New policy on player kills in private groups?

[Havvk]

Is it really your ship though, if you artificially restrict who can see it?.

Your profile pic answers your question for you

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Your profile pic answers your question for you

LOL, well played.

I still don't care about your ship though. As long as it stays in PG I'm never going to be struck by the name, in any way.

And if the name doesn't resonate with anyone, well... What personality does a ship really have?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Delivery only appears to be "formal" to you, that's a misunderstanding on your part. I'm not putting on airs at all, simply constructing language that I hope can't be misinterpreted, either by mistake, or more poignant in your case, it would appear, misinterpreting deliberately.

One liners like "Haha if only" are a very poor form of discussion, because they can be misinterpreted. In fact I don't really have any clue what it meant at all, never mind having any concrete direction.

So do us all a favour and drop the deliberate misinterpretations of "your posts are too formal therefore you are "putting on airs"", childishness. Moreover, if that's the straw man/as hominem argument you bring, then that's more a reflection that you can't bring anything worthwhile to the discussion.

Don't you think?

What happened to "Yours"?

I see the veneer is cracking.

Sláinte!

 

[Chaparral]

Mobius isn't really a special club though, joining is basically automatic it just takes up to a couple of days for one of their volunteer admins to check the name isn't already blacklisted and perform the cumbersome invite process.

If a dedicated PvE mode is created it basically kills Mobius.
But the problem is that even in PvE people can jam the slot and stuff to grief, who is going to moderate that in "global PvE"?
The advantage of Mobius is that it self moderates that stuff, of you "spoil others game" you won't last long when someone records the incident.

Options like no PvP damage or Auto Boot would make the group admins job easier though and save FDev support from having to look at requests for restore.

The likelihood that you meet a player in mobius (I have three commanders, one in Mobius, one in Mobius PVE and one in Mobius PVE America), is far lower than meeting another player in open.

Mobius is a solution to the absence of PVE Open, it is not a PG that would have organically developed if PVE Open already existed.

At this point, I don't think FDEV has the skills or motivation to do an authentic PVE Open (like nearly every other mmo, where flagging or partitioned instances are offered).

I think the best current alternative would be to eliminate pvp rebuys, restore data and missions lost from pvp kills, place the commander in the closest prior system visited (not the last station visited), and reset carried mission cargo at the source station. Traders and miners would have to lose their cargo to preserve piracy as a thing. I believe these options will work the best with the current game mechanics, and have the lowest impact on FDEV.

This approach may have the added benefit of letting players try out pvp without the punishing consequences of losing their ships.

 

[Chaparral]

Players don’t get to make rules for the game. Trying to establish and enforce a player made rule would be just as fraudulent as breaking it. Say I make a public website for CMDR Kaocraft, which explicitly states that no one is allowed to kill me in Elite Dangerous. It’s common knowledge and therefore anyone engaging me would be breaking the rules. Does the EULA factor into this at all? Is someone “harassing” me or committing fraud by refusing to obey my rules? Am I entitled to having my ship restored by Frontier and can I demand that the perpetrator be punished for violating my rules? The rules of a private group are no different from this. It’s just a bunch of people demanding something and everyone else gets to individually choose whether or not to honor these rules. It’s operating on an entirely separate layer outside of the game itself.

^This. +1

 

[Havvk]

I still don't care about your ship though

Good for you.

I care for my baby though, and that's all that matters for my own semi-immersion gameplay most of the time

 

[Kaocraft]

Your argument boils down to horse poop. It really does. You say that there is no way within the game to impose rules for a PG or advertise what the rules of a PG are. This is the horse poop part. Players "infiltrated" Mobius with the full and certain knowledge that it was a PvE *only* and in fact gained access *because* they knew it was PvE only. It wasn't their in game character that chose to shoot at unarmed ships with the tenuous justification of "role play". It was the players themselves that made the dee-bag decision to do this before applying to access the group.

You understand that this player behaviour is entirely unacceptable, right?

Cheerz

Mark H

Your argument boils down to saying "horse poop" over and over again. You didn't address, nevermind refute, a single one of my points. So I guess we agree on the broad strokes and just (maybe) disagree on the moral implications?

For what it's worth, I'm OK with calling that behavior "unacceptable," but the question is unacceptable to whom, and whose job is it to do something about it? It's for sure unacceptable to the admins of the Player Group, and their job is to kick the offenders from their group. Is it Frontier's job to enforce contracts between independent players made outside of the game, though? I say no. They can still go ahead and reverse any damage done by, uh, "infiltrators," if they want to, but it represents a departure from the norm and sets a weird precedent. Support tickets are typically supposed to remedy problems caused by errors or faults in the game.

If Frontier engage in a mass campaign of "fixing" player deaths at the hands of other players, they are implying that PvP is a bug, or at least that the lack of a PvE-only flag/toggle/setting for private groups is a major oversight on their part, to such a degree that they need to take responsibility for repercussions of that oversight. Either that or you can just say they are granting certain players special in-game privileges because DW2 is a big deal for them. None of it is necessarily a policy, but it's something people are going to take note of, and because it's a huge change of course it will probably influence player behavior down the line, for good or for ill.

 

[Rampant]

Your argument boils down to saying "horse poop" over and over again. You didn't address, nevermind refute, a single one of my points. So I guess we agree on the broad strokes and just (maybe) disagree on the moral implications?

For what it's worth, I'm OK with calling that behavior "unacceptable," but the question is unacceptable to whom, and whose job is it to do something about it? It's for sure unacceptable to the admins of the Player Group, and their job is to kick the offenders from their group. Is it Frontier's job to enforce contracts between independent players made outside of the game, though? I say no. They can still go ahead and reverse any damage done by, uh, "infiltrators," if they want to, but it represents a departure from the norm and sets a weird precedent. Support tickets are typically supposed to remedy problems caused by errors or faults in the game.

If Frontier engage in a mass campaign of "fixing" player deaths at the hands of other players, they are implying that PvP is a bug, or at least that the lack of a PvE-only flag/toggle/setting for private groups is a major oversight on their part, to such a degree that they need to take responsibility for repercussions of that oversight. Either that or you can just say they are granting certain players special in-game privileges because DW2 is a big deal for them. None of it is necessarily a policy, but it's something people are going to take note of, and because it's a huge change of course it will probably influence player behavior down the line, for good or for ill.

The nature of "unacceptable" is normally derived from a majority concesus of "reasonable" opinions.

Times change and so does majority opinion, it evolves with culture.

In this case, I think that in general we are discussing whether it is acceptable behaviour to tell a lie, and specifically to tell a lie that benefits nobody but the liar and *in addition* has a detrimental or negative effect on the rest of the majority.

Now I happen to know for a fact that this type of behaviour has been unacceptable by the majority of society in general for thousands of years. Neither do I think that we are on the brink of that changing.

So "unacceptable to who" may reasonably be answered by saying "unacceptable to society in general".

Go ahead and discuss whether you think that explanation of acceptable, or the behaviour we are discussing, is acceptable to *you* or not...

Cheerz

Mark H