Jump to content

HairballHacker

Member
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HairballHacker

  1. No, it does not imply the other guy has a gun. In fact, combat operations are more successful if you can get the drop on your opponent when he is not ready.
  2. YES! I was thinking of posting your graphic ('say "combat" not "PvP) over on the ED forums. There the debate has never ceased and is always polarized between the same two toxic extremes. FDev responded and as a result much of the game has been ruined IMO. I really don't want that to happen to DU.
  3. This is pretty much standard operating procedure with player-backed games. Such games often change direction during development. This sort of risk is almost always stated plainly up front (but many players seem to act oblivious when they decide they want a refund). Live and learn.
  4. Role play that NQ is a whimsical god. Enqueism.
  5. I respectfully disagree. Elite Dangerous is 'Carebears in Space'.
  6. LOL, what? Multi-boxing is P2W?? It may be forbidden, but that doesn't make it P2W. P2W means "Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying." https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pay-to-win
  7. Are you saying losing your stuff to piracy does not cause "overwhelming feeling of loss and sorrow"? Because that was YOUR definition of griefing.
  8. Yup. This is it right here. I am reminded of people in Elite Dangerous, back in the day, parking their Anaconda in the entrance to stations so no one could enter\leave. Classic griefing right there. Wikipedia has the right of it:
  9. So now you are a vigilante? That's not how this thread started. I think you are changing the subject. I don't think people need you to tell them to avoid PvP situations that they might not like. But if I am wrong, then start your own thread on how they can stay safe.
  10. 595 people. Wow. Out of how many millions of gamers? Also, I don't recognize your self-appointed position of Arbiter of Moral Scales.
  11. This just goes to show that there is no definitive definition of "griefing". In which case there is no rational resolution to this debate. All that remains is NQ's definition of consent to PvP within the context of DU.
  12. That is true in the case of respawns, where the player has no control over where he respawns. But we were talking about a player returning over and over to his lost core only to be killed by the same person each time. In this case the "victim" has complete control. He is not forced to return to his core to retrieve it. He is choosing to put himself into that situation. If he insists on returning and gets killed, he did so by his own choice and was not griefed. Please refer to NQs stance on consenting to PvP.
  13. No. According to the definition I just posted, the "griefer" would have to be using aspects of the game in unintended ways. In this example, he is not using aspects of the game in unintended ways per NQs stance on PvP.
  14. https://i.postimg.cc/vT5xtJsd/screenshot-78.png Nothing about "despair" and lost "hope". You will also note that someone killing a player more than once over their lost core is not using aspects of the game in unintended ways.
  15. You two harping on 9 vs 10 is silly. Please stop. It's not really the point. I believe the point is if you kill someone once, it's not griefing (unless you are an Elite Dangerous player in which case it is). If the same person kills the same person again, then it is griefing according to a very, very strict reading of the most common definitions of griefing. But again, what is missing is the fact that the so-called victim consented to PvP and is returning to the scene expecting a different outcome each time.
  16. You totally just made that up so that you could argue.
  17. Or maybe 10 different people kill him. Is it griefing then? NO, according to the definition of "griefing". The thing that joaocorde is stubbornly refusing to understand is that, in the killed-10-times-trying-to-retrieve-his-core example, the "victim" is choosing to return expecting a different outcome each time. The so-called griefer is being mean by camping the core, but the "victim" is knowingly putting himself in a situation where he will be killed again. Both party's are reprehensible IMO. NQ's attitude towards taking personal responsibility for entering into a PvP situation (which is what this issue is really about, not the "official" definition of griefing [if there even really is such a thing]) is admirable and to be commended in my opinion. If they back off on their stance, I will be very disappointed.
  18. If the person comes back 10 times for his core and he gets killed by the same person 10 times, it's not griefing. The person getting killed 10 times is stubbornly not learning his lesson that he should just give up. But if he wants to bring it upon himself, then so be it.
  19. OP: NQ's attitude towards PvP and consent to PvP is SO refreshing I can hardly believe it. It really is about time that a game company put the responsibility of engaging in PvP back on the player where it belongs. This is the way the game is. It has PvP. If you don't like it, don't play it.
  20. That's how I feel too. I've been very disappointed backing some other games that changed focus. So I didn't back this game long ago fearing the same thing would happen. But I am feeling like this game might actually hold firm to it's goals. I am more likely to invest (if I still can). But for me, the subscription makes the game a no-go for me if team-based\territory control (non-ganker) conflict PvP does not happen or gets too watered down. If that made any sense. Fingers crossed.
  21. I like how JC said, if effect, that if you want to enter PvP zones you will want to think about what you are doing first, plan for it, and prepare your ship; that the game will not hold your hand for you. Otherwise, your ship will get exploded. That sort of taking-personal-responsibility for your decisions PvP-wise is sorely missing from some other games I could mention. I applaud them (NQ).
  22. I became interested in DU primarily because of the open world PvP. For me, it has to be in the game if I am going to pay a subscription. That and the fact that I really don't want a situation like in ED where people can hide in Solo and manipulate the BGS in total safety. People here have already demonstrated on these forums and assumed that I must be a "ganker" because I support open world PvP. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I like team-based PvP as it involves utilizing strategy to outwit their opponents and an unpredictability that you can't really find in PvE.
×
×
  • Create New...