Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... and "vicious circle".
PvP vs Piracy...they are not the same.
- Thread starter SyberSmoke
- Start date
.... and "vicious circle".
I and others don't want to. It's that simple and unfortunately it's the people who play with your attitude who are making PvP piracy an unviable play style. I don't combat log because i'm careful with my credits but if a player trader decides that he's not going to give a PK psychopath the satisfaction then I don't care if they choose that option. When PK's start behaving in a decent manner and when the consequences of the action match the consequences a trader faces then things might change.
That makes no sense, if you blow them up you are guaranteed to get zero cargo. Face it you have no interest in their cargo. You only want to kill players, because npc's don't care.
But you chose traders for your PvP because you are too much of a wuss to attack another python, or anyone else that can fight back. Accept it you are a griefer, nothing more. No big deal.
You have no clue. Most players I interdict will either run or disconnect from server which leaves their ship spinning in circles and I cannot damage them. As a pirate I don't have time to type out a nice little message for them stating "Hey, I really like you but I need some cargo now, will you please drop some?" Between typing this message and scanning their holds they will have warped out many minutes ago. Most player traders I interdict are on the run, even if they have no cargo. So, I have given up trying to reason with them. I make money from doing painful PvE scavenging runs and I simply interdict and blow every player out of space that I see.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I have plenty of interest in their cargo! They never cooperate or drop anything so I blow them up or they escape.
Use the limpet and steal it, instead of blowing it up. Why should they hand it over? You just said you had to grind boring PvE to buy your ship. Well they had to grind boring trading, too. And you expect them to just hand it to you? Earn it, wuss.
Risk vs reward you said? If you try to steal it you might get it, if you blow them up you definitely won't.
If you cared about cargo you would try. But you don't, you just want to player kill. Period. Imaging after all the boring PvE stuff you complain about another player said give it all to me. Would you? Hell no, yet you expect them too. So like an angry child you attack before they can disappoint you, lol.
Risk vs reward you said? If you try to steal it you might get it, if you blow them up you definitely won't.
If you cared about cargo you would try. But you don't, you just want to player kill. Period. Imaging after all the boring PvE stuff you complain about another player said give it all to me. Would you? Hell no, yet you expect them too. So like an angry child you attack before they can disappoint you, lol.
Last edited:
Comparing non entities (NPCs) with entities (humans) is irrational.
Yes, it is the intend, the deliberate decision, that constitutes griefing in the first place.
You're not delivering an explanation, Tas.
You're roleplaying.
I'm done here.
Edit: just to clarify, i don't consider open world pvp the same as griefing.
Last edited:
Limpets only work with PvE, because they don't run.
If you're going to suggest that PvE players aren't having fun playing their mode then that is a problem with FD, not the players. The same could be said about my playstyle. I guess if you view trading as work and not having fun then we both have gripes with the game. Maybe we both have something in common.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Anyway, I'm going to dig in to some nice bacon and spinach quiche and call it a night. I live in Texas, USA and it's way past my bedtime.
a "few" LOL have you not seen the gold sites for almost every game out there?
With "farmers" flying solo mode then transfering cash in open play, this game has the potential to suffer more that other "MMOs" in which there is no solo mode.
That's likely why its not in IMO.
With "farmers" flying solo mode then transfering cash in open play, this game has the potential to suffer more that other "MMOs" in which there is no solo mode.
That's likely why its not in IMO.
Touche' , I suppose i asked for that.
I don't understand why we can't just fork this game into 2 separate servers. One with profitable balanced pvp action and one for people who want nothing to do with it. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground and there are significant parts of the player base in each. Why lose players? Why take away from anybodies fun? The offline/online thing I'm sure they thought was the answer but people who don't want pvp want to play together too I am sure. They just need 2 different systems.
I don't want to gank an 60 year old guy who has the reflexes of a dinosaur. There is no challenge there nor does he want ganked. He wants to trade and explore the stars. Let him have that with his friends. But I would like a combat oriented fair game. I don't think that is too much to ask either.
As a final point, this is only an issue until a game that addresses the concerns of the party is released. By that I mean, once SC or No mans sky is released....Elite will lose all players of whatever side of this arguement they didn't side with plus a large percentage of players that just want to try out the other game. From a business point of view....keeping customers happy is a good idea. I don't want people leaving elite because I killed them. I hope those same players don't want me leaving because the combat system and reward system for combat is trash.
I don't want to gank an 60 year old guy who has the reflexes of a dinosaur. There is no challenge there nor does he want ganked. He wants to trade and explore the stars. Let him have that with his friends. But I would like a combat oriented fair game. I don't think that is too much to ask either.
As a final point, this is only an issue until a game that addresses the concerns of the party is released. By that I mean, once SC or No mans sky is released....Elite will lose all players of whatever side of this arguement they didn't side with plus a large percentage of players that just want to try out the other game. From a business point of view....keeping customers happy is a good idea. I don't want people leaving elite because I killed them. I hope those same players don't want me leaving because the combat system and reward system for combat is trash.
Last edited:
Quite. I've played Elder Scrolls, STO and ArcheAge regularly. These are run by big, experienced companies and the best they can do is keep the problem under control. What people also need to understand is the gold sellers are huge, well-resourced and criminal organisations. They are very good at circumventing restrictions. And with the PtP implementation of ED it's even more vulnerable to client-side teleport hacks which will mean that a gold seller could fill their ship with rares and sell them within seconds.
Once you have credit transfers (unless Frontier can come up with something very clever) you have 25,000 workers in Solo (but affecting the prices and stock) doing nothing but running Rares 12 hours a day.
If I wanted to play a game where you can buy the best ship for dollars I'd wait for Star Citizen.
I'm all for a system that allows bounty sharing or some mechanism for hiring escorts or whatever but once you allow straight credit transfers you're in all kinds of trouble and no amount of wailing and moaning will change that.
If you got a fool-proof method of stopping it happening you let us know.
Or Frontier could just decide not to care, which is the Turbine LOTRO approach. They concentrate on making sure the in-game comms are kept clear.
When elder Scrolls came out there was a spot where you could literally watch one-shot character gold sellers fall from the sky in a continuous stream. Every instance boss was surrounded by farmer-bots. It was insane.
I don't for one second believe Frontier have the expertise and the resources to take on gold selling corporations. Much bigger companies are failing as we speak.
But like I say - I'm all for some sharing mechanism but gold selling is a genie you can never get back in the bottle.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If Frontier had wanted to pitch that game for development then they would have.
They have said that they are "making the game that we want to play" - that game has three game modes and the ability to switch between them - it has no dedicated PvP/PvE modes.
If you "want a combat oriented fair game" then, it would seem, that Elite: Dangerous is not that game - the backbone of the economy is trading. Of course combat exists - that's part and parcel of the game - however as two of the three roads to Elite reputation rank do not require a player to necessarily fire a shot, it can hardly be said to be combat oriented. To ask Frontier to re-design the game to turn it into a combat oriented game at this stage is, in my opinion, too much to ask.
And there I was, thinking that the 'Dangerous' in the game title; 'Elite: Dangerous', referred to the danger to the user, from the electricity supply running through our PC's, when they connect to the game. How silly of me not to have realised that it only stands for one rank, on the ladder of ranks leading to the rank of 'Elite'!
Even sillier, is for people to assume that 'dangerous' in the title, suggests that flying around the Galaxy itself, is Dangerous!
What utter tosh some people spout! It's laughable!
Agreed. The most sure fire way to perma screw this game with a single patch forever would be to allow credit trading. The moment that happens gold farming operations will be selling trillions of credits 20 minutes after the update and the game will be utterly ruined.
Besides its completely against the spirit of the game, Elite Dangerous is all about personal goals and even though we might cooperate as players the point of a sandbox is that there is no winning, there is simply the self created and fulfilled goals.
Which bringing it back on topic, I think everything should ALWAYS be allowed. PKs, piracy, crime .. anything that players think up should always be allowed because its in the spirit of the game. Wether your goal is to be a murdering psychopath on a rampage, a cunning bounty hunter, miner, trader or something inbetween there should be no mechanic that stops you and says "sorry that's not allowed". The moment that happens in any of the professions whether they are criminal ones or within the laws, the entire game is utterly and irreversibly broken. Elite Dangerous is named so because its supposed to be a dangerous world, if you can't handle it, your playing the wrong game. Its that simple.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Its not just a combat game, but it is a sandbox and the point of a sandbox is to create and fufill your own goals. If that goal is psychopathic maniac racking up the highest bounty and kill count you can get, its just as legitimate as being a trader trying to achieve the Elite Rank. These two sandbox goals exist in the same game and if you play open you are exposing yourself willingly to the personal goals of other players that may be in direct conflict with yours.
If this wasn't true about Elite Dangerous, than the game ceases to be a sandbox.
The way we play the game, alters the game from what Frontier thought their game would be. I can hardly believe their dream was to make this a game that has three modes: solo trade-mode, weird I hate PvP-mode and PvP arena-mode...
The request isn't to make the game something it's not supposed to be, the request is to make it so you can't safe mode grind credits and then go pvp, because that's what's happening. And while it doesn't necessarily ruin the game it hurts the immersion. It's like watching a horror movie with the horror parts replaced with cute bunny cartoons.
Its quite simple. Because they released the game like this. At this point it is too late to change. You do remember Offlinegate? And that was due to removal of a feature before the game was released! Now just imagine the storm that would happen if they changed this now. A post release change like this would see them kneel-hauled in the press and possibly some serious legal action going down.
Bottom line here is, FD simply cannot change this aspect of the game at this point, at least not without serious risk.
Then don't. I never understand why many PvPers simply don't ask people if they want to PvP. You claim you want a challenge, but will still blow someone to bits before going "Oh man, they sucked. That was no challenge at all". I know at least a part of the answer to this, and that is many PvPers are not particularly looking for a challenge. Many of them just want to "win" and they are bored of winning against the computer. Winning against a human opponent, no matter how sucky, gives them a bigger thrill.
So, next time you meet a player and are thinking of attacking, why not ask them if they want to PvP? If yes, then game on. If not, then it is likely the fight will be zero challenge, your win will be hollow, and it is possible the victim will simply play the disconnect game, leaving you raging with annoyance.
Once SC is released FD will lose some players anyway. No Man's Sky is too different i think... its more of a console game in style, so PC Master Race will not touch it.
And one thing you learn in development is you can never please all the players all of the time. You decide on your target demographic and aim to please them. In the case of ED, the target demographic was mainly one person, David Braben. He stated he was making the game for himself, and invites others to join him. ED is not your typical game.
Last edited:
"Piracy against players" doesn't necessarily imply PvP?
Erm, no they won't.
If by all players you mean all players then you are wrong. Because personally i have no need for the feature, and as others have pointed out, it will make the game a target for gold farmers. I'd rather be without this feature than have the servers overloaded with gold farmers - who will probably play in solo most of the time except when they go in open to make their transfers.
Again, all is not all.
Indeed.
He said piracy, not "piracy against players"