I steal lollypops from children and pop their ballons. Am I wrong doing this? 
Is it wrong to prey on the weak??
- Thread starter npowell28
- Start date
- Status
Let me put it in my terms: The ship I fly can melt a Sidewinder, Eagle and hauler in SECONDS once the ship's shields are down. And believe me, the shields don't last long against Twin C3 Beam Lasers. On the other hand, an Anaconda, Python or FDL are going to be a REAL challenge (or thrill) for me to take out since I am grappling with an opponent that has the ability to hurt me as much (and in some cases more) as I can hurt them.
But that's me. If you get your jollies from attacking weaker ships that stand little to no chance against you,,,,, well fly on Cmdr.
Let us know if you ever feel wronged by someone else in this game. I am sure you will be duly addressed.
But that's me. If you get your jollies from attacking weaker ships that stand little to no chance against you,,,,, well fly on Cmdr.
Let us know if you ever feel wronged by someone else in this game. I am sure you will be duly addressed.
Last edited:
I can only speak for myself, I only attack someone if they are wanted, I do not attack people who are clean.
..although should I suddenly decide to be a pirate, I would still scan people first and then only attack if they had cargo to drop, otherwise the attack is pointless and a waste of my time. ie:- unprofitable
..although should I suddenly decide to be a pirate, I would still scan people first and then only attack if they had cargo to drop, otherwise the attack is pointless and a waste of my time. ie:- unprofitable
Weak, sick and helpless, those usually die first in nature.
I know you're being funny (and it was brilliant) but, if I may comment on your comment anyhow...
The problem with being strong is that there is always someone stronger, or someone stronger will eventually arise. In the real world, age will always bring down the mightiest warrior or ruler; it's a natural balancing effect. This is why the great ancient Greek philosophers (particularly Plato via Socrates and Epicurus) argue that the fearless life, thoroughly examined, is better. Epicurus, I believe, was right that a good life, surrounded by friends and the comforts earned through your hard work, is more secure and can be rightly enjoyed - compared to a life on the 'top of the heap' always worrying about an assassin's dagger, a jealous husband, or a righteous paladin come to dethrone.
One of the reasons I mine and explore primarily in ED is because the game lacks positive ways for players to interact. I cannot rescue other players who are stranded without fuel (yet) I cannot make my universe a better place. That's unfortunate, but most gamers expect a zero-sum game - to the point where many are eagerly trying to turn ED into one in spite of itself. It's sad, and it says something to me about the consequences of not teaching philosophy in middle schools.
Kant argued persuasively that we should act as though our actions were creating the kind of universe in which we wish to live. Because, if we do, we will. I think that was a bit of wishful thinking, but it was good thinking anyway.
In character bullying is a allowed playstyle in ED. Bullying in the Real World is not.
Yes it's wrong. If you want to attack players be a pirate. Kill them if they don't comply sure but be a pirate.
If someone comes to cash in your bounty either run away or fight to the death.
jumping unexpecting and brand new players is deplorable.
Add to the game with your thirst for blood don't detract from it.
If someone comes to cash in your bounty either run away or fight to the death.
jumping unexpecting and brand new players is deplorable.
Add to the game with your thirst for blood don't detract from it.
Last edited:
Actually, no.
The way we behave in a game is the way we would behave if freed from normal constraints. So if you're a horrible schoolyard bully in a game, I assume you'd be a horrible schoolyard bully in real life if you thought you could get away with it.
Because the only difference is "I can get away with it in a game", you see?
That's because in real life, humans had to evolve civilization to prevent the schoolyard bullies from running the show. In real life we could (and would) stop you. We can't here. So you feel free to be the horrible person you secretly want to be and would be if you were free from civilizing constraints.
Last edited:
Er no that's not the case at all. I real life i am a caring person who looks after the elderly in their job, has brought up 3 children by themselves and volunteers in the community on a regular basis. That rule may apply to you but certainly not to me. I think some people are taking this game a bit too seriously. It really is a game you know.
Last edited:
Yes you're dishonorable. And No most players don't get off ganking new players and killing them when everything is in their favor. There's also NOTHING that says you can't play this way in Open play. It's completely legit.
The flip side is that you are putting the "dangerous" into Elite Dangerous, and teaching a valuable lesson to players to always watch their backs and that the galaxy is a scary place. The downside is your behavior pushes new people to solo or private group until they can build up enough funds to get a ship to protect themselves against folks like you, and only after they get those credits and ships will they return to Open. Worse case scenario, they come back to do the same thing to other new players because you "taught" them that's what Open is about.
Think of it this way, if you had interdicted them and then RP'ed with them a bit and then let them go "at the mercy of your clan" or something, or maybe even dropped some cargo because "you felt sorry for their meager skills and hope they will rise to challenge you one day", whatever... would they respect you more and stay in Open longer? Would they remember that and do the same thing to another player one day? Every encounter has a ripple effect.
Yes, that's exactly my point.
You've adopted the "it's a game" justification for behaving like a frightful person. Probably because that's what's down inside you.
Oh, you thought you were innocently going to troll yourself up a ruckus and then pat yourself on the back for being a good little nihilist, didn't you?
Actually, no. That's just you projecting. It's a computer game, I act in game in pretty much the same manner as I do in real life, except there are no real consequences as nothing I do will result in actual 7.62 being lobbed in my direction as it's...er.. a game. Personally, I like a challenge but obviously others do not, in which case I recommend trying ProgressQuest.
That may not necessarily be the case. You may have noticed the modern phenomena of the internet troll. This has been studied now and it looks as though, for a lot of people, they don't consider online interactions (whether on games, forums, or social media) to be "real" interactions with "real" people. I spent my time in Fable killing as many NPCs as possible so I could buy up all the houses on Oakvale and make money. I wouldn't dream of doing anything like that to actual people though.
The difference may well be "I just don't feel you're a real person unless I can see you"
Have you read 'The Lord of the Flies' as well as 'A Critique of Pure Reason' (which I think you already have read).
You might enjoy it.
Last edited:
Well, to answer your question OP, even if you feel happy and excited for these kills, if the people you killed feel like they lost a lot for absolutely no reason they will move to solo. And if other people act like you, eventually you will fly in a place inhabited only by NPC's...
There you go! You just made my point. You act the way you do in-game because you know that it'd be wrong "in reality." Which means that you do what you know is wrong, because you can, in-game, since you're free of the constraints of reality. Either you know it's wrong, or you don't. The rest is just noise.
I don't usually participate in PvP threads but this one got to me.
The OP is not repeatedly hunting down players without consideration or remorse.
The OP did not deceive or lure.
The OP (presumably) played well within the intended gameplay mechanics.
The OP found some people and fought them until one side was destroyed.
I see nothing wrong with this. Absolutely nothing. There will be a bigger fish out there somewhere that will get the OP, and when it does, I hope that OP takes the loss with grace. This is what we signed up for when we started playing elite dangerous. The problems start with getting around the mechanics in place (cobat logging, interdiction escape exploit), or with 'I shot him then he killed me and now I'm crying'. If those new sidewinder players quit because 'omg i got griefded' from being killed fairly while playing in open, they don't have the chops to play. I'm glad they're gone before they cause a scene on the forums.
That being said...
I do feel crime does need to have heavier consequences and I hope to see that addressed in 1.3.
The OP is not repeatedly hunting down players without consideration or remorse.
The OP did not deceive or lure.
The OP (presumably) played well within the intended gameplay mechanics.
The OP found some people and fought them until one side was destroyed.
I see nothing wrong with this. Absolutely nothing. There will be a bigger fish out there somewhere that will get the OP, and when it does, I hope that OP takes the loss with grace. This is what we signed up for when we started playing elite dangerous. The problems start with getting around the mechanics in place (cobat logging, interdiction escape exploit), or with 'I shot him then he killed me and now I'm crying'. If those new sidewinder players quit because 'omg i got griefded' from being killed fairly while playing in open, they don't have the chops to play. I'm glad they're gone before they cause a scene on the forums.
That being said...
I do feel crime does need to have heavier consequences and I hope to see that addressed in 1.3.
- Status