The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Sakashiro]

So in your words ganking is form of trolling. Also BANNING the trolls would work. Or blocking them for good.

For a ban you'd need to prove targeted harassment. I've outlined a way how this might work here, but of course the decision is up to FDev.

Blocking is OK, if you can accept the consequences. Block too many people, and you'll be alone most of the time. Might as well stay in solo then.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

For a ban you'd need to prove targeted harassment. I've outlined a way how this might work here, but of course the decision is up to FDev.

Blocking is OK, if you can accept the consequences. Block too many people, and you'll be alone most of the time. Might as well stay in solo then.

Trolls ought to be banned. Perhaps it should be time to update the rules.

 

[Morbad]

Frontier don't choose to set the challenge such that it would require players to outfit all ships to handle combat to some degree.

Should probably redact that, "Every member of the Pilot’s Federation must be able to understand and employ the basic principles of ship-to-ship combat." line out of the manual. It's always been complete nonsense. Pilot's Federation members aren't even required to be able to pilot a ship.

If the bubble is invaded, gankships will need AX protection, too.

They can just disengage.

If you fly a hardened ship, they don't want your content.

Absent more pressing targets, SDC wings used to chase my CMDR's FDLs and Corvettes all over the place.

That's one approach - if one wants to give the gankers anything at all, even the time wasted interacting with them.

I don't give them anything. They are just another uncommon and usually trivial environmental hazard. Same as white dwarfs or gravity. Occasionally, they offer challenges that are rarely encountered elsewhere, in which case they give as much as they take.

 

[Sakashiro]

Trolls ought to be banned. Perhaps it should be time to update the rules.

The rules already allow that. Malicious targeting for the purposes of disruption or agitation. If that's not trolling, what is it?

The problem of course is that the ganker can claim they didn't realize you were not into PvP. And that's where the suggested ship tags come in. If your ship name clearly says "NO PVP", the ganker can't pretend they didn't know. It is rock-solid evidence that they targeted you "for the purposes of disruption or agitation".

 

[TiberiusDuval]

The rules already allow that. Malicious targeting for the purposes of disruption or agitation. If that's not trolling, what is it?

The problem of course is that the ganker can claim they didn't realize you were not into PvP. And that's where the suggested ship tags come in. If your ship name clearly says "NO PVP", the ganker can't pretend they didn't know. It is rock-solid evidence that they targeted you "for the purposes of disruption or agitation".

Current rules allow PVP, like it or not. Except in cases of constant malicious targetin.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Current rules allow PVP, like it or not. Except in cases of constant malicious targetin.

Indeed - and the options available to players give them ways to play without ever giving those who want to force interactions upon them the opportunity to do so.

 

[Morbad]

It is rock-solid evidence that they targeted you "for the purposes of disruption or agitation".

It's rock solid evidence of indifference to a non-contextual request, which is not something I think qualifies as harassment.

If you're playing in the same setting my character is and you haven't use the tools available to exclude your character from direct interaction with mine, your character is fair game. I will completely ignore anything that seems to reference anything my character could not possibly know about from an in-character perspective, and I will do this with utterly no animosity nor intent to inflict any sort of harm or distress on the player behind that character. I've already give all reasonable accommodation by not projecting my personal feelings about any player into my character's actions and sticking to the rules of the game.

If someone wants to prove harassment, they have to go a lot further. Indifference to OCC nonsense is not harassment. If someone is having a bad day or can't handle the gameplay that can rationally be expected, the onus is on them to leave, not on me to drop what I'm doing and break character to coddle them.

 

[Ettanin]

Current rules allow PVP, like it or not. Except in cases of constant malicious targetin.

The problem is the very blurry line for "malicious targeting"...
... is stream sniping malicious targeting? Likely. The streamer himself is targeted.
... is destroying the same player time and time again, potentially until rebuy is impossible, malicious targeting? Maybe. The issue here is, is it visible that the player behind the character is the target?

Then there is the problem that FDev is unable to see the out-of-game context of the action by the logs alone unless it somehow gets talked about in the news or on popular platforms in a way that makes it impossible for FDev to be blind to that issue (see DW2 vs DG2 or the Fleet Carrier slavery issue).
This makes the harassment ruling very messy to apply.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

It's rock solid evidence of indifference to a non-contextual request, which is not something I think qualifies as harassment.

If you're playing in the same setting my character is and you haven't use the tools available to exclude your character from direct interaction with mine, your character is fair game. I will completely ignore anything that seems to reference anything my character could not possibly know about from an in-character perspective, and I will do this with utterly no animosity nor intent to inflict any sort of harm or distress on the player behind that character. I've already give all reasonable accommodation by not projecting my personal feelings about any player into my character's actions and sticking to the rules of the game.

If someone wants to prove harassment, they have to go a lot further. Indifference to OCC nonsense is not harassment. If someone is having a bad day or can't handle the gameplay that can rationally be expected, the onus is on them to leave, not on me to drop what I'm doing and break character to coddle them.

Me quoting Morbad is kind of futile as I'm in his ignore list (blocked I say), but if you target my commander once, well it happens. Twice maybe coincidence. Thrice actual malice.

 

[Sakashiro]

Current rules allow PVP, like it or not. Except in cases of constant malicious targetin.

"Constant" is not a requirement. The rules say "prolonged, extensive, and/or malicious", i.e. only one of those criteria needs to be met.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

"Constant" is not a requirement. The rules say "prolonged, extensive, and/or malicious", i.e. only one of those criteria needs to be met.

My rule for reporting would be thrice...

 

[Dragsham]

Play on words all you like.
Seems clear to me that pvp is deemed bannable when the pvper has repeatedly (prolonged) harassed a cmdr destroying his ship many times. Or repeatedly threatening in chat over n over (prolonged) so on so forth. Or combined thereof.
That's harassment which is bannable offence if proven.
But attacking a cmdr who isn't into pvp is tough doo doo.
The cmdr not wanting any pvp should fly solo or pg. And if they do choose to fly open its fair game assuming the pvper isn't harassing or being rude threatening or so on.

 

[Sakashiro]

The cmdr not wanting any pvp should fly solo or pg.

But that's not what they will do. They will instead block everyone and their dog, and mess up instancing in the process. If we don't want that to happen, we need to give them alternatives.

 

[Dragsham]

Why? Clearly they don't want to be shot at?
So I ask why be somewhere where you can be shot at, when there's other modes where you cannot be shot at that do exactly the same thing.
Now if there's other aspects like for example, piracy. In character etc. Ah yeah then the lines get hazy.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Why? Clearly they don't want to be shot at?
So I ask why be somewhere where you can be shot at, when there's other modes where you cannot be shot at that do exactly the same thing.
Now if there's other aspects like for example, piracy. In character etc. Ah yeah then the lines get hazy.

Because other modes are not same. Give us Open/Pve and quite likely blocking would go away, except against certain trolls.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Untill then people are going to make their own Open/PVE, and that does involve blocking anything they don't like.

 

[Dragsham]

Because other modes are not same.

How are they not the same?
The only difference between other modes is the chance of meeting a real cmdr. That's it. No other difference.

There should be! But there isnt

 

[Morbad]

if you target my commander once, well it happens. Twice maybe coincidence. Thrice actual malice.

If any given character habitually gets in my character's way, my character will remove them as often as possible/required. It's not malice against the game or it's developers when I have my character eradicate habitually annoying NPCs and it's not malice against any player when I have my character apply the same standards to CMDRs, even if he ends up shooting someone down a thousand times. Someone doesn't want to get shot at by my CMDR, they'll leave my CMDR alone.

In practice it's rarely an issue. Either my CMDR comes out ahead and the offender leaves the area, or my CMDR is driven off. I've never intentionally or knowingly harassed anyone through the game. I've occasionally been harassed in-game, but that's usually via chat, and more rarely via the abuse of other mechanisms; never been harassed via in-game violence.

My CMDR has behaved remorselessly to his enemies and has been territorial at times. Sometimes this does lead to my CMDR shooting down another CMDR many times in rapid succession. I've never been banned, shadowbanned, censured, or even warned about any of my in-game behavior, which doesn't surprise me, as I consider it completely above board, only engage in non-consensual hostilities accordance with my CMDR's established character and goals, and I never insult other players, nor bring any out-of-character animosities into the game.

But that's not what they will do. They will instead block everyone and their dog, and mess up instancing in the process. If we don't want that to happen, we need to give them alternatives.

They already have alternatives.

Pandering to the irrational in the hopes of making up for the flaws of a broken system is no solution as far as I am concerned. If instancing/matchmaking is doomed to remain a mess, I'll at least have the consolation that I didn't compromise my integrity as a player.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

How are they not the same?
The only difference between other modes is the chance of meeting a real cmdr. That's it. No other difference.

There should be! But there isnt

PG's are member capped. And for Solo lets give us then REAL singleplayer game with mods and such stuff. Instead of playing MP without other players.

 

[Dragsham]

I too enjoy pvp. I love destroying cmdrs who pit their wits n skills against me.
Or be destroyed by someone better than l.
Whichever or however, pvp has a place.
OPEN ONLY with bgs pp buffs for those involved. Whilst solo get nowt cos it's modded locally and no longer part of the bgs pp would be heaven hehehehe.
Not going to happen