I did. Hence my response.
Question for Open players who don't like PVP/ganking... help me understand
- Thread starter Danquememe
- Start date
Then you have your answer already.
Thanks for linking to my post that shut the door on the entire question! Made it very simple for Matt, I'm sure.
You're welcome, it was the beginning of the discussion. The end was the bit where I reminded you that children learn this stuff in primary school
Question for Open players who don't like PVP/ganking... help me understand
So if I checkmate a new chess player with a scholar's mate, is that sealclubbing, or is that showing them how to play the game? Or both? Did they think they were playing Kerplunk? If they thought they were playing chess, then no that's clearly not sealclubbing. What if the player had spent a...
You're welcome, it was the beginning of the discussion. The end was the bit where I reminded you that children learn this stuff in primary school
Question for Open players who don't like PVP/ganking... help me understand
So if I checkmate a new chess player with a scholar's mate, is that sealclubbing, or is that showing them how to play the game? Or both? Did they think they were playing Kerplunk? If they thought they were playing chess, then no that's clearly not sealclubbing. What if the player had spent a...forums.frontier.co.uk
No, you don't actually need to read beyond my post. That's the funny part, too.
No, you need to grasp the very basic concept of consent. It is quite clearly defined.
Sure I do, Riverside. Sure.
You should've seen the look my wife gave me after I told her what you said. Priceless.
Why is this game treated like some poor girl surrounded by Fratboys at a party...The underlying tone being if you attack someone in open is equivalent to unconsented sexual encounter (the actual word censored). Do we (not you I'm directing this at) really want to liken Ganking or even griefing to unconsented sexual encounter and insinuating people need to consent to getting blown up in a game? What in the acutal F is wrong with this part of the game culture.
So what we are seeing here is an argument made that it is the others who do not understand the rules of engagement.
For your typical squishy PvEer in Open there is a need to appreciate that other players may have better equipment, be better at the game, and can shoot at you for any reason or no reason. It is not their responsibility to look after or help you, although they might. It is your own responsibility to mitigate the risk other players present, and although it may seem impossible, there are lots of ways to do it. Mostly pay attention to what's going on around you
For your typical hard nut PvPer in Open there is a need to appreciate that other players may have equipment optimised for different tasks other than direct combat, and some of those tasks will really mess up your faction, your convenient access to ships, modules & engineering, and generally people might rise to the challenge of direct combat with you, but may well also take offence if you do something they don't want you to do.
There are some useful examples of resistance to understand how others choose to play, and I appreciate those that volunteered their time to demonstrate this failure to understand, in both directions.
Unfortunately there is an imbalance in the game design that means while a PvPer is able to use their skill & equipment advantage against any player that instances with them, they are completely defenceless against any player that does not instance with them for any reason (modes, platform, blocklist, evasion tactics etc).
There are jerks on both sides of course, and it is not an either/or thing but the overwhelming majority of interactions are positive in-game, and it's only really on the forums & social media that those more 'charismatic' personalities tend to dominate.
It would be nice if PvP could be given some meaning in the BGS, to help balance the disadvantage of having to instance with other players PvP has, and I think that might encourage more PvP players to look for meaningful conflict of any kind.
For your typical squishy PvEer in Open there is a need to appreciate that other players may have better equipment, be better at the game, and can shoot at you for any reason or no reason. It is not their responsibility to look after or help you, although they might. It is your own responsibility to mitigate the risk other players present, and although it may seem impossible, there are lots of ways to do it. Mostly pay attention to what's going on around you
For your typical hard nut PvPer in Open there is a need to appreciate that other players may have equipment optimised for different tasks other than direct combat, and some of those tasks will really mess up your faction, your convenient access to ships, modules & engineering, and generally people might rise to the challenge of direct combat with you, but may well also take offence if you do something they don't want you to do.
There are some useful examples of resistance to understand how others choose to play, and I appreciate those that volunteered their time to demonstrate this failure to understand, in both directions.
Unfortunately there is an imbalance in the game design that means while a PvPer is able to use their skill & equipment advantage against any player that instances with them, they are completely defenceless against any player that does not instance with them for any reason (modes, platform, blocklist, evasion tactics etc).
There are jerks on both sides of course, and it is not an either/or thing but the overwhelming majority of interactions are positive in-game, and it's only really on the forums & social media that those more 'charismatic' personalities tend to dominate.
It would be nice if PvP could be given some meaning in the BGS, to help balance the disadvantage of having to instance with other players PvP has, and I think that might encourage more PvP players to look for meaningful conflict of any kind.
I think that comparison is going way too far..
At this point, all this thread is 2 sides: One that wants the other to simply admit they engage in and enjoy "antisocial" behaviour. The other says: Not true, here's why <insert reasons> but, umm, errr, yeah, maybe.
I know this isn't enough for some, but just give me something I can RP with.. Depending on build, I might ask for a couple of mins to offload whatever, Mission Runner has weapons, gimme a chance and I'll shoot back.. Get in the way of my primary task without any reason? Evade and block. Attack my Explorer? Evade and block.
EDIT: Just for interest's sake, there is no one on my block list. My location and timezone are against ever instancing with most of you. Mind you, can't find my housemate half the time.
Last edited:
Not sure where this consent stuff came from really. In open, you don't need consent to blow stuff up.
However, claiming that playing in open is consent to blow up my ship is quite twisted logic. It is no more consent for someone to blow up my ship than walking down the street on the south side of Chicago at midnight is consenting to be robbed. Playing in open is merely me accepting that you may blow up my ship. Like walking down the street on the south side of Chicago at midnight may end with me getting robbed. Consent is simply not involved.
TLDR, playing in open is not consent, but no one needs consent anyway. It's a game, not a romantic encounter. Unless that is how you play ED
People arguing over whether a chocolate chip is a raisin or not when the recipe calls for cashews. Pointless.
However, claiming that playing in open is consent to blow up my ship is quite twisted logic. It is no more consent for someone to blow up my ship than walking down the street on the south side of Chicago at midnight is consenting to be robbed. Playing in open is merely me accepting that you may blow up my ship. Like walking down the street on the south side of Chicago at midnight may end with me getting robbed. Consent is simply not involved.
TLDR, playing in open is not consent, but no one needs consent anyway. It's a game, not a romantic encounter. Unless that is how you play ED
People arguing over whether a chocolate chip is a raisin or not when the recipe calls for cashews. Pointless.
Last edited:
Random Question: Isn't there a star system in the game where PVP is not only openly advertised by the player base, but generally openly and strongly encouraged within that system by the same player base?
What was it again? Sans Two? where ganking in open is generally agreed upon by everyone that it is the norm there?
Something to think your thonkers on, innit?
What was it again? Sans Two? where ganking in open is generally agreed upon by everyone that it is the norm there?
Something to think your thonkers on, innit?
Last edited:
Yes San Tu.
Deciat and Shin too.
And where is the documentation where that has been agreed on?
River knew which specific system I was speaking of, but failed to name the other two.
Here is the public documentation for San Tu's:
PvP Hub welcomes ED: Arena to San Tu
Since December 2017, San Tu has been the home for organised PvP in Elite Dangerous. After the original alliance between the PvP community and Nova Force to flip the system to anarchy, the PvP Hub has been based out of the system. Activity has been up and down over the years, with the health of...
Where's Deciat's or Shinrarta Dezhra's?
And where is the documentation where that has been agreed on?
River knew which specific system I was speaking of, but failed to name the other two.
Here is the public documentation for San Tu's:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/7eztt3/introducing_the_pvp_hub/PvP Hub welcomes ED: Arena to San Tu
Since December 2017, San Tu has been the home for organised PvP in Elite Dangerous. After the original alliance between the PvP community and Nova Force to flip the system to anarchy, the PvP Hub has been based out of the system. Activity has been up and down over the years, with the health of...
Where's Deciat's or Shinrarta Dezhra's?
You'll find it on the menu. It's called "Open Play."
Last edited:
For clarification, I'm not saying you need one. Just makes one wonder that there's an entire community if Elite PVP Players that seems to agree to gather in a spot to not only challenge themselves but others in the same system, and that these players are extremely open and welcoming about the subject.
Just something to think about, y'know?
Why not look them up, challenge yourself? IF you're so good as you seem to act.
You won't.
No balls.
Lay off the salt, silly goat, lest you fall from the mountain.
Last edited:
Phisto is no coward M4rth4.
San Tu is on my territory, until recently I was one of a small group that maintained it. It was flipped back to lawless back in March & activity there has picked up a great deal, for PvP as a sport.
If you want to learn how to fight, if you want to go to Deciat to protect the newbies for example, you go to San Tu to learn and to practice.
But if you want to find players to fight, you go where everyone else goes, and that's usually Deciat (because lots of newbies) or Shinrata (because there are no newbies).
Shinrarta and Deciat are places like that. Mining hotspot and CGs were places like that too. In the end it's any place where you have a high concentration of players. San Tu has the PvP-hub for organized fights, but you can just fight with others in the system itself too. There is also the Weltraumkneipe in LHS 3006. With carriers now you can go to any spot in the galaxy and have arraigned fights.
I started my PvP "carrier" at a CG, got blown up a few times during organic or arraigned fights by just helplessly flailing around trying to figure out FaOff and aiming at the same time.
Small practical question if I may, if I dock and enter the hangar, do I still block a 'landing slot' for other players in open ?
After a few weeks of experimenting in open, the first direct contact was the question 'you going to be long'
as if it was a toilet
After a few weeks of experimenting in open, the first direct contact was the question 'you going to be long'
as if it was a toilet