PvP (Open) commanders not welcome on this forum?...
- Thread starter Globusdiablo
- Start date
- Status
I'm just making observations. I'm not a saint, just a messiah. Which means this is all my fault.
I feel very much at home in Dangerous Kindergarten
Is this somehow Freudian? Is the envy we feel toward Ibexes being able to velcro themselves to rock walls supposed to be homologous to the emotions felt by PvE purists when they look upon the activities of people who can enjoy all aspects of the game equally?
I'm just making observations. I'm not a saint, just a messiah. Which means this is all my fault.
I feel very much at home in Dangerous Kindergarten
Yes, here is where those with a midlife crisis battle ones still wearing nappies. Clash of the Generations. Gankers vs Carebears.
zzzzzzz
verminstar
Banned
Ill go with this excuse of being unhappy with how solo and private groups can affect the BGS because I see it a convenient excuse. Yes I will concede that would possibly vex some, but others have come onto the forum to take a virtual shot at anyone not participating in open play fer any reason...the bgs doesnt even get a mention until about several pages in and is buried under a mountain of salt. Its a bandwagon excuse because all previous arguments are falling on deaf ears...with this excuse, its a win win argument because its true...but its been this way from day one.
Ye know me from other games...ye know I love pvp but ye also know I have little patience fer chest thumping which is exactly what happens. Look at that fool here the other week who tried to justify a griefing nature because of time he spent in the military...I mean seriously? Exactly how desperate does it have to get? Because thats the absolute definition of scraping the bottom of the barrel. Again...a thread created by a self proclaimed high profile pvpr who started their first comment with a scathing verbal attack on pve players...the reaction of pve players was hardly surprising, although the op seemed surprised which, considering what they wrote in their first comment, points to someone with exceedingly low intelligence...or they just using the forums to intentionally troll.
Then a thread goes up the next day crying about how pvp players get such a frosty reception...I swear m8 ye couldnt make this up its absolutely comical.
Oh and I have dual accounts too...both fer pve only because Im sorry, but this game just isnt floating my pvp itch whatsoever...a shame but it is what it is. Now Im happy nuff w2ith my own choices to play solo...I dont use the forums to launch unprovoked verbal assaults on anyone...play and let play I say. But when I answer a question about why I play in solo, then take the trouble to answer, I get called all the cowards under the sun. So...I could be the bigger man and not respond to it, but as far as Im concerned, they started it and Ill finish it whether they like it or not, or a mod warns me to back off.
Really doesnt get any more complicated than that.
It's a metaphor within a metaphor within the deeper metaphysical vicissitudes of man's own homesickness embedded deep with his very soul, serving to counterpoint his existential ignorance, as outlined by Camus, Sartre and Chris Kamara.
Gitgud
That's so deep, so as a proper artist who had no idea what he was doing at the moment of conception, I'll say: yes
And I do understand that.
Even though there enough T-6s out there flying to choke a donkey, they do not all belong to some large corporation. There is no equivalent to a space Fed Ex that you can join in the game. If there were, then would be a non issue. No corporation would risk their products or people for fear of losing profit. So in turn if it were a high value item, then you would be in an armored car with at least 2 to 3 weapon toting escorts.
When you purchase a T-6 you dont get your own squadron of NPC vultures to protect you from pirates. You certainly cant make it the in game equivalent of an armored car.
So you have to approach it from the aspect that these ships are owned by an individual person. An individual will protect their own lives and lively hood just aggressively as a large corporation would. More so because its their life on the line. The issue is that the tools are not there to make those ships armored or dangerous enough to other ships. They are literally giving trade ships a water pistol to use in a gun fight.
So to combat that, they can lethally over blow police response like EVE, provide the tools to become protected enough or dangerous enough to compete, or they can get rid of player initiated combat.
In regards to the OPs statement, the PVE and PVP community treat each other like dirt and he doesnt know why it seems. The PVP group want some kind of player or ship interaction but they have griefers among them who ruin it for everyone else. The PVE community wants a realistic game where there is real risk and reward for player actions but they have CLoggers among them who ruin it for everyone else.
They are lumping everyone into PVP and PVE when it really is grifers and CLoggers. They do this because it muddies the waters and gives each side a safe place to fall back upon. Griefers can just say I was just doing PVP and the CLoggers can say I didnt want to interact with a player so I was just trying to PVE. Then one side comes out to the forums and complains and generalizations are thrown around. All PVE people are carebears and all PVP people are griefers.
That is simply not true. I can tell you from my point of view is that I have no problem with PVP at all, however in Elite Dangerous PVP does not exist outside of CQC. There are arranged player events/fights, and there is griefing. Even if you are RPing, it is still griefing.
The only exception to this is Power Play. If Power Play is being participated in, then all bets are off.
violence is the last refuge of those who are incompetent with debate, or simply lacking in intellect.
Also, I think you mean dialogue. git gud at english
Last edited:
I remember that thread, I also remember a lot of PvPers took time out to mock him and stated that he didn't speak for them
It does, perhaps you just don't see why. All politicians are evil therefore this other one here that's pro-environment and anti-slavery must be evil too by default! See how that can lead us down a dark path? Witch hunts as well as "guilty by default until proven innocent" are never good philosophies to follow in my opinion.
The restrictions of the forum do indeed incourage broad brush strokes that's true.
Define a "rather large amount" though. Because I believe you are talking about a vocal minority here. I'll have to sacrifice myself on the altar of name and shame here I guess: may the mods have mercy on my soul *makes ED religion hand sign* *kisses image of a moderator*
So, let's deconstruct: Smiling Dog Crew likes to farm sodium chloride by portraying a bully-like attitude exactly of the type you outlined: "we own Open, git gud or git gone, we like big ganks and we cannot lie, etc"
Attitudes like that, although perfectly allowed by the game are toxic; no arguement there. However, SDC's brand of spice are still a minority within the PvP scene. A group like Adle's Armada for example have far many more members. Problem is nobody notices the PvPers that just do their thing without salt mining.
SDC is louder than Adle's Armada on here so their style tends to be accepted as the norm by the average person on the forum but that doesn't make SDC's style equat "all PvPers in ED". That's how we've ended up with all these myths and rumours about Open being some sort of insta-gank violation-enabled mode. The reality being that plenty of players who play in Open have many positive encounters as well as a few negative ones. Far from the gank-a-minute horror show you'd be led to beleive about it.
Both groups are as guilty as each other. I can't count the times I've heard "pro bro" or "sociopath" for example.
At the end of the day it's a game. A game we all share a common interest in. The sooner we all accept that we're under one roof the better. We're all roomies!
That's like saying all lawyers are scum just because one narrow definition of a lawyer is a person who gets criminals out of jail time. Therefore by osmosis ALL lawers must be scum!
Definition is slippery and wet
It does, perhaps you just don't see why. All politicians are evil therefore this other one here that's pro-environment and anti-slavery must be evil too by default! See how that can lead us down a dark path? Witch hunts as well as "guilty by default until proven innocent" are never good philosophies to follow in my opinion.
The restrictions of the forum do indeed incourage broad brush strokes that's true.
Define a "rather large amount" though. Because I believe you are talking about a vocal minority here. I'll have to sacrifice myself on the altar of name and shame here I guess: may the mods have mercy on my soul *makes ED religion hand sign* *kisses image of a moderator*
So, let's deconstruct: Smiling Dog Crew likes to farm sodium chloride by portraying a bully-like attitude exactly of the type you outlined: "we own Open, git gud or git gone, we like big ganks and we cannot lie, etc"
Attitudes like that, although perfectly allowed by the game are toxic; no arguement there. However, SDC's brand of spice are still a minority within the PvP scene. A group like Adle's Armada for example have far many more members. Problem is nobody notices the PvPers that just do their thing without salt mining.
SDC is louder than Adle's Armada on here so their style tends to be accepted as the norm by the average person on the forum but that doesn't make SDC's style equat "all PvPers in ED". That's how we've ended up with all these myths and rumours about Open being some sort of insta-gank violation-enabled mode. The reality being that plenty of players who play in Open have many positive encounters as well as a few negative ones. Far from the gank-a-minute horror show you'd be led to beleive about it.
Both groups are as guilty as each other. I can't count the times I've heard "pro bro" or "sociopath" for example.
At the end of the day it's a game. A game we all share a common interest in. The sooner we all accept that we're under one roof the better. We're all roomies!
That's like saying all lawyers are scum just because one narrow definition of a lawyer is a person who gets criminals out of jail time. Therefore by osmosis ALL lawers must be scum!
Definition is slippery and wet
In case you failed to notice, not just in the post you replied to here, but in my several other posts on this thread and on others in this forum: I take no issue to PvP players who are capable of respecting other people's choices and preferences. I take issue with the PvP players who dictate that everyone must be a part of their content and the PvPers who claim to own open mode.
In my everyday life, I operate on the assumption that anyone around me intends to do me harm. I then allow other people to prove me wrong. Makes it harder to be surprised or disappointed. Cynical? probably. But it works.
My point on the stories is this: that many people can't possibly be all telling the same lie. the videos and screenshots pretty much CAN'T lie. I understand that not every PvP player is like that. However, I cannot afford to assume that any given player I meet isn't like that. Simply an unwise policy.
If the attitudes of groups and individuals similar to SDC are the minority, fine. So be it. However, I don't see other PvP players and groups outside of adle's armada bothering to condemn those actions. I take the silence as being tacit approval. If someone genuinely opposes those types of actions, then SAY something. If you don't speak up, how is anyone else supposed to know? No one here is psychic.
You are twisting my words on my PvP definition. I said that anyone who engages in combat with another player is a PvP player. I then qualified certain subgroups. I did not pass judgement on the overall group as a whole. This thread is about PvP players being allegedly unwelcome on the forums. Any specific subgroup was not specified. As such, all subgroups must be considered.
To use your analogy in the same why I used my definition: A lawyer is ANYONE who practices law. This includes mob lawyers and lawyers who exist to get criminals out of jail time.
Stop twisting my words. Seriously, don't do that.
In addition to being incorrect, I think you completely missed the joke.
no, I think you missed the jokes. yes, plural.
This is the only place where as aI'm just making observations. I'm not a saint, just a messiah. Which means this is all my fault.
I feel very much at home in Dangerous Kindergarten
It's
Beyond the 'git gud' jibe (which was misplaced as I'm not that kind of PvPer), the misquote of Asimov, or British vs. American English thing?
If you fit five or more jokes in there, then yes, I missed at least two.
Dialog is the utmost show of mutual contempt for each other. It happens when two players combat log on each other.
Do you always have to have the last word?
Yes, consider that a challenge. How do you respond? Stay silent and prove literally nothing because this is the internet? or do you respond and prove me right?
Doesn't really matter to me if you specifically aren't that kind of PvPer. No misquote either, just flipping your earlier post on you. If I wanted to quote, I would have included some sort of credit. I am American and I prefer the british spelling of the word. Wasn't actually going anywhere with that one, just kinda felt like it.
- Status