I intend to take full advantage too
There you go FD; the challenge is there to deal With!
the station bandit last night
- Thread starter CMDR Noctivagus
- Start date
There you go FD; the challenge is there to deal With!
Manipulation is not the only characteristic of evil and you're taking (IMO) more about lawful-evil. What about chaotic-evil or neutral-evil ? (Yes, I RP with dice). To answer your Q yes - I have. NWN permanent rp server; death was final (HC) lawful-evil pure halfling rogue. A lot of hard work, very difficult to progress (mod awarded XP) but great fun. My only regret was it was US based so time zones got in the way.Olrik said:
In short then playing 2 persona is not that hard, especially if one of them is "you" and you know yourself.
Play ironman then .. Whilst not perma death but if you die you're ejected from the ironman universe into normal, so from the ironman universe point of view it's perma as that move is 1 way. Hopefully see you in there - it's where I will beOlrik said:
You make some valid points about Eve and the "fun" that went on there - let's hope FD can learn something.
Last edited:
I see no valid reason to block a pirate. There is a huge difference between a pirate and a griefer.
Great. I take my hat off to you
( but a lawful evil char does not enjoy conflict, its a char institutionally ambitious)
I am an old "Daggerford/Penitence/Haze" player, if you know what it means -low level (4-5), low magic. (NWN1)
Edit:
As we know, a chaotic evil char is not necessarely chaotic stupid
Last edited:
Yes
I've enjoyed that HBO catch phrase.No I don't. I suspect I'll try it out myself.
A pirate in Elite is not a mindless killer. There is no profit in killing. A pirate is somebody who takes cargo from the fat merchant, or protection money from people running with nothing but 300 tons of wheat in their cargo.
A smart pirate doesn't take it all, and leaves enough that the merchant makes a profit and comes back. Be a parasite, not a rabid killer.
If you read the design documents, you'll find out that a pirate that kills the target gets no pirate rep, and is not considered successful. A pirate that takes the loot and lets the target fly away is not really a person of interest to the governments (though the trader may well post a bounty on you).
I'm opposed to any tear collecting so commin in certain other games. I'm opposed to mindlessly blowing up other players for the challenge. That makes no sense in the game world, and is not very interesting gameplay.
Those who mainly want to fight, should find a warzone, a cause. Those on the other side (NPC and PC will be there to fight you). Those who want to be pirates should do it _for_profit_, and the profit is not in killing merchants.
I see no valid reason to block a pirate. There is a huge difference between a pirate and a griefer.
Nope. Peoples definition of "griefing" is so general and covers many things.
People ion Alpha are getting upset at being attacking in FFA...of all places
I can 99.99% say that 99% of people attacked by pirates will just ignore/block the pirate Cmdr. Simple, job done, never going to be "griefed" by that Cmdr again.
This forum is full of threads like this complaining about being attacked when they just want to "play" the game.
Why would this be any different when the game is released?
imo the ignore/block functionality should be removed and it completed destroys the pirating role.
If people want to avoid a Cmdr they can just go into a private group with their mates. There are simply too many ways, which are very easy, to avoid ever meeting a human pirate...and people will use them.
I see no valid reason to block a pirate. There is a huge difference between a pirate and a griefer.
Nonsense: Olrik is spot on. Those people who think otherwise are just wrong in the context of the Elite Universe (as defined by FD). However, of course, mindlessly shooting up any ship that appears on your scanner is not piracy. But a genuine pirate who tries to extort your cargo or protection money should not be blocked. I know that many will: but they are cheating themselves by making the game easier (and also making it not really Elite).
I have seen no evidence of that: it would be daft. People complaining about being attacked elsewehere, sure. Which would get us into the usual (and by now pointless) argument about testing vs griefing. The sooner we get A4, and thus something new to do, the better.People ion Alpha are getting upset at being attacking in FFA...of all places
I do hope you are wrong, but I fear significant numbers will. Blocking a genuine griefer I can understand. And once a blocking mechanism has been introduced, people will 'abuse' it. A great shame, but getting the balance right between remaining true to the spirit of Elite (and thus allowing piracy) whilst trying to prevent griefing is very difficult. It remains to be seen whether FD can pull it off.
Well, to the extent that there is an answer, I'm sure that you already know it. In game, there will be consequences. At the moment there are no consequences (unless you call being named and shamed on a thread in here a consequence). Hence we get {feel free to insert your favourite insult here} griefers justifying it by pretending to be testing. As per all those previous threads.
I tend to agree, but I suspect it will not happen.
I wasn't saying whether they were wrong or not. All I was saying is that ones persons definition of being "griefed" is very very different to someone elses.
...and how can a player on the receiving end of this know if it's mindless attacking, or actual piracy?
There are LOADS of posts by people complaining about being attacked in FFA...not so much in the last few weeks...but a steady stream of posts since Alpha 2.0 was released. People have also complained about being shot in E&C (asteroid belt) even when they have a 5k bounty on them. As I said earlier peoples perception of the word "griefer" is very different.
Yup. Having a block function is just like a switch saying "Avoid piracy and spawn campers". Yes it helps avoid people who gank and spawn camp 3 on 1...but it also prevents piracy being a viable option against human players.
tbh I am not sure what the right solution would be for this. It's definitely a tricky one.
So what? The game's core reason to exist isn't to allow PvP piracy. If "everybody" is opting out, then a pirate player will consentrate on NPC prey. They may still rnd up challenged by PC bounty hunters.
Elite allows people who choose to avoid repeated PvP encounters. If this is a problem, I recommend sticking with EVE.
Don't agree, mate. First of all pirates will always have NPC targets; a lot more of them than players. Secondly, victims of piracy may want the chance for revenge, or may not care too much to block / ignore. But it's good to have the option to ignore / block someone who basically winds you up in one way or another. The idea is that the game is attractive to lots of people, not just hardcore players. So it's good to have options.
I'm getting really tired of repeating this.
It will be _easy_ to tell. A pirate in Elite starts with a declaration of piracy. A "stand and deliver" if you will. A random assault out of the blue isn't piracy in Elite.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Whilst of course you are entitled to your view I have to strongly disagree.
Why should I be forced into putting up with people who abuse me (outside of the roles in elite) in my game, with my only other choice being to leave online play?.
I am probably going to be a bounty hunter, so the same is true for me, pirates may block me, but that is their choice.
If I have a bounty and get attacked by a human, so be it. IF I attack a human pirate (I am undecided on that one, it may be I choose to mostly attack NPCs unless I see a human pirate attack a human trader, then I will stick my oar in) then if they best me then fair enough but it should be my choice who to block imo - anyone who plays obnoxious music down their mic and screams at me like a kid (happens a lot on xbox games) = insta block...
Last edited:
Exactly. Having the option to pick who we want to play with is just fine. Forcing people to put up with obsnoxious individuals quickly drains the fun out of things.
I think a random attack out of the blue which drains your shields and then surgically opens your cargo hatch (but does not destroy your ship) is also valid piracy. I don't think the 'stand and deliver' has to be mandatory.I'm getting really tired of repeating this.
It will be _easy_ to tell. A pirate in Elite starts with a declaration of piracy. A "stand and deliver" if you will. A random assault out of the blue isn't piracy in Elite.
But the general point is correct: It should be easy to tell if it is a 'real' pirate or not.
No one has an issue with a mechanism to stop griefing. I think the problem here is that many pirates will be ignored (and this will escalate to published ignore lists) for playing the game in one of the ways it is meant to played. This will hugely diminish the gaming experience for all.
a) I have kept reasonably up to date on the forum, and cannot recall a single whinge about being attacked in FFA. It is, after all, FFA: explicitly free for all so anything goes. Now, I may have just switched off complaints from people who did not understand FFA means FFA, and thus did not understand that they could have been attacked, but I would class those under the same bracket as my reply to your next point.
b) Yes, I understand that people have different perceptions about what is and is not griefing. And my 'Nonsense' was directed at your 'nope', not at the comment about perceptions. I fully accept that people have different perceptions. But people can be wrong (even me, sometimes), and those different perceptions cannot, in themselves, make genuine piracy equal griefing. There are certain actions that are explicitly nor griefing, as per the FD (as yet unwritten) manual for the game. And genuine piracy is one of those (as is being attacked by a bounty hunter when you have a bounty). Sure individuals can grumble to themselves about that being griefing, but they would be wrong.
Piracy
That's interesting. See, I don't think there are 'rules' or 'guidelines' for piracy. A pirate isn't obliged to give you fair warning, and should be able to sink, burn and destroy, and then face the consequences of that. I for one won't be doing any piracy, and don't relish the prospect of having my trusty old Asp Explorer being blown to smithereens. But piracy and treachery is one of the things that will make Elite: Dangerous, well... Dangerous. But I don't want persistent harassment and as the number of players in a Multiplayer instance is limited, I for one would like to play with cooperative people. That's just the way I want to play the game.
People with piratical tendencies will be able to do what they want, but the argument of "npcs aren't a challenge" doesn't hold water if actually people want a carte blanche to prey on the weakest, which is often the norm for pirates. Pirates on this forum do have to realise that casual players won't want their progress severely set back when they have limited playing time. People also need to understand that piracy is part of the game. So 'ignoring / blocking' gives some hope to people who want to play in a certain way.
That's interesting. See, I don't think there are 'rules' or 'guidelines' for piracy. A pirate isn't obliged to give you fair warning, and should be able to sink, burn and destroy, and then face the consequences of that. I for one won't be doing any piracy, and don't relish the prospect of having my trusty old Asp Explorer being blown to smithereens. But piracy and treachery is one of the things that will make Elite: Dangerous, well... Dangerous. But I don't want persistent harassment and as the number of players in a Multiplayer instance is limited, I for one would like to play with cooperative people. That's just the way I want to play the game.
People with piratical tendencies will be able to do what they want, but the argument of "npcs aren't a challenge" doesn't hold water if actually people want a carte blanche to prey on the weakest, which is often the norm for pirates. Pirates on this forum do have to realise that casual players won't want their progress severely set back when they have limited playing time. People also need to understand that piracy is part of the game. So 'ignoring / blocking' gives some hope to people who want to play in a certain way.
The OP should never have mentioned his real life issues as they have zero relevance to a gaming thread. That's not to say I am dismissing his issue, just that there is a time and place for things.
The game needs to know your intentions hence the stand and deliver option - activate that and the game (and pilot) know for sure what you are going to do. A great pirate should be able to take your cargo without firing a shot
True (sadly)
There have to be rules governing piracy to differentiate between that and murder.
Pirates won't be able to "do what they want" as there will be 3 sets of pilots after them (bounty hunters; police and navy) and a lot of systems will be closed off to them. On top of that if caught your bounty is turned into a fine, so being a pirate isn't the easy life - far from it .. Probably the hardest role in the game.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that you can so easily assert that the game experience would be diminished for all by the common blocking of pirates. I think you'll find it hard to find a victim that's blocked their aggressor who will consider the whole game experience has consequentially been diminished for them.
It would seem to result in a situation where players that enjoy a more peaceful game will see a more peaceful world and aggressive players will see a more aggressive world.
The problem with this is that when you make the game experience different for different players you are quite likely to give some of those players an advantage. The more pirates that a player blocks, the easier it will be for them to make trade runs safely. Another player doing the same trade runs but who does not have all the local pirates blocked will be playing a much more difficult game.
That would be unfair and if that's the likely result of allowing players to block each other then something should probably be done to address that.