PVP piracy - Destroyed three trader ships over 4t of cargo... help me understand

[Sterling MH]

Yes this is a game, a game that tries to simulate a scifi universe with pirates, traders, bounty hunters and what not. This is also avertised as such and in this universe you can get pirated or blown up at any moment. In opinion this happens too often though, what drives every trader in solo. It's actually logical. Traders get nothing but misery from playing in open, so why should they.

It didn't say that there would be Player Pirates, though. Neither does it claim that if you pirate you can pirate PCs. So "Friendly Fire Off" is still 100% of the game, and still dangerous because NPC pirates can still shoot you. But they're going to do it in a way that the system coded for. IOW a safe system will have no pirates, an anarchy one will have lots. Players aren't forced into playing pirate in some systems and not others at the moment, but if they want to be "in game" pirates, they would have to limit themselves to where pirate NPCs spawn too. Feel like fun? But it's 100% what the game said it would be!

And neither did it say you were forced to be shot by other players. Arena games provide PvP entirely, yet friendly fire is there to stop teammates getting shot by friendlies. Neither does it claim to provide you with target practice against players, just that this would have bouty hunters (npcs do that just fine), pirates (npcs again), traders (npcs still) and what not (yet more npcs).

So quite what your beef is with "Friendly fire off" as a game mode (heck, you can have a private realm where the rule is "on", just like there's other private groups, such as Mobius, who could have it set "On" or come back to Open where it's on anyway.

If pirating NPCs isn't wht you want to do, then you can leave open and start a private group where Friendly Fire On is a requirement to play.

It's you're go-to answer for those who don't want to PvP: get off open. Good enough for them is good enough for you.

- - - Updated - - -

You asked me to use exploit instead.

And you asked him and me to use CL. But you tie more than the act to CL and therefore it doesn't apply here since we don't see that act in Strategic Exiting or exploiting the reality of networking. Just as you exploit the lack of C&P to force PvP on those who cannot make any choice to avoid it.

 

[Comrade Error]

No, I don't care about it at all. I play mostly in solo. Just want to give you a tip on how to be more efficient in discussions, since you are so full of yourself you missed it.

PS

"You should use the correct term"
"But then people will stop taking me serious"
"They didn't take you serious to begin with"
*posts random internet meme*

Yes, that's how you sound.

Keep telling yourself that.

"What you don't understand is that you would have an easier time discussing it if you would use exploit instead of cheating, because some people have different definitions of these words."

Wait so, you say that what combat logging is is subjective, it can be cheating or an exploit, that's up to the individual and yet one term is "correct"?

 

[babelfisch]

Keep telling yourself that.

"What you don't understand is that you would have an easier time discussing it if you would use exploit instead of cheating, because some people have different definitions of these words."

Wait so, you say that what combat logging is is subjective, it can be cheating or an exploit, that's up to the individual and yet one term is "correct"?

http://imgur.com/w5C4wm3.jpeg

Yes, exploit is the official term used by FDEV, while cheat can mean all sorts of things.

 

[Morbad]

Exploit is the type of cheat it is. Frontier calls it an exploit because it's exploiting an unintended/current unavoidable technical failing of the game in a way that provides an unfair advantage, the latter is what makes it a cheat.

 

[babelfisch]

Exploit is the type of cheat it is. Frontier calls it an exploit because it's exploiting an unintended/current unavoidable technical failing of the game in a way that provides an unfair advantage, the latter is what makes it a cheat.

And yet there are definitions that separate between exploits and cheats, which is why it would be easier to just call it an exploit...

 

[NeilF]

QUESTION: Don't the new cargo hatch breakers mean getting just 4+T is very easy now? ie: You can go through shields with them?

 

[Morbad]

And yet there are definitions that separate between exploits and cheats, which is why it would be easier to just call it an exploit...

Any bug/unintended "feature" exploit that gives an advantage is a cheat, by the definition of cheat. Cheat is the broad category, exploit is the type.

I call it a cheat because it's a cheat. Cheat is just as accurate and more clear. Exploit can be confused as something legitimate without prefacing it as the abuse of a bug or other unintended feature.

 

[CMDR LACEWING]

It didn't say that there would be Player Pirates, though. Neither does it claim that if you pirate you can pirate PCs. So "Friendly Fire Off" is still 100% of the game, and still dangerous because NPC pirates can still shoot you. But they're going to do it in a way that the system coded for. IOW a safe system will have no pirates, an anarchy one will have lots. Players aren't forced into playing pirate in some systems and not others at the moment, but if they want to be "in game" pirates, they would have to limit themselves to where pirate NPCs spawn too. Feel like fun? But it's 100% what the game said it would be!

And neither did it say you were forced to be shot by other players. Arena games provide PvP entirely, yet friendly fire is there to stop teammates getting shot by friendlies. Neither does it claim to provide you with target practice against players, just that this would have bouty hunters (npcs do that just fine), pirates (npcs again), traders (npcs still) and what not (yet more npcs).

So quite what your beef is with "Friendly fire off" as a game mode (heck, you can have a private realm where the rule is "on", just like there's other private groups, such as Mobius, who could have it set "On" or come back to Open where it's on anyway.

If pirating NPCs isn't wht you want to do, then you can leave open and start a private group where Friendly Fire On is a requirement to play.

It's you're go-to answer for those who don't want to PvP: get off open. Good enough for them is good enough for you.

From your posts I get the impression that you expected ED to be like other MMOs, with mostly PvE and where you can enable PvP mode if you want to PvP. I'm afraid this is not what the developers wanted or plan to do. ED relies much on immersion and implementing a "PvP flag" would kill it. It would make cmdrs to something special, something not from the same universe. What the game is trying to do, is to let you feel as part of the universe, like the NPCs or cmdrs that you encounter. There are no brainless mobs to farm (one can argue about that), but other pilots like you. This is also why it was sad for me to see all the tears about NPC difficulty.
I get what you are asking for, but I'm fraid this is not the direction where this game is going.

 

[Comrade Error]

It didn't say that there would be Player Pirates, though. Neither does it claim that if you pirate you can pirate PCs. So "Friendly Fire Off" is still 100% of the game, and still dangerous because NPC pirates can still shoot you. But they're going to do it in a way that the system coded for. IOW a safe system will have no pirates, an anarchy one will have lots. Players aren't forced into playing pirate in some systems and not others at the moment, but if they want to be "in game" pirates, they would have to limit themselves to where pirate NPCs spawn too. Feel like fun? But it's 100% what the game said it would be!

And neither did it say you were forced to be shot by other players. Arena games provide PvP entirely, yet friendly fire is there to stop teammates getting shot by friendlies. Neither does it claim to provide you with target practice against players, just that this would have bouty hunters (npcs do that just fine), pirates (npcs again), traders (npcs still) and what not (yet more npcs).

So quite what your beef is with "Friendly fire off" as a game mode (heck, you can have a private realm where the rule is "on", just like there's other private groups, such as Mobius, who could have it set "On" or come back to Open where it's on anyway.

If pirating NPCs isn't wht you want to do, then you can leave open and start a private group where Friendly Fire On is a requirement to play.

It's you're go-to answer for those who don't want to PvP: get off open. Good enough for them is good enough for you.

- - - Updated - - -



And you asked him and me to use CL. But you tie more than the act to CL and therefore it doesn't apply here since we don't see that act in Strategic Exiting or exploiting the reality of networking. Just as you exploit the lack of C&P to force PvP on those who cannot make any choice to avoid it.

No?

Why buy cargo when you can pirate it from a fellow Commander?

https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/combat

Sure it doesn't directly say you will be pirated but it does say you can pirate other players, if you put two and two together you can figure out that you can get pirated yourself.

No, there are less pirate NPCs in high sec, there aren't none.

You aren't forced to anything, just press solo if you don't want any PvP in your game. There are no friendlies in this game, there are blue people and people who are red. Even then your own wing mate can still shoot you.

I'm positive there is more unfounded alternative facts in there but my heads hurts, I can't handle the alternative truth.

-------------------

I don't, the devs tie cheating to combat logging, simple.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, exploit is the official term used by FDEV, while cheat can mean all sorts of things.

Again, i though what combat logging is is subjective? This is according to you.

 

[babelfisch]

Any bug/unintended "feature" exploit that gives an advantage is a cheat, by the definition of cheat. Cheat is the broad category, exploit is the type.

I call it a cheat because it's a cheat. Cheat is just as accurate and more clear. Exploit can be confused as something legitimate without prefacing it as the abuse of a bug or other unintended feature.

I don't care about how you call it, just said that you would have an easier time discussing it by saying exploit. Don't know why this is hard to understand.

 

[Sugarat]

You missed the point. I know that it's against the rules, no need for indoctrination. What you don't understand is that you would have an easier time discussing it if you would use exploit instead of cheating, because some people have different definitions of these words.

Actually, no, I didn't.. the point (for me) is it's not allowed, and as FD have stated numerous times it is punishable..

Whether it be a cheat or an exploit is irrelevant, it is a matter that FD have inequivocabiley stated as being against the rules, regardless of what your or anyone else's (apparent) justification may be..

I just find it strange that when FD openly state that something is rule breaking so many will still try to convince others that it's not

 

[VR Lucian Arkright]

What I am against - griefers, gankers, seal clubbers.

What I am not against - Piracy, freebooting and Bounty Hunting.

In the first, your sole reason for do it is to annoy other players, possibly to the point of leaving the game. In the second, you're engaging in gameplay with other players. Interdicting someone who is flying a vastly inferior vessel and just turning them into space dust is nothing more than self gratification. Interdicting someone and demanding "their money or their life" enables gameplay to take place, including PVP combat, RP, Escape and Evasion, etc. It's not PVP intended to destroy a helpless player, it's PVP with options.

If you look at my post history, you'll see I'm in favour of a PVE server, but I'm also interested in RP servers too. I have no problems with PVP combat, I have problems with toxic behavior dressed up as PVP. I've experienced the Goon Swarms in other games, and I've anti-griefed in others to allow the rest of the server to have fun while I toy with the would be griefers. In no way is actuall piracy griefing, using a pretence of piracy as a cover for toxic behaviour is not the same thing, it's the same as "protecting the Ruins" RP is a poor veiled excuse by certain players to simply destroy explorers.

 

[Morbad]

I don't care about how you call it, just said that you would have an easier time discussing it by saying exploit. Don't know why this is hard to understand.

I understand, I just disagree.

It's my opinion that calling a cheat an exploit, even if the later is more specific, is also more euphemistic and prone to confusion because 'exploit' is a far more equivocal term.

Forcibly disconnecting to save one's vessel from a threat, any threat, under essentially any circumstances, is cheating. It's explicitly against the rules and gives a very clear advantage to those doing it. It would be hard to find a more clear example of the dictionary definition of the intransitive verb form of the word "cheat" than a forcible, willful, disconnect in this context.

 

[Sterling MH]

From your posts I get the impression that you expected ED to be like other MMOs,

No, most MMOs have PvP but very short or no progression in play. CoD for example. I think it;s you others who think that because this has multiplayer it MUST have PvP and that EVERYONE must engage in it. Diablo has PvP in its MMO mode, and you have to set PKs off. You can set them off, though, and it seems like there are people who like that. ESPECIALLY since, like Elite, there's a huge difference in the build for PvM and PvP.

I think this is NOT like most MMOs. It's for PvPers AND PvEers.

But if PvPers don't respect PvE as a game choice, then THEY are the ones raging that the game must be made to their satisfation.

I note none of you have come forward with acceptance of a "Friendly fire off". I take it therefore that you will not like it and hate it if you were "forced" to PvE and pirate NPCs, which is 100% just as profitable as priating PCs, so no RP reason not to accept it.

Why then do you hate those who decide they want to keep their PvE experience? Their game choice is 100% as valid and, currently, can only be maintained in the face of your refusal to accept this by Strategic Exiting.

Hence it will continue. Get over it.

EDIT: If this game was PvP and meant to be only PvP, then we'd not have tradeships, we'd only have combat ships, and we'd only have gimbals, because a PvP build is very different from a PvE build in Elite.

And when there are no PC traders, where do you get your piracy?

If from NPCs, then there's no need for PvP against people who don't accept: you have the gameplay against NPCs.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Any bug/unintended "feature" exploit that gives an advantage is a cheat, by the definition of cheat. Cheat is the broad category, exploit is the type.

There are exploits that don't break any rules. Those cannot be cheats. An exploit merely says that the developers did not foresee the use of a feature.

Combat logging does break the rules, so it's cheating. If the feature used is windows taskmanager to kill the task, it's not an exploit. All features are used in their intended way.
Mission stacking through logging does not break any rules, so that's not cheating. It does however use the different modes in a way that way unintended by the developers, so it is an exploit.

 

[Sterling MH]

I understand, I just disagree.

It's my opinion that calling a cheat an exploit, even if the later is more specific, is also more euphemistic and prone to confusion because 'exploit' is a far more equivocal term.

Forcibly disconnecting to save one's vessel from a threat, any threat, under essentially any circumstances, is cheating. It's explicitly against the rules and gives a very clear advantage to those doing it

It's not a cheat, or an exploit. Its the only negotiation tactic currently in the game to stop PvPers changing your game.

Griefing is against the rules, and harassment (repeat interdictions against someone who got away) is against the EULA, not erely "against the rules" but AGAINST THE LICENSE AGREEMENT. And "pirating" trader players gives a clear advantage to the "pirate" in a combat ship. By your definition of what needs to be clearly there, that is cheating. Which you've said is aainst the rules.

Strategic Exiting is the only negotiation PvEers have against PvPers.

Go out in a sidewinder to pirate. Choose a weaker ship to fly and attack only ships better able to defend themselves. If you win, you're a better pilot, but unless you ARE better, you're going to see the rebuy screen.

 

[Morbad]

Mission stacking through logging does not break any rules, so that's not cheating. It does however use the different modes in a way that way unintended by the developers, so it is an exploit.

I'm inclined to call this cheating as well, as it's something that is beyond my ability to justify and thus beyond my ability to utilize, and thus provides those with a more gamist approach a tangible advantage over myself via the exploitation of unintended features that will undoubtedly be patched out at some point in the future.

Of course, I'm also forced to admit that Frontier's ruling takes precedence here and me calling it a cheat doesn't mean much if Frontier will never punish anyone for doing it or even come out and say anything particularly unequivocal about it.

 

[Sterling MH]

There are exploits that don't break any rules. Those cannot be cheats. An exploit merely says that the developers did not foresee the use of a feature.

Combat logging does break the rules, so it's cheating. If the feature used is windows taskmanager to kill the task, it's not an exploit. All features are used in their intended way.

using the taskmanager is a feature of a PC game.

Indeed strategic exits are the only feature you can use to avoid player pirates, who are not bound by the rules of pirate spawning and therefore cannot be planned around or prepared for.

So, currently, it's not a cheat.

Cheats COULD use it, but so can PvEers to avoid an otherwise enforced change of game that has no in-game method to counter.

 

[VR Lucian Arkright]

No, most MMOs have PvP but very short or no progression in play. CoD for example. I think it;s you others who think that because this has multiplayer it MUST have PvP and that EVERYONE must engage in it. Diablo has PvP in its MMO mode, and you have to set PKs off. You can set them off, though, and it seems like there are people who like that. ESPECIALLY since, like Elite, there's a huge difference in the build for PvM and PvP.

I think this is NOT like most MMOs. It's for PvPers AND PvEers.

But if PvPers don't respect PvE as a game choice, then THEY are the ones raging that the game must be made to their satisfation.

I note none of you have come forward with acceptance of a "Friendly fire off". I take it therefore that you will not like it and hate it if you were "forced" to PvE and pirate NPCs, which is 100% just as profitable as priating PCs, so no RP reason not to accept it.

Why then do you hate those who decide they want to keep their PvE experience? Their game choice is 100% as valid and, currently, can only be maintained in the face of your refusal to accept this by Strategic Exiting.

Hence it will continue. Get over it.

EDIT: If this game was PvP and meant to be only PvP, then we'd not have tradeships, we'd only have combat ships, and we'd only have gimbals, because a PvP build is very different from a PvE build in Elite.

And when there are no PC traders, where do you get your piracy?

If from NPCs, then there's no need for PvP against people who don't accept: you have the gameplay against NPCs.

I'm something of a dichotomy. I don't want 'friendly fire off' settings, but I do think there should be a PVE server. A PVE server would make piracy all but impossible apart from against NPCs - NPCs do not give as rich an experience as Players, and for such a poorly paying 'profession' makes it pretty much pointless. So what don't I like about Friendly Fire Off? Well... I think there should be the opportunities for Players to affect each other, but fully accept that leeds the way open to griefing from certain players and player types. Having a Crime and Punishment system that worked would help.

But given how far apart many people expectations are, when even Piracy can be seen as 'griefing', yes I think there should be Crime and Punishment in Open, and a PVE mode. I would probably prefer a working Open, over the PVE mode, but I think it should be there.

Because, seriously, equating a player like Greedy Raider with a griefer or ganker is fallacious.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm inclined to call this cheating as well, as it's something that is beyond my ability to justify and thus beyond my ability to utilize, and thus provides those with a more gamist approach a tangible advantage over myself via the exploitation of unintended features that will undoubtedly be patched out at some point in the future.

Of course, I'm also forced to admit that Frontier's ruling takes precedence here and me calling it a cheat doesn't mean much if Frontier will never punish anyone for doing it or even come out and say anything particularly unequivocal about it.

Aha, I can relate. I never relogged for that purpose either. But the advantage we have is a smug feeling of moral superiourity [praise]