HairballHacker
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by HairballHacker
-
-
21 hours ago, Underhook said:
Combat implies your opponent also has a gun. In many cases the correct term would be slaughter. That said 'm all for combat but in this game they have PvP instead
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.
-
On 11/5/2020 at 9:02 AM, lucagrabacr said:
I just don't want DU to end up like ED where there's a completely separate path of gameplay without any PvP because of some hardcoded distinction or barrier (their solo / private group mode), essentially undermining the whole universe of the game
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.
- lucagrabacr and AlexRingess
-
2
-
On 10/15/2020 at 1:02 AM, Massacher said:
I contacted Xsolla support and this is their first response:
I had already submitted my request using that form. So I don't know why they asked me to do it again?
The next day this is their response:
So am I going to get a refund or not? Who issues them? Xsolla or game support? Whoever that is.
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.
-
On 10/24/2020 at 5:11 AM, carijay766 said:
In my experience even if it was tolerated before or even fully legalized NQ is very prone to spontaneously doing a 180° turn and you'll get punished out of the blue. So even if they'd say ingame scamming is okay or the like, you're always at risk to become a victim of their randomness at any time.
Judging from the posts no one here has an actual clue about what goes and what not, due to the indeed insanely vague rules and NQs inconsistency and despotism. They're all waiting for some made up excuses from NQ to tell you "that was obvious" in hindsight.
So much for the boundless limitless civilization sandbox world that the game was pitched as. At this point the game is more crippled by the overlying shadow of terrorism from the Devs than your average theme park game and on top of that you got random acts of nonsense by the devs.
Role play that NQ is a whimsical god. Enqueism.
-
I'd love to have a silver account! Sorry you are not happy.
-
-
1 hour ago, Mordgier said:
Literally the same thing gets said about Minecraft. And EVE is Excel in Space. Elite Dangerous is Poop Hauling Simulator.
You can make some extremely simplistic generalist judgment about most games with intent to make them look uninteresting.
I absolutely agree that in the current state vital core elements of the game are simply missing based on what the premise of the game was. I do not agree that what is there is not a gameplay loop that will keep some people playing for years to come even with no additions.
There is certainly a carrot, and that is building more and more and more - that may not be a carrot you want to chase, and that's fine, but it's certainly there.
I respectfully disagree.
Elite Dangerous is 'Carebears in Space'.
- IvanGrozniy and Mordgier
-
2
-
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
-
26 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
Im not talking about conventional piracy.
Im talking about griefing.
Are you saying losing your stuff to piracy does not cause "overwhelming feeling of loss and sorrow"? Because that was YOUR definition of griefing.
-
58 minutes ago, LouHodo said:
Griefing is utilizing a bug or exploit to prevent someone from playing or enjoying the game.
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:
-
7 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
Out of the 6XX that voted.
I dont need you to recognize me. The reason i reply to this is influence ppl thinking about griefing to stay out of it.
Not ppl that already made up their minds.
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.
-
33 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
It also shows that 595 persons agree with my definition of griefing.
NQ has set the rules. Im not against them.
But i need to make clear to everyone that some types of PVP are very low in the moral scale.
In the same way as ppl are allowed to search alioth for bases with permissive RDMS rules and take their stuff. That player is allowed to do it. But his moral values are very low.
595 people. Wow. Out of how many millions of gamers?
Also, I don't recognize your self-appointed position of Arbiter of Moral Scales.
-
3 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=griefing
Here is another supportimg definition.
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.
-
1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:
On the same article, below:
"Camping at a corpse or spawn area to repeatedly kill players as they respawn (when players have no method of recourse to prevent getting killed), preventing them from being able to play. Camping can also refer to continuously waiting in a tactically advantageous position for others to come to them; this is sometimes considered griefing because if all players do it, the game stalls, but this is now more commonly considered a game design issue"
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.
-
3 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
100% agree.
But if you go out of your way(and out of any strategic reasoning) to keep doing it than its griefing.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
Why dont you google it.
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.
-
Just now, JohnnyTazer said:
No you said 10, which implies 9 and below is ok. Otherwise why say "10" at all? if 10 is meaningless. Which is it? You need to clarify or leave the thread.
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.
-
1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:
Its called despair.
Hope is allways there.
Thats what greifers use, their victim's hope.
You totally just made that up so that you could argue.
-
1 minute ago, JohnnyTazer said:
But not 9 correct. I can kill someone 9 times in a row and retain my high morals.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
No. He is responsible for his bad choices. But the moral values of the person killing him 10 times are still very low. Independent of the responsibility.
That person is still greifing.
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.
-
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.
- sbjyolo, JohnnyTazer, Anopheles and 1 other
-
4
-
2 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:
Agreed. Its super risky backing alpha games these days. But NQ is not only making me feel good about my investment, they are making me want to spend money on their product for potentially decades.
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.
-
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).
-
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.
Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2
in General Discussions
Posted
No, it would be to win the combat.