Leaving safe zone is consenting to PvP.

[JohnnyTazer]

Just now, joaocordeiro said:

Thats his fall back argument. To find a english flaw and call me a liar. 

Happened several times in the past... 

The alternative then is that anything you say is fact right? its only your opinion that matters, and its just that, an opinion. Correct?

[JohnnyTazer]

Just now, joaocordeiro said:

Is there a point here? 

Yes, that what you say is only opinion.  Not fact.  And a misguided opinion at that.

[JohnnyTazer]

3 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

Agree. 

But griefing a guy 10 times in a row trying to get to his core. 

Is being a sadist. 

Allowed. But low moral values. 

This is opinion.  Not fact.  You do realize that right? 

[joaocordeiro]

3 minutes ago, HairballHacker said:

 

I believe the point is if you kill someone once, it's not griefing

100% agree. 

But if you go out of your way(and out of any strategic reasoning) to keep doing it than its griefing. 

[JohnnyTazer]

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

Getting joy out of the despair of some one that lost their main ship is being sadistic

Opinion.  

[HairballHacker]

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.

[JohnnyTazer]

Just now, 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. 

Opinion.

[joaocordeiro]

Just now, JohnnyTazer said:

This is opinion.  Not fact.  You do realize that right? 

What?

That killing some one 10 times camping a core is griefing?

Or that greifers have low moral values? 

[JohnnyTazer]

Just now, joaocordeiro said:

What?

That killing some one 10 times camping a core is griefing?

Or that greifers have low moral values? 

 

[HairballHacker]

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.

[joaocordeiro]

3 minutes ago, HairballHacker said:

https://i.postimg.cc/vT5xtJsd/screenshot-78.png

 

Nothing about "despair" and lost "hope".

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"

[JohnnyTazer]

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. 

Linked this.  They do have recourse.  Thats what you fail to understand.  They have a choice to go back or not.  You are not entitled to GO BACK to where you died. But if you do, you have a choice how to. Bring more people and kill them is also a choice.  So once again, you are wrong, and you just proved it.  I like going over topics like this with you, because you make it so easy. 

[HairballHacker]

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.

 

 

[joaocordeiro]

8 minutes ago, HairballHacker said:

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.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=griefing

Here is another supporting definition. 

[JohnnyTazer]

This also begs a good question.  If you are so against griefing, and pvpers that have the choice to kill someone.  And NQ obviously says thats intended and how they wish to proceed regarding how the pvp zone is handled.  And pvpers are sadists.  Why are you even here?  Go play another game you like.  Not every game is for everyone, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Why must you bend the will and want the game to only cater to your needs of what is acceptable?  Please id love to hear your answer. 

[HairballHacker]

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.

[JohnnyTazer]

1 minute ago, HairballHacker said:

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.

It kinda seems like Joacoordeiro is the griefer here, he comes into a forum and game, and wants to change it and ruin our fun.  Kind of ironic. 

[joaocordeiro]

10 minutes ago, HairballHacker said:

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.

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. 

[JohnnyTazer]

6 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. 

So you are the leader of the moral standard.  Your job is to point out that people who shoot people in a video game have low moral values IN REAL LIFE. not just the video game, but are bad people in real life.  That doesn't seem absurd to you?  

 

I have reported you again.  It is dangerous to claim that you possess the power to know who is moral, and what a persons morals are in real life, based on the fact they like to play video games. 

[LouHodo]

4 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

Moral value still apply. 

And some types of pvp, even if allowed, still show your low moral values. 

What moral values?  This is a game.  What you may not consider morally right I may consider fair play.  

 

In short don't assume I subscribe to the same morals as you.

 

 

[joaocordeiro]

2 minutes ago, LouHodo said:

What moral values?  This is a game.  What you may not consider morally right I may consider fair play.  

 

In short don't assume I subscribe to the same morals as you.

 

 

True. 

But you may suffer the social consequences of your choice. 

[JohnnyTazer]

1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:

True. 

But you may suffer the social consequences of your choice. 

In game consequences, not in real life consequences.

[LouHodo]

Vast majority of the people who have been crying about being griefer are more upset that they lost everything due to poor planning on their part.  But because society has raised people to never blame themselves for failure they instead project that failure on someone else.  This calling these PVP players griefers.  When in fact they are quite far from being griefers.  These players did not prevent you from playing or even enjoying the game.  They just killed you when you entered into their domain.  

 

The lesson to be learned here is, if you don't want pvp don't leave the safe zone.

[LouHodo]

2 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

True. 

But you may suffer the social consequences of your choice. 

Depends on the circles you socialize in.  Some may praise you, others may condemn you.

 

After all a hero is just another person's villain.

[JohnnyTazer]

Just now, LouHodo said:

Vast majority of the people who have been crying about being griefer are more upset that they lost everything due to poor planning on their part.  But because society has raised people to never blame themselves for failure they instead project that failure on someone else.  This calling these PVP players griefers.  When in fact they are quite far from being griefers.  These players did not prevent you from playing or even enjoying the game.  They just killed you when you entered into their domain.  

 

The lesson to be learned here is, if you don't want pvp don't leave the safe zone.

Which has been NQ's sentiment since kickstarter.  I just wanted to make this thread to help clarify NQ's stance on PVP for people who were unaware.  So if they have not purchased a subscription, they can read this and be more informed about what kind of game it is, and what NQ's stance is.  Im all for people researching the type of game something it is before they buy so they can make informed decisions on where and how to spend their money on games.