I think players without a scanned bounty that are attacked should have some sort of pvp coverage. That said, how would bounties on the assaulting player work? I could see THAT being quickly exploited.
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
This gets mentioned often. It also gets ignored in every single instance. Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative that "PowerPlay is messed-up PvP."
+1 for me on this. I do argue "testily" sometimes, but it is a direct result of the... fanatical? Insulting? Belittling? Many-other-adjectives-here nature of some of the posts. I certainly don't want to take anything away from any of the player "factions."
Wouldn't this Open PvE/Open PvP mode(s) be worked out with a simple "PvP" flag on a player? Would show up in scans like bounties do now? *not being sarcastic; wondering*
Last edited:
Yes, but not all of that "group" (and I suspect a lot more) do not wish to play PvP Shootout.
Because then the PvP crowd might have some real numbers to contrast with, say, Mobius.
Because I can't reconcile "has a bigger population then a group could ever have" with "open is barren/a wasteland."
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry, but I can't let this one pass. As mentioned many times in this thread, and backed up by dev comments on the situation, open is most certainly NOT "open pvp by default." It definitely IS "open pve by default."
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Personally, I would find a PvP flag extremely gamey - having some ships invulnerable to fire or ramming by players can lead to all sorts of ways to hinder the PvP players (getting in the way of the PvP player's kill, etc.).
I admit I've been known to bare teeth and fire back in ways I probably shouldnt' have.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I prefer Open play - and I only ever play in a manner that would get me identified as a victim....
This was asked a long time ago, in the old thread.
For some weird reason, none of the open advocates wants to be the sheep - they all want to be the wolf.
No surprise there! < howls >
Oh so you are unable to pvp in open, that's news to me. PvP may not be the point of the game but it doesn't restrict it in anyway, therefore it's a open pvp game.
- - - Updated - - -
I always do everything in open. Mining, trading, exploration, i've done everything in open. I've been attacked and pirated before, if that's what you're asking. However, I'm always prepared for combat in anyway shape or form, so perhaps I'm a bad example.
Last edited:
No not all, in fact I think your case is a very good example of someone who is playing the game the way that FD intended open to be played.
I won't play in open in my Type 9 (it's just too vulnerable), but I play it in most of my other ships. I have a particular cobra I use for smuggling missions from the bulletin board. This particular cobra is fitted with the best shields, but has no weapons at all to speak of. I have to use the old running away trick.
I am hardly a typical player though.
If talking about the Open mode, yeah. And that is exactly why I've yet to try Open, and very likely will never enter it; I'll never again, for as long as I live, accept non-consensual PvP, not even if the chances of it happening are very slim.
If talking about the game as a whole, not really. The intent from the start was to allow players to freely choose who they play with, hence PvP is, and has always been, fully optional. Given my dislike for non-consensual PvP, it's something I always make sure to fully check in any game I might want to try.
My god man, no. I am comfortable in my role as distant coward and have no inclination to swap this for conquering hero.
Jordan, this is really twisted "logic." I did not say "unable to pvp in open" nor anything resembling it. It obviously is a false statement, because you can pvp in open.
I said, quoting the devs (which I know you've seen many times in this thread) saying that open pvp should be "rare and meaningful." not that you can't.
Really, you've marshalled a lot better logic many times before. The statement above is just plain silly.
"There are fish in water; therefore anyone who goes in the water is open to being hooked and gaffed."
For myself, and I suspect Cody, that would be "arcadey" taken from the word arcade (place where you went to play coin operated games like Tekken / Operation Wolf / Space Invaders / etc) and games that are like that, ie there for quick thrills with no depth, are derogatorily described as "arcadey".
Arcady .. a new word admittedly for me - According to Websters it means "an ideal rustic paradise" taken from the Greek Arkadia (Arcadia)
Fair enough, maybe it wasn't stated the right way.
If the game allows pvp, then it cannot be a pve only game. That is why mobius has to exist, because open was designed to be a PvP mode. Even if it was only in small doses, it still has pvp. That's what I was getting at, it has pvp therefore it's a pvp mode. You could say open is a PvPvE mode, I'd even agree with you since you cannot turn off npcs.
All a new pvp group will do is add a new check to the game, "are you really sure you want pvp?"? It's kinda pointless imo since it would be just a smaller version of open.
There's also no way to have only pvp until CQC is out. You can even say that CQC will be the exact opposite of mobius. The pvp-only ying to mobius' pve-only yang.
Last edited:
<nods> Arkadia -> Arcady -> Acadian -> Cajun - howzat?
- Status