please don't confuse PvPers with griefers

[easthamd]

I honestly think there should be some sort of pvp flag.

Let the PVP groups cry and wail like the delicate little sausages they are that they have had their easy kills taken away.

Let them fight each other and demonstrate some real skills as opposed to blowing up peoples freighters because 'They must be prepared to win no matter the cost!'.

All this claptrap is pointless. I'll just go to solo mode if I don't want to get blown up by a pimply teenager who gets a little tingle downstairs when he watches someone's rather harmless trading ship explode.

 

[lysan]

Playing in open play is a challenge, I know because I also play DayZ. What I love is the danger, I do not seek it, however if it comes I love to live and tell the story. I remember in PB that we got some station campers. That was actually fun. You had to do all you could to get in fast and low, and the same to get out.

That learning has stuck and it was a good learning, I have now perfected the technique and are able to get in with out being scanned and also to leave without being scanned.

Life in the black, in the woods, in the lost city is hard, and then you die!

 

[Joe Spivey]

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.

Oh no. You don't get to shift the blame like that. What it boils down to is player A who gets his enjoyment from things other than pew pew meeting player B who thinks the only thing ED is for is to measure pen... I mean measure their fighting skills against another human. It isn't player A who is forcing player B to trade, explore, mine or whatever. It is ALWAYS player B who is forcing player A to play HIS game. By saying it is playerA's 'unwillingness to plan ahead' you are already forcing him to play YOUR game.

 

[Sanguisaevum]

I honestly think there should be some sort of pvp flag.

Let the PVP groups cry and wail like the delicate little sausages they are that they have had their easy kills taken away.

Let them fight each other and demonstrate some real skills as opposed to blowing up peoples freighters because 'They must be prepared to win no matter the cost!'.

All this claptrap is pointless. I'll just go to solo mode if I don't want to get blown up by a pimply teenager who gets a little tingle downstairs when he watches someone's rather harmless trading ship explode.

Once again, since this does not seem to be sinking in...

THERE IS ALLREADY A PVP FLAG.

IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO EXPERIENCE HOSTILE PLAYERS, you can choose to NOT PLAY IN OPEN MODE.

IN OPEN MODE... ALL FORMS OF PLAYER INTERACTION ARE VALID! by design!

 

[darkcyd]

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.

You really are a pacifist are you...how are you even playing a game with lasers in it?

 

[Sanguisaevum]

Oh no. You don't get to shift the blame like that. What it boils down to is player A who gets his enjoyment from things other than pew pew meeting player B who thinks the only thing ED is for is to measure pen... I mean measure their fighting skills against another human. It isn't player A who is forcing player B to trade, explore, mine or whatever. It is ALWAYS player B who is forcing player A to play HIS game. By saying it is playerA's 'unwillingness to plan ahead' you are already forcing him to play YOUR game.

No one is forcing people to play in open mode. Solo and private groups are avaliable for those that do not want to deal with potentialy hostile players.

People are CONSENTING to ALL TYPES OF PLAYER INTERACTION when they click OPEN.

It really is that simple. If it wasn't... FD would have designed open mode so that players could not be hostile to other players!

 

[Joe Spivey]

You really are a pacifist are you...how are you even playing a game with lasers in it?

Erm, instead of attacking me, why don't you attack the argument?

 

[easthamd]

Once again, since this dies not seem to be sinking in...

THERE IS ALLREADY A PVP FLAG.

IF YOU DO NIT WANT TO EXPERIENCE HOLTILE PLAYERS, you can choose to NOT PLAY IN OPEN MODE.

IN OPEN MODE... ALL FORMS OF PLAYER INTERACTION ARE VALID! It us by design!

So what you are saying is you want to to be king of the sandbox, and no one else can play in it unless they follow your rules?

Also, your caps-lock is broken. It seems to be stuck on giving you the appearance of a ranting child.

I think it's perfectly valid to be able to enjoy positive player interaction, without wanting to be destroyed at random. People shouldn't feel like they need to be banished to the phantom zone all on their own just to enjoy a game.

 

[Cidcaldensfey]

Erm, instead of attacking me, why don't you attack the argument?

No, because your argument is a reflection of yourself. You are a pacifist playing a game with weapons. Your argument is already flawed before you even start typing anything.

So what you are saying is you want to to be king of the sandbox, and no one else can play in it unless they follow your rules?

I think it's perfectly valid to be able to enjoy positive player interaction, without wanting to be destroyed at random. People shouldn't feel like they need to be banished to the phantom zone all on their own just to enjoy a game.

Don't play open if you don't want to get blown up randomly by other players. Not a very hard concept to grasp.

 

[easthamd]

No, because your argument is a reflection of yourself. You are a pacifist playing a game with weapons. Your argument is already flawed before you even start typing anything.

Actually you are quite flawed, the poster could very well enjoy employing those weapons against wanted NPC's and may be a pretty good bounty hunter. You made a poor assumption with no backing evidence besides your own personal opinion.

 

[Lanatir]

No, because your argument is a reflection of yourself. You are a pacifist playing a game with weapons. Your argument is already flawed before you even start typing anything.


Don't play open if you don't want to get blown up randomly by other players. Not a very hard concept to grasp.

Ah. So since the united states is a country where everyone can get weapons its fine and dandy that everyone shoots everyone there?

 

[Sanguisaevum]

So what you are saying is you want to to be king of the sandbox, and no one else can play in it unless they follow your rules?

I think it's perfectly valid to be able to enjoy positive player interaction, without wanting to be destroyed at random. People shouldn't feel like they need to be banished to the phantom zone all on their own just to enjoy a game.

Not at all.
I am saying... those asking for a "pvp" flag... already have one.
They are not my rules are they? They are, in fact... the rules as set out by FD for the game mode "OPEN"
In open mode, other players can interact with you in any way they see fit.
By clicking on "open" you agree to those rules.

If you wish to avoid hostile players, whilst still having friendly social interaction, that is EXACTLY what private groups are for.

 

[Joe Spivey]

No one is forcing people to play in open mode. Solo and private groups are avaliable for those that do not want to deal with potentialy hostile players.

People are CONSENTING to ALL TYPES OF PLAYER INTERACTION when they click OPEN.

It really is that simple. If it wasn't... FD would have designed open mode so that players could not be hostile to other players!

I actually agree with you, totally. But it is a little more complicated than that. You see, the problem arises when the PvP player goes after ONLY other players. You see, the game design works both ways. Yes the PvE player must be prepared to put up with some attacks that happen to be from other players. But the other side of the scale is that the PvP player must accept that there are other targets besides players. Sadly, they don't. Time and again they have said on these forums that they ONLY attack players because that is how they get their buzz. Do you see they problem, the unbalance? The trader accepts that PvP is part of the game. The PvP player thinks PvP IS the game.

 

[easthamd]

No, because your argument is a reflection of yourself. You are a pacifist playing a game with weapons. Your argument is already flawed before you even start typing anything.


Don't play open if you don't want to get blown up randomly by other players. Not a very hard concept to grasp.

You didn't manage to even grasp my points in the reply.

Why should people not be allowed to enjoy open play, and interact in a positive manner with other commanders? A flag system would simply allow people to say 'I'm here for a good time with friends, not for shooting people'.

Keeps the social element, removes the undesirables like you.

 

[sammael]

Stopped reading at "I played EVE for years". Get off my porch.

 

[philux]

Oh no. You don't get to shift the blame like that. What it boils down to is player A who gets his enjoyment from things other than pew pew meeting player B who thinks the only thing ED is for is to measure pen... I mean measure their fighting skills against another human. It isn't player A who is forcing player B to trade, explore, mine or whatever. It is ALWAYS player B who is forcing player A to play HIS game. By saying it is playerA's 'unwillingness to plan ahead' you are already forcing him to play YOUR game.

I don't blame people who refuse to consider basic rules of engagement. That is completely up to them. I'm just wondering why they get upset when they get beaten by people who do.

 

[darkcyd]

Erm, instead of attacking me, why don't you attack the argument?

Sure, you use a strawman fallacy to group all pvpers into a group of seal clubbers and grievers. There is no argument to be had. The game doesn't allow for financially beneficial pvp because its designed by old people for old people and the old people keep it. If it had cost beneficial pvp, they'd get whacked because they are old and crap. If it had battlegrounds, they'd get whacked. It is just that simple.

 

[easthamd]

Sure, you use a strawman fallacy to group all pvpers into a group of seal clubbers and grievers. There is no argument to be had. The game doesn't allow for financially beneficial pvp because its designed by old people for old people and the old people keep it. If it had cost beneficial pvp, they'd get whacked because they are old and crap. If it had battlegrounds, they'd get whacked. It is just that simple.

Nice ageism.

I'm sure the old fogey moderators will enjoy the report.

 

[Joe Spivey]

No, because your argument is a reflection of yourself. You are a pacifist playing a game with weapons. Your argument is already flawed before you even start typing anything.

The argument stands by itself, no matter who makes it. What is flawed is your assumptions. For your information I was in the Falklands conflict and lost several very good friends. I can assure you I am not and never have been a pacifist.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Sure, you use a strawman fallacy to group all pvpers into a group of seal clubbers and grievers. There is no argument to be had. The game doesn't allow for financially beneficial pvp because its designed by old people for old people and the old people keep it. If it had cost beneficial pvp, they'd get whacked because they are old and crap. If it had battlegrounds, they'd get whacked. It is just that simple.

A stawman argument is an argument that is false and thereby easily knocked down. Please show the flaw in my argument.

 

[Cidcaldensfey]

So what you are saying is you want to to be king of the sandbox, and no one else can play in it unless they follow your rules?

Also, your caps-lock is broken. It seems to be stuck on giving you the appearance of a ranting child.

I think it's perfectly valid to be able to enjoy positive player interaction, without wanting to be destroyed at random. People shouldn't feel like they need to be banished to the phantom zone all on their own just to enjoy a game.

Actually you are quite flawed, the poster could very well enjoy employing those weapons against wanted NPC's and may be a pretty good bounty hunter. You made a poor assumption with no backing evidence besides your own personal opinion.

Ah. So since the united states is a country where everyone can get weapons its fine and dandy that everyone shoots everyone there?

I actually agree with you, totally. But it is a little more complicated than that. You see, the problem arises when the PvP player goes after ONLY other players. You see, the game design works both ways. Yes the PvE player must be prepared to put up with some attacks that happen to be from other players. But the other side of the scale is that the PvP player must accept that there are other targets besides players. Sadly, they don't. Time and again they have said on these forums that they ONLY attack players because that is how they get their buzz. Do you see they problem, the unbalance? The trader accepts that PvP is part of the game. The PvP player thinks PvP IS the game.

You didn't manage to even grasp my points in the reply.

Why should people not be allowed to enjoy open play, and interact in a positive manner with other commanders? A flag system would simply allow people to say 'I'm here for a good time with friends, not for shooting people'.

Keeps the social element, removes the undesirables like you.

This goes out to everyone, just rolling you all into one group. What are you basing your arguments on? The game in the current form regarding it's online component is everything it said it would be. So what are you basing your arguments on? How are you measuring the content?