it both ways. Open has made it's bed. Now they have to lay in it. Strict attention to the actual rules of the game will indicated that FD are ok with players avoiding PvP. Because FD made PvP non-essential to how the game is played. That fact is demonstrated by the rules FD apply to us all.
Lobby for the rules to be changed, that's totally ok. Trying to enforce some kind of 'space bushido' over the actual rules is folly, and only leads to frustration. If ganking is possible, it will happen. Nothing will change that, so fortunately, we are given a way to just ignore that type of player, no matter which mode you are in, or what sort of allegiances one acquires in game.
Probably, but that recognition also comes with significant downsides that not all pirates are going to consider worthwhile.
Quite a bit of hyperbole for effect. If there were a virtual way of doing it, I wouldn't be terribly opposed
, but in real life, obviously not They might want to bother to find out before they commit murder. It used to be quite the serious charge, after all.
I assumed as much, but think that such hyperboes aren't very constructive as they may trigger negative responses which can lead to a downward spiral in the discussion.Quite a bit of hyperbole for effect. If there were a virtual way of doing it, I wouldn't be terribly opposed
That was also my point about explorers. Framing it like explorers are a target for gankers and risk losing months of data is hyperbole. You have every choice to sell your data safely, including in solo, and only a series of bad choices can result in anything else.Quite a bit of hyperbole for effect. If there were a virtual way of doing it, I wouldn't be terribly opposed
Last I looked virtual murder have never been a crime.
Good point. I thought I was clear in meaning "in game only", but I'm glad that you alerted me to the fact that it didn't necessarily come across that way
I can't think of many activities that would qualify.
Even exploration results in the accumulation of scan data that can have major BGS effects. Anyone who suspects your CMDR has goals opposed to theirs would find your CMDR an entirely contextual target.
If this setting were more plausible it would be a case of no witnesses, no body, no crime.
However, as it is it's just a case of immortal CMDRs who cannot actually be killed and a slap on the wrist being the worst punishment any jurisdiction is willing to hand out for trying.
I don't know why either, and it's not something I would be interested in doing, but ED is supposed to be a 'simulation' of at least some aspects of real life, where similar things happen. Where ED does fail somewhat is in the simulation of the consequences, but that's another story.
Last edited:
What's an egg?
A griefer is someone who sistematically tries to ruin the game for another player by whatever means possible, and could be banned by fdev as it is against the TOS. Ganking is the term normally reserved for one-off atacks on random (usually weaker) players without a roleplay justification, and therefore usually with no comms beforehand.
Thanks.
I'm not that subtle in my thoughts. But the point was I've met one person who asked me for cargo and a few that just shot first. Weans, they're tarred with the same brush. Whatever they are called.
The only reason that it's not hyperbole is that it (exploring) is one of the few things you can do that won't affect anybody else in any way. If you could loot somebody's exploration data, then it would, for me, fall into the "valuable cargo, therefore I'm a target" category.
And since it isn't, and you're right, we should all just give up any pretense that we're playing a game in any way simulating an alternate real life and just turn everything into "anything goes". Oh man, I could think of a million themes for games that would get instantly "cancelled" by twitter mobs and, for once, I'd be fine with it.
How could you actually pirate without people knowing? I have tried the stealth piracy in the rings - hatch break while they mine etc. But as soon as I do they know what I am up to. If there is some new stealth piracy I have missed tell me or I'll blow your thrusters to kingdom come!
I don't know why either, and it's not something I would be interested in doing, but E
And that brings me back to the post by @Rubbernuke that I quoted very approvingly earlier where he suggested ways of making C&P more plausible and realistic. If you choose to be a murder hobo, you're going to be hit hard with the sort of sanctions that a real, living human society would smack on you as opposed to the absolute joke that it is at the moment.
You want a simulation of real life, I do too, as much as we can simulate a real life 1300 years in the future. That simulation, in my mind, does not include a society where serial killers are met with the exact same kind of retribution that a landing pad loiterer is. @Rubbernuke really nailed it there.
The holy grail is making the rules transparent to the players, to the point they guide the flow of the game rather than act as hard gates.
The irony is, a lot of what I suggest is in Elite- from 1993....
Can it, though? If it can, please let me know how. I'm quite willing to accept that even after all of these years I'm still wrong about a lot of things. God knows I find out on a regular basis and, in all fairness, I did take quite a break and a lot of things changed in that time.
So please explain that to me, because if that's the case, then my stance on at the very least explorers being "harmless" will change and they'll go into my "carrying valuable cargo" category and I'll have to adjust my opinion accordingly. And gladly.
Data is fantastic postive BGS influence fuel. The distinction to make though is that data is neutral (i.e. explorers dump it for fame and money, a BGS guy uses it for influence).