please don't confuse PvPers with griefers

[Araviel]

Do you, araviel, agonize over the fact that you calling people sociopaths might actually cause real psychological harm to some super insecure person sitting on the other end of the internet with a massive amount of self-doubt and insecurity who was just having fun shooting internet spaceships?

oh crap, this went totally wrong, yes! if i was calling people sociopaths i would agonize over it, actually i am right now.
if you read back a little you might note that i am that super insecure person who is sitting on the other end of the internet with a massive amount of self-doubt and insecurity who was just having fun shooting internet spaceships getting called a griefer by a bunch of anti pvp people

 

[Glenn Coco]

Sorry! I was just being silly with my "if the shoe fits" comment. Wasn't even thinking my tongue-in-cheek comment to be considered as an attempt at discussing the debate. My bad. Next time I think of trying to be a comedian, I'll just keep it to myself.

Game on!

 

[obliterator]

That is so wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to begin. Claiming that someone playing a game, in which part of the game mechanics and intended gameplay is player-vs-planer combat, is a sociopath because they play the game in a way that involves pvp, and because they don't do a deeply empathic analysis of every other player they interact with, is just silly.

Do traders agonize deeply for hours over the possibility that they might ruin someone elses traderoute when they trade, or are they also sociopaths?

Do people running missions for one faction agonize deeply over that they might be ruining another players dreams of watching the other faction win, or are they also sociopaths?

Do you, araviel, agonize over the fact that you calling people sociopaths might actually cause real psychological harm to some super insecure person sitting on the other end of the internet with a massive amount of self-doubt and insecurity who was just having fun shooting internet spaceships?

No, probably not, and that doesn't make any of those people, nor you, a sociopath.

On a side-note if you want to actually do really awsum intarnetz psychologi you might to start using either the term antisocial personality disorder or psycopath since sociopath isn't really a diagnosis of any kind, or clearly defined. Then you'd probably have to use either the DSM-IV-TR or the ICD-10 to diagnose someone, the problem is that just reading the list doesn't qualify you to do that since your interpretation of what say "impulsivity or failure to plan ahead" is probably very different from what a psychiatrist's. colloquially that sentence could describe approximately everyone who isn't suffering from OCD or an eating disorder, at some point in their life, only that isn't really how you use it in a diagnosis so...

perhaps you should just stop calling people sociopaths and using it as a way of dismissing other people's opinion, and instead start explaining how and why you disagree with people and arguing the point, instead of attacking the person, which is a really awful debate tactic.

Just saying, but the guy was actually implying that HE was diagnosed as a sociopath according to someone else's definition. He wasn't calling anyone a sociopath.

 

[Britannkic]

Its very humorous how intense elements of online communities can be and how much of real life people try to drag into games, or vice versa, how much of the game people try to drag into real life.

 

[zorianarki]

oh crap, this went totally wrong, yes! if i was calling people sociopaths i would agonize over it, actually i am right now.
if you read back a little you might note that i am that super insecure person who is sitting on the other end of the internet with a massive amount of self-doubt and insecurity who was just having fun shooting internet spaceships getting called a griefer by a bunch of anti pvp people

In that case I totally misunderstood you, and reading back it becomes obvious that you were even joking and basically making the same point I was, so let me apologize for that. I think my general annoyance at people spewing psych' diagnose at each other on this board, compounded by my stupid ability to read a bit faster than I actually can, was condensed into a post directed at you, which was entirely inappropriate.

So, I apologize. Both to you and Glenn Coco.

 

[Bikky]

Rep for the OP.

I agree wholeheartedly.

What's the difference between a player interdicting you and destroying you, to an NPC doing it? NOTHING. You're still destroyed, and have lost loads of money.

I've been PVP'd outside of warzones only a handful of times. Once we faced off, His Asp my Cob. Then text comms opened, he was looking for a fight, So I obliged, and even let him fire first. Then at 56% of my hull left, and considerably more of his, he stopped firing and messaged thanks, No death today.

Cost me a fair bit in ammo and repairs, but it was like jumping off a cliff with a chute in hand, compared to a gentle cycle ride of the fighting an NPC Python.

Bring on PVP to a small degree, and no deaths, unless it's for the bounty, or it's the ONLY way to get the cargo, If cargo is dumped then leave be for another day.

 

[darkcyd]

I run 4 mine launchers and dump them in rapid succession if I see a player about to enter exit as I leave a station. Then boost.....Am I trollin?

 

[Cidcaldensfey]

If you don't want to be a victim, run faster. Otherwise, don't cry when you lose your space ship. I feel no sympathy for anyone who willingly plays a video game where they can be killed by other players.

 

[bassman]

Exactly.. and if that was the atmosphere in open play.. I would partake..

The game is incomplete and we should bare that in mind. The game environment is not sufficiently well fleshed out to allow proper risk management: hi sec systems are not as safe as they should be, murder or piracy in the very highest security systems should be rare and likewise low sec systems should be much more dangerous. Also we dont yet have the ability to fly wings and hire escorts (player or NPC), we dont have player posted bounties. If we had these things then I think a certain level of coexistence of PvP and PvE focused players would be possible. And why is this better than segregation ? well IMO both camps benefit from a more populated universe - the more people there are just "going about their everyday business" the more alive and immersive the game feels.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Wow - I cannot believe that people have come on the forum and asked for a cheat mode to be enabled for them in open play where they become invincible to all other human players so they can make credits with less risk and only have to face NPC's in combat. I cannot abide cheaters.

You need to factor loss into your game plan. Be it loss from NPC combat or from human contact, it's all the same and you need to prepared for it to happen from time to time.

I noticed one player openly admit in this thread that he had a rigged a key to pull his internet connection if a human player initiates combat with him. I think you should have a penalty applied to you each time you do this that locks you to solo play for set duration of time for cheating, that or you loose rep from the faction you have most rep with for cowardly behavior. My question to him would also be: Do you press your "insta quit" button when engaged in combat with a NPC or is it the case that you only fight battles you know you can win and you are happy to kill easy AI?

 

[eeps]

you dont have to, they will all be playing in groups/solo mode.

 

[easthamd]

I've yet to experience any sort of greifing, most of the people I see I say a cheery hello to and get one back.

I have only ever blown up one other person, because he got in my way shooting at wanted NPC's and gave zero cares about me getting a bounty on my head.

So I blew him into itty bitty radioactive bits. Not my proudest moment but I enjoyed it.

 

[philux]

but griefers/pvpers purposely make a point of picking weak or unarmed targets

shooting back is not always an option.

a pirate or griefer will always engage in a situation where he has the upper hand, anything else would be fair, which is by default not the modus operandi of this type of player.

i've been trying my best not to use the real life correlation of 'bully', its such a perfect fit but ive resisted the correlation until now .. so ..

a bully will always choose a weak target for the same reason, they dont wanna get shown up and have their upper hand taken away. and likewise the victim of the bully cant just 'harden up' and 'shoot back', by their very definition they are weaker than the bully, so its just not possible. So like in real life, best thing to do with bullies is lock them all in a room together and let them take each other out until there is no one left = 'online play'

problem solved

What you're describing is just one of the oldest and most basic rules of combat: only willingly engage in a fight when you have the clear advantage.
This is known since existence of human conflict and part of any basic military training manual.

If some ppl here think this is bullying or griefing, no wonder they find so many 'griefers' in open play...

 

[darkcyd]

The game is incomplete and we should bare that in mind. The game environment is not sufficiently well fleshed out to allow proper risk management: hi sec systems are not as safe as they should be, murder or piracy in the very highest security systems should be rare and likewise low sec systems should be much more dangerous. Also we dont yet have the ability to fly wings and hire escorts (player or NPC), we dont have player posted bounties. If we had these things then I think a certain level of coexistence of PvP and PvE focused players would be possible. And why is this better than segregation ? well IMO both camps benefit from a more populated universe - the more people there are just "going about their everyday business" the more alive and immersive the game feels.

I agree with this post.

I also think the netcode isn't ready to actually have multiplayer functional without people throwing their mice across the room.

I don't think the powers that be want PvP but it would be nice to talk dev's into some battlegrounds. Some unique rewards not available outside PvP would be certainly worth of some time well spent.

 

[eeps]

What you're describing is just one of the oldest and most basic rules of combat: only willingly engage in a fight when you have the clear advantage.
This is known since existence of human conflict and part of any basic military training manual.

If some ppl here think this is bullying or griefing, no wonder they find so many 'griefers' in open play...

Correct!

But those same training manuals also mention something about not taking a heavily armed regiment into a village of women and children and conducting a slaughter.

 

[philux]

Correct!

But those same training manuals also mention something about not taking a heavily armed regiment into a village of women and children and conducting a slaughter.

I didn't know that you can do that in ED. You should alert Amnesty International and the Pope immediately!

 

[Joe Spivey]

What you're describing is just one of the oldest and most basic rules of combat: only willingly engage in a fight when you have the clear advantage.
This is known since existence of human conflict and part of any basic military training manual.

If some ppl here think this is bullying or griefing, no wonder they find so many 'griefers' in open play...

Ohhhhh right. Wow, so all that waffle from Pvpers that they just want the fight, the thrill of matching their skill against an opponent, going one on one to see who is the best... and all the other platitudes they come out with are just so much hot air then. They DO just want to club baby seals after all. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[philux]

Ohhhhh right. Wow, so all that waffle from Pvpers that they just want the fight, the thrill of matching their skill against an opponent, going one on one to see who is the best... and all the other platitudes they come out with are just so much hot air then. They DO just want to club baby seals after all. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, we want to come properly prepared to win, simple as that. If you decide not to do so, that's up to you. Just don't blame others for your unwillingness to plan ahead though.

 

[eeps]

I didn't know that you can do that in ED. You should alert Amnesty International and the Pope immediately!

ok i admit it, i lol'ed

 

[Sanguisaevum]

Let me ask you this...

I interdicted a total of 9 different human commanders during my travels last night. (As well as a large number of NPC ships)

Only one of the human commanders was wanted when i interdicted him. (Cheers for the 50k bounty, CMDR!)

The others were all clean. But i wanted to K scan them for other system bounties. The ones that tried to run were re-interdicted until i managed to scan them. Those without bounties were sent on there way with a friendly goodbye.

Does this make me a griefer? (One player managed to escape 3 times before i managed to scan him, i assumed he had somthing to hide so was not going to let him get away without a scan)

Does this make me a pvper? (I did not distinguish between players and npcs... I simply played the game as designed and I interdicted whatever was nearby)

What seems to have gotten lost in this MESS of a thread is that the OP is correct.

There is a big difference between real "griefing" and "legitimate PVP"

As it stands right now... It is NOT possible to actually "grief" someone in OPEN mode. Because Any and ALL player interaction in OPEN mode is BY DESIGN. A design that PLAYERS AGREE TO when they click open mode.