Non-Consensual PvP

[GraXXoR]

Sorry... I just had to take an excerpt from a massive threadnaught doing the rounds in Discussion...

I'm not whining...I'm giving my opinion...I've done pvp...I do pvp...I don't do getting ganked ...and you are saying it's ok to be ganked ? ...There's a huge difference between consensual pvp and being ganked by kids in corvettes or fdl's ..I'm here for my pleasure not theirs or yours.

I agreed with you until you used "Consensual PvP"

What The Fig?

This game has an Open mode... By joining that mode, you are GIVING YOUR EXPLICIT PERMISSION to be intercepted/ganked/101mps bump-StationDestroyed/laughed at AND PVPed by other player.
That is Open.

Let me tell you what non consensual PvP is... That is playing in a SPECIFICALLY non PVP group and someone breaks the rules... But no, even then, there is a Mobius disclaimer which states that since it is unofficial, it cannot GUARANTEE someone will not break the rules... So even if you join Mobius, you are giving your EXPLICIT consent to the CHANCE of being ganked/etc/etc/...

There is only one true way to be forced into non-consensual PvP (eww. this term is so distasteful it literally leaves a bad taste on my keyboard as I type it) and that is if you join Solo and someone, somehow manages to hack your instance and destroy you.... THAT is non-consensual.

Basically...

You are mistaking your preconception of what Open should be with what it actually is.
The fact is it is up to FDEV to make sure that Open is enjoyable for as many people as they can... if they want to... if they don't, you're just going to have to accept the rough with the smooth.

If you live in Open, you die in Open... It's as simple as that.

If you don't like Open, vote with your feet (or thrusters) and stay in PG or Solo.
If enough people stay away, FDEV will (hopefully) get the message and create a proper, realistic, playable and most importantly FUN Open.

But please, don't come here with your safe-space, antiseptic language....

eww... I'm going to wash my keyboard with soap....

p.s. This is coming from someone who was a CG only Open player, not a hardcore groupie.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Why did this need a new thread?

 

[Darth Ender]

agree.

it's almost like people want a guarantee that nothing bad or unexpected will ever happen to them. Like they want the predictability of 1980's video game coding to rely on.

Open is fine. You have the ability to make unexpected pvp nearly impossible by just not visiting popular systems. There's plenty of systems out there and they're all basically the same.

 

[Kaltern]

Ah good, another thread about why it's ok to gank people.

And to think the forum's front page was almost clear of them.

 

[c00ky1970]

Can you show us on the Cobra where the PvPer touched you?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Can you show us on the Cobra where the PvPer touched you?

Real PvP doesn't involve space ship pixels.

 

[Ddraig]

Yeah the phrase sounds like vomit.
But it didn't warrant another thread.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Can anyone else smell colitas?

 

[AnotherVoice]

Op point is legit, but i still think that ganking traders or helpless explorer with a 4 men ganksquad composed of cutter / clippers / FaS is, at least, morally discutable behaviour

Edit: also,

malicious griefing (which we loosely define as actions whose only purpose, outcome and gain is to punish and frustrate other players

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I love these forums.

"Come to open it's safe! So we can murder you of course! But if you complain about it, don't come in Open. Why is no one in Open?"

 

[GraXXoR]

Why did this need a new thread?

Because this "sub-thread" keeps trying to derail a 44 pager with something that is not relevant but page after page someone mentions ganking/non-consensual PvP.

agree.

it's almost like people want a guarantee that nothing bad or unexpected will ever happen to them. Like they want the predictability of 1980's video game coding to rely on.

Open is fine. You have the ability to make unexpected pvp nearly impossible by just not visiting popular systems. There's plenty of systems out there and they're all basically the same.

That is exactly the point... And at the end of the day, if you don't want PvP but want to go to a popular place, play in Mobius which minimises the risks... Options are there.

Ah good, another thread about why it's ok to gank people.

And to think the forum's front page was almost clear of them.

And to think that I had hoped the responses would be almost clear of people who didn't read the entire post.... ahhh..

As I stated, the onus is on FDEV to create a system (of crime and punishment / PC bounties, whatever) that makes Open enjoyable for as many people as possible.
It is ok for people to gank other people... but there should be SERIOUS, unavoidable consequences for doing so which should lead to major gnashing of teeth before engaging in such behaviour.
However, Open is Open. It is known. Any seasoned player who plays in open should by now know what lurks within.

Can you show us on the Cobra where the PvPer touched you?

^^ This...
He forcibly opened my cargo hatch and stuffed it with meat.

 

[Theodrid]

Can you show us on the Cobra where the PvPer touched you?

Only if you can show us on the galaxy map where the PVE'er touched your minor faction

 

[GraXXoR]

Op point is legit, but i still think that ganking traders or helpless explorer with a 4 men ganksquad composed of cutter / clippers / FaS is, at least, morally discutable behaviour

Edit: also,

Agreed 100%

But the game mechanics should make such gankers outlaws in any hi-sec system and have massive UNREMOVABLE by suicide bounties placed on their head with system reports etc allowing PC bounty hunters and PvPers to chase them to the ends of the galaxy and collected their rewards!

Moreover, if the ganker was subsequently destroyed by a PC bounty hunter (for example) a value commensurate to that of the ship used for the gank should be taken as punishment and donated to a system in famine/outbreak.

There should always be a game mechanism that balances wanton violence.... This is Eliteangerous, not Elite:RandomViolence.

 

[Ildryn]

What about the PvP going on in private and solo with impunity?
Large groups of players are able to manipulate the BGS (PvP) without so much as a single person being able to stop them.

 

[the100thmonkey]

What about the PvP going on in private and solo with impunity?
Large groups of players are able to manipulate the BGS (PvP) without so much as a single person being able to stop them.

One player that knows what they're doing in open can seem like 100 players hiding in PG.

Git gud, and stop with the uninformed comments - you can always do the same thing right back.

 

[Major Klutz]

Playing in Open means you consent to PvP.
There are no rules to prevent PvP attacks in open. There are no mechanics to discourage or prevent PvP attacks in open.
Therefore, it's part of the game and should be expected.

 

[goemon]

so, as we are now discussing words, how would you call it?

take my exampel:

- i like to fight others all in stock eagles

- i like to fight in srvs around planetary settlements

- i like to drop into various chats that i have a 1 mio bounty on my hand, and will be in that and that res at that time, so anybody is free to hunt me down.

in my books, the above is consensual pvp combat. how would you want me to call it, so i don't hurt your feelings?

i also like

- races versus other players.

in my book, that's consensual player versus player, but no combat.


i also like

- blockade running a community goal

- interdict gankers at CGs in my sidey

in my book, that's non-consensual pvp.

i sometimes outsmart other players, who are disturbing my game in open, to let them go pop.

in my book, that's non-consensual pvp-combat.

I'm happy to call it differently, but i see no term making the differences any clearer.

can you help me with that?

 

[Mephane]

Let me tell you what non consensual PvP is... That is playing in a SPECIFICALLY non PVP group and someone breaks the rules... But no, even then, there is a Mobius disclaimer which states that since it is unofficial, it cannot GUARANTEE someone will not break the rules... So even if you join Mobius, you are giving your EXPLICIT consent to the CHANCE of being ganked/etc/etc/...

Lol. No. That does not at all constitute constent to a chance of being ganked. By that logic, by leaving your house you would give consent to "the chance of being murdered" because even though it is against the law, someone could break it.

Also, look up the word explicit because it means the very opposite of how you are using it here.

And why the disclaimer? Because Mobius cannot guarantee that no one breaks the rules (hence we are still lobbying for a real Open PvE mode), if it happens no one can hold him personally accountable for that. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[LeoBartlet]

Lol. No. That does not at all constitute constent to a chance of being ganked. By that logic, by leaving your house you would give consent to "the chance of being murdered" because even though it is against the law, someone could break it.

Except in the real world there is consequences when committing criminal acts.

 

[Riverside]

There is no consensual or non-consensual PvP, there is only Organised PvP & Freeform PvP.

One of the reasons I play in Open is for that little extra risk of getting mugged, and (hopefully) the satisfaction & adrenaline rush of escaping