Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place

Deleted member 115407

D
Han Zulu said:
Interesting. I'd say griefing or any non-agreed PvP is an interference with the experience of the Game.
Click to expand...

That's an overly-broad interpretation of the condition. The intent of 4.4, clearly, is to prevent or discourage actions that would interfere with the game as an accessible service, not to discourage or prevent in-game actions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Han Zulu

Han Zulu
StiTch said:
On that note, so does mission running. By running crime missions for instance you can send a station into lockdown, interfering with many many other players' evening.

So if you have ever run a mission, traded, or done anything that affects the BGS, you should be banned.

Glad we cleared that up :)
Click to expand...
Very true! In other words, the EULA isn't clear. Everything that's done in a multiplayer game could be considered an interference. Even me, exploring, scanning new systems and turning them in, and they're flagged as First Discover By, which now means that Billy can't get that First tag. But he really wants to! I even had the experience of finding an ELW a while back, and I was first, but before I managed to get to a station someone else get there, scanned it, and went to the station, and got the tag. It happens, and I can't be peeved about it, but it did interfere with my experience. So yeah, you're absolutely right. The EULA rule is too unclear.
 

Han Zulu

Han Zulu
vindelanos said:
That's an overly-broad interpretation of the condition. The intent of 4.4, clearly, is to prevent or discourage actions that would interfere with the game as an accessible service, not to discourage or prevent in-game actions.
Click to expand...
You mean it's not addressing the experience of the game play but the only experience of having access to the game? It still would mean that the rule isn't clear. The way I read it, it's about the experience of playing the game, not just having access to it.

--edit

Sorry. I read the rule again with what you said in mind, and you're right. My bad. It's really about the access of the game and not the actual game play experience.
 
Last edited:

StiTch

StiTch
Han Zulu said:
The EULA rule is too unclear.
Click to expand...

It doesn't relate to in-game actions. Griefing is actually defined elsewhere, and carries its own penalty. This definition effectively boils down to harassment - deliberately targeting a specific CMDR to repeatedly knock him down, especially for out of game reasons, or where insults were thrown, is the correct scenario for the report/block function to be used.

Non-consensual PvP is part of the game by design - in the earlier stages, devs were actually very big on the idea of PvP piracy.

A certain someone just likes riling players up with deliberately misconstrued sections of the ToS. I've actually come to appreciate a certain someone as a surprisingly adept troll.
 

Deleted member 115407

D
Han Zulu said:
You mean it's not addressing the experience of the game play but the only experience of having access to the game? It still would mean that the rule isn't clear. The way I read it, it's about the experience of playing the game, not just having access to it.

--edit

Sorry. I read it again with what you said in mind, and you're right. My bad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's all in the keywords.

our systems or security...
-damage
-disable
-impair
-overburden
-compromise

users of the Game or any Online Feature...
-interfere with the experience of

You could certainly say it is an interference with the experience of another user to gank them, but the rest of the rule clear is about systems, code, security, etc.
 

Deleted member 115407

D
StiTch said:
A certain someone just likes riling players up with deliberately misconstrued sections of the ToS. I've actually come to appreciate a certain someone as a surprisingly adept troll.
Click to expand...

It's a favorite tactic for some - the deliberate misinterpretation of vagaries in rules and laws just to support their arguments.

Not saying that's what deliberately happened here, but it certainly does happen.
 

jasonbarron

jasonbarron
StiTch said:
It doesn't relate to in-game actions. Griefing is actually defined elsewhere, and carries its own penalty. This definition effectively boils down to harassment - deliberately targeting a specific CMDR to repeatedly knock him down, especially for out of game reasons, or where insults were thrown, is the correct scenario for the report/block function to be used.

Non-consensual PvP is part of the game by design - in the earlier stages, devs were actually very big on the idea of PvP piracy.

A certain someone just likes riling players up with deliberately misconstrued sections of the ToS. I've actually come to appreciate a certain someone as a surprisingly adept troll.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly adept troll...or remarkably competent bot? I can't make up my mind on that one.
 

Jockey79

Jockey79
Han Zulu said:
Interesting. I'd say griefing or any non-agreed PvP is an interference with the experience of the Game.
Click to expand...

It depends on what mode you're in. If you're in open, then you have consented to non-agreed PvP by joining.
If you're in a PG with no PvP rules, then you'd be looking at 7.3.1 for harassment / bullying for non-agreed PvP.

Section 4 covers acceptable use of the software (game), acceptable use of the service (not collect info from it, not try to destabilise it (combat log for example) or try to access FD servers through it), IP rights and not breaking local laws. It has nothing to do with in game actions.
 

Starwolfe

S
StiTch said:
For most, the main desire is to restrict or remove the ability to change the Open BGS through PG/Solo, or split it to a different BGS, because there would be one game mode where players can make a real difference, and true consequence reigns for all (murders most definitely included).
Click to expand...

If that was the case, you'd be arguing for a solo-offline mode.
 

Brrokk

Brrokk
Jockey79 said:
It depends on what mode you're in. If you're in open, then you have consented to non-agreed PvP by joining...
Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at, but that terminology is wrong. If I'm in Open, I haven't consented to PvP, I just know it might happen.

And by trying to push the argument too far you've actually fallen into a contradiction. "Consented...non-agreed". Those have opposite meanings.
 

Mike Reacher

Mike Reacher
I wonder if, by walking down the street, to get a bit of Macca's, you would consider that to be consent to be robbed, or even have your shoe ripped off and be tickled to death.
Consent is consent! Being attacked any way, any time, is not consent to be ........ whatever!
 
Last edited:

Sirius Agent

Sirius Agent
Zieman said:
Most toxic are those players who cannot stand the fact that PvP doesn't dominate the whole game.
Belittling, insults, all kinds of negative behaviour comes from them. The perceived "toxicity" of those who (foolishly) respond that behaviour is just the trolls projecting their world view to their victims.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not hardcore pvp player, I'm playing in every instance depend from reloging... but most toxic posts on forums are from players which have been attacked in open play.
 

Theodrid

Theodrid
Pawel Sebastian said:
Nope. I'm not hardcore pvp player, I'm playing in every instance depend from reloging... but most toxic posts on forums are from players which have been attacked in open play.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, both sides have been giving as good as they are getting, scared, carebear, forumdads etc is just as insulting as psycho, children and griefer - to believe anything else is the case is blinkered biased cow dung.
 

Jockey79

Jockey79
Mike Reacher said:
I wonder if, by walking down the street, to get a bit of Macca's, you would consider that to be consent to be robbed, or even have your shoe ripped off and be tickled to death.
Consent is consent! Being attacked any way, any time, is not consent to be ........ whatever!
Click to expand...

In a game where you choose who to play with, then choosing to play with people who will shoot you is giving your consent.
Otherwise you'd play the game without those people in it.

And if real life had the option of Open/PG/Solo - I'd think a grown adult going for "Macca's" (I'm assuming this is McDonald's?) would pick Solo out of shame so no one could see them going :p
 

StiTch

StiTch
Brrokk said:
I see what you're getting at, but that terminology is wrong. If I'm in Open, I haven't consented to PvP, I just know it might happen.
Click to expand...

If you want to look at it that way sure, but you don't need to give specific consent. Joining Open is an agreement it might happen, and importantly that as a legitimate part of the game you will handle the situation equally legitimately. So in effect...you consented :)

What'd be super nice if we could instead refer to actions as whether they are legitimate/against ToS, rather than dramatically throwing around the term "consent" in the first place as though they have been harrowed as a victim of sexual assault. The dramatisation employed sometimes just beggars belief.


Jockey79 said:
And if real life had the option of Open/PG/Solo - I'd think a grown adult going for "Macca's" (I'm assuming this is McDonald's?) would pick Solo out of shame so no one could see them going
tongue.png
Click to expand...

If RL had Open/PG/Solo then bank robberies would be incessant. If you think that BGS manipulation is a problem in a game.... :D
 
Last edited:

Sirius Agent

Sirius Agent
Theodrid said:
Nonsense, both sides have been giving as good as they are getting, scared, carebear, forumdads etc is just as insulting as psycho, children and griefer - to believe anything else is the case is blinkered biased cow dung.
Click to expand...

Yes, but all this kind of discussions was started by some crying mature guy who was destroyed in Open. This is nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom