please don't confuse PvPers with griefers

[ReaperAlex]

You mentioned financial gain as the most common motive for PVPer but I have never seen that as being the case. Using EVE as an example what financial gain is there in blowing up some high sec players ultra rare ship that he foolishly took out for a test drive? What financial gain is there in tricking newbie players with can flipping? None it's done for no other purpose than ruining another players day.
Or in more conventional MMORPG's like ,EQ2 or WOW ,where is the financial gain in killing and camping players? Again there isn't any. It's just to bully other players.

i mention financial gain as that seems to be a common way to differentiate a fair game pirate from a griefer. i do not believe that is the case, i do not believe financial gain has anything to do with it.

as for your 2 eve examples, those are both examples from safe space. what we have in elite open mode is more akin to low sec and null sec (low = faction space, null = anarchy). if a hauler is caught 15KM off a gate in low sec you'd not say it's griefing is some other players blew it up, you'd say it was a silly mistake on the haulers part. yet you know the pvpers would not be able to turn much profit from the cargo. they get more cash from shooting bigger ships with better modules on than they would from a hauler

so i think you have things in the wrong context. you need to see elite open play as low sec or worse because that is how the game mechanics compare.

your eve examples would be better mapped to group play where a griefer has joined a coop group just to have a target rich environment.

eve is quite unique in that even in safe space you can pull the trigger, but there is a very large difference between the large PvP communities in low sec and null sec to the players that prey on newbies in empire.

what the elite community seems to be struggling to realise is the pvp community does not automatically mean they are there to cause others harm. that is what i wish to address.

 

[Crumplecorn]

If not then why should the player who had just destroyed them be able to send unsolicited messages?

It's a multiplayer game. Shouldn't the aim be for all of us to be able to talk to each other all the time? You're off to a bad start if you're looking for reasons to prevent people from talking to each other.

 

[Alex Hughes]

I do wonder how representative of the wider game playing community this forum is? Is it an older player thing to be so upset by dying in a video game, with ED players being older than average (vets of '84)? I've been killed 3000 times in BF4. I've lost many an online strategy game but still enjoyed them. In contrast I've never even been shot at once in ED by a human player despite playing for more than 100 hours.


AI ships aren't very good. I, like many others, have a kill ratio against AI of hundreds to 1 (and when I do die it is always to ramming...grrr!). If humans aren't going to compete against other humans then where is the next challenge in the game? The longevity in many games comes from progressing from beating the AI to competing against humans. I think aggressive human players are an important part of keeping ED fresh but people who prefer to stick to the degree of challenge provided by the AI have the option of solo - so everybody should be happy.

 

[bassman]

If the destroyed player had chosen to chat with their attacker prior to destruction - fair enough, I suppose. If not then why should the player who had just destroyed them be able to send unsolicited messages?

I've quite a few times wished to be able to say "good fight" or somesuch to someone I've just killed, as the OP said PvP oriented players often form friendships from crossing swords. Nearly all the players on my friends list are people who my initial contact with was a fight. Its exacerbated by the lack of a combat log so unless your remeber the name of the commander you have no way of getting in touch with players you tussle with unless the fight happens outside a station (which doesnt happen any more with the current mechanics anyway).

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's a multiplayer game. Shouldn't the aim be for all of us to be able to talk to each other all the time? You're off to a bad start if you're looking for reasons to prevent people from talking to each other.

Given that voice chat is optional (for good reason) - why do you suggest that players have the right to talk "at" other players who do not want to communicate with them?

Just because the game is multiplayer does not mean that every player in it wants to interact with every other - just like life....

 

[technophebe]

Carebears. Carebears never change.

See this is another reason why many PvEers don't want to play with PvPers. This attitude: "Some people don't enjoy PvP, but I want to force them to do it anyway because *I* enjoy it and don't care if my forcing it upon them ruins their game experience. Let's make up a derogatory term for them and use it whenever they won't do what we want them to do."

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've quite a few times wished to be able to say "good fight" or somesuch to someone I've just killed, as the OP said PvP oriented players often form friendships from crossing swords. Nearly all the players on my friends list are people who my initial contact was a fight.

For those who enjoy PvP, it would seem to allow friendships to form - for those who don't enjoy PvP, why should the encounter be prolonged "after death"?

 

[Crumplecorn]

See this is another reason why many PvEers don't want to play with PvPers. This attitude: "Some people don't enjoy PvP, but I want to force them to do it anyway because *I* enjoy it and don't care if my forcing it upon them ruins their game experience. Let's make up a derogatory term for them and use it whenever they won't do what we want them to do."

If you'd actually read the post I was respond to, you'd see that I was not the one trying to force others to play how I want them to play.

Also, for the record, I'm not a PvPer in Elite as of yet.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Since when did griefing become considered anything pvp? I certainly enjoy pvp and I understand it isn't for everyone but the idea of a PvP toggle is taking it too far. Regardless of if you think any forced pvp is griefing or not this is how Frontier designed the game. It isn't like the pvp system was an afterthought so rather trying to change it to just not allow any forced pvp make it so there is more risk to the attacker. I would personally be fine with stiffer fines and faster reaction by security forces against illegal actions against players as well as a navigation system to route around anarchy systems. Many of of us would still attack players but most at least at that point if we do it is with considerable risk. As a side note the risk factor in general needs to be increased for the game. You basically never need to worry about losing your ship because insurance covers virtually everything, so makes it hard for me to feel bad about those that do lose a ship(myself included).

 

[zombieapocalypse]

I do wonder how representative of the wider game playing community this forum is? Is it an older player thing to be so upset by dying in a video game, with ED players being older than average (vets of '84)? I've been killed 3000 times in BF4. I've lost many an online strategy game but still enjoyed them. In contrast I've never even been shot at once in ED by a human player despite playing for more than 100 hours.


AI ships aren't very good. I, like many others, have a kill ratio against AI of hundreds to 1 (and when I do die it is always to ramming...grrr!). If humans aren't going to compete against other humans then where is the next challenge in the game? The longevity in many games comes from progressing from beating the AI to competing against humans. I think aggressive human players are an important part of keeping ED fresh but people who prefer to stick to the degree of challenge provided by the AI have the option of solo - so everybody should be happy.

Exactly, this is my experience of the game. It's not like by dying you're starting from scratch and you should never fly/carry what you cannot afford to lose. But there needs to be some risk in this game and at the moment that is not provided by the NPCs.

 

[Aeolusdallas]

Except that open space is the only way to interact socially with other players. As private groups isn't really working. For the rest of your post. If you attack someone who doesn't want to be attacked and particularly if you have no legitimate reason (like a bounty) then you are forcing your playstyle on them and yes causing them some harm. Yes being in open play means you can do this but that does not automatically make it right to do do.
If you want pvp then go to a battleground of pick fair honorable fights. Don't pick on players who don't want to fight and don't attack players to weak to have a chance.

 

[Crumplecorn]

Just because the game is multiplayer does not mean that every player in it wants to interact with every other - just like life....

Solo mode / private group.

 

[Joe Spivey]

So you say they have to play your way and that's fine, but if they say you have to play their way they are a 'griefer'?

Carebears. Carebears never change.

Nope, not at all. I'm saying that if you want to PvP then you find some who ALSO wants to PvP. Simples. Oh, and if the ad hom attacks are all you can manage... don't bother.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Solo mode / private group.

Please, if you wish for players whose play-style is at odds with yours to play in a different mode then it is up to you to choose another mode - please do not try to exclude players from open....

 

[Fox McCloud]

See this is another reason why many PvEers don't want to play with PvPers. This attitude: "Some people don't enjoy PvP, but I want to force them to do it anyway because *I* enjoy it and don't care if my forcing it upon them ruins their game experience. Let's make up a derogatory term for them and use it whenever they won't do what we want them to do."

You mean derogatory terms like....griefers? The PvEers complaining so adamantly against PvPers are trying to force their play style on the game just has much and have just as many names for us.

 

[Aeolusdallas]

If you'd actually read the post I was respond to, you'd see that I was not the one trying to force others to play how I want them to play.

Also, for the record, I'm not a PvPer in Elite as of yet.

Someone not wanting to be attacked is not forcing anything on you. However you attacking them when they don't want to be attacked IS forcing your playstyle on them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You mean derogatory terms like....griefers? The PvEers complaining so adamantly against PvPers are trying to force their play style on the game just has much and have just as many names for us.

When did griefer become a universally accepted pseudonym for pro-PvP players?

 

[zombieapocalypse]

Except that open space is the only way to interact socially with other players. As private groups isn't really working. For the rest of your post. If you attack someone who doesn't want to be attacked and particularly if you have no legitimate reason (like a bounty) then you are forcing your playstyle on them and yes causing them some harm. Yes being in open play means you can do this but that does not automatically make it right to do do.
If you want pvp then go to a battleground of pick fair honorable fights. Don't pick on players who don't want to fight and don't attack players to weak to have a chance.

That would be fine, by most players seem uninterested in social interaction. Most of the ships I hail blank me.

 

[anikaiful]

i do understand your view, but many posters are claiming PvP for no financial reward is just to cause misery in others, that i think is unfair and not representative of most PvPers

NPCs do more unfounded interdictions than PvPrs ever. I'd call the NPCs griefers before pulling an arbitrary claim against PvPrs

 

[TheDayman]

I think the problem here is that we keep lumping these 2 groups (PvE and PvP) into 2 separate buckets when in reality they're one in the same. What true difference does it make if the pilot on the other end is a computer or a human? If there was no indication of whether it was a human player or an NPC (i.e. no hollow contact or CMDR in front of their name), would you really know the difference?

I'm sure some people will say they will clearly know the difference and they will, while others will say they know the difference but won't. And then there's a group who just wouldn't notice a difference at all.

Some might say that a human player has the capability to be move evil, deceptive, and unforgiving then it's NPC counterpart but in the end, it's your own self who gives you that panic and fear when you see a human contact. Of course, this is coming from someone who's never played Eve or any other MMO so I suppose I really don't have the qualifications to comment here.