Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jockey79]

In the latest Dev update, FD have again stated that everyone will remain in the same background simulation, no matter their mode of play or which "season" of content they have bought up to. Makes sense to me, and I can't find any way of making a Purest Open Only mode work around that wouldn't require fundamental changes to the game.

And to help highlight this point;

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248

 

[Jockey79]

Wall of Information post (Updated 6th August 2015).

From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

Some Dev comments from the Kickstarter;



https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1681441
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705397
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705551

The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."

About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.

There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have:
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."

The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."

Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."

Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .

The Steam Store page;

Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"


Dev comments;

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Numi
Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Robert Maynard
Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.

Michael

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by mosh_er
Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

Originally Posted by David Braben AMA Thread, post 319

Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape
In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.

Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs.

Originally Posted by David Braben AMA Thread, post #367

Originally Posted by Adept
For fun

That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

Originally Posted by David Braben

Originally Posted by FuzzySpider
The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.


Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?


Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective niggles of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

E3 2015 Interview (17th June 2015);

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/0...-david-braben/


The overall thread topic (+ How XB1 fits);

On that last point, Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.

And regarding the game design;

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

To highlight something from that above quote;

“You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play."

Here is a quote from Zac Antonaci for the "game is dying" pro-claimers.
Dated 10th July 2015;

Originally Posted by Zac Antonaci

Originally Posted by fred
They need to be.


Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.

Hey Fred,


I wanted to reply to this honestly if I may.


I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.


<snip>


Zac

Originally Posted by Zac Antonaci

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?

No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

And a nice, clear, concise comment from Michael Brookes regarding the modes;

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes
From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

Dev Update 6th August 2015 (https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248);

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

Reddit AMA from X-Box One launch, in relation to the Back Ground Simulation and Modes;
https://np.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/3nlmdg/its_frontier_developments_developers_of_elite/

^^ So PC/Mac and X-Box One impact the same live simulation, but cannot actually play together or see each other.

^^ X-Box One also has "Solo Mode" and is recommended by FD Devs for when you do not want to play with other people.

Horizons Live Stream;
(RE: Question about ED being an MMO)

DB was asked a question "Is Elite and MMORPG?" in the LiveStream tonight.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdP1DmRYco8

He answered it like this:

19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.

"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."

Ed speaks and then David adds:

"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."

Solo / Group / Open Mega Threads post counts.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=90583 (1st)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=145309 (2nd)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=169599 (Current)​

 

[Faded Glory]

In the latest Dev update, FD have again stated that everyone will remain in the same background simulation, no matter their mode of play or which "season" of content they have bought up to. Makes sense to me, and I can't find any way of making a Purest Open Only mode work around that wouldn't require fundamental changes to the game.

Does seem strange that people come to the Elite : Dangerous forums and ask the developers to make a different game. After all, they'd almost certainly not be happy with simply a new, additional mode, they would want everything to be dynamic, not dev curated, they'd want to be able to blockade, have guilds, own stations and probably even planets...

Just seems to me that they are asking for a new game.

 

[why fi at all]

an automatically revokable letter of marque might be a way to regulate some of the activity that chases people out of open.
there is already a pirate leader in the game for issuing a letter good for any ship, and of course a limited letter could be issued by one of the non-pirate factions but would have restrictions making it a much more difficult set of conditions for your acceptable/legal targets.

finding an issuing agent might be a several step quest/mission that might begin at a black market for pirate faction, or other location for other factions.
it could be a mission where you need to find a specific person in a specific location and then maybe get a temporary letter to run a couple of missions to "prove your ability to do the job" before you get the permanent letter.

no non-consenting pew between players without the letter.
otherwise ramming and weapon fire passes right through a player ship causing no damage.

you can still pew in CQC and in the combat zones with or without the letter.

if you kill someone without cargo or in a sidewinder you lose the letter.
permanently.

ok maybe that's a bit harsh.

if you kill someone without cargo or in a sidewinder more that once in 20 hours of game time, not real time, time actually logged into the client in one of the modes, you lose the letter.
and rather than permanently you lose it for 200 hours of game time.
at least enough to really hurt and make you want to be careful the FIRST time rather than after doing it once.

this would mean that pirates could still be pirates, and griefers will be less common.

i also posted a copy of this in the open-pve thread.

 

[MegaJohnny]

If my concerns about Open are such a niche view why do threads like this get to the front page of the reddit community again and again?

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...frontier_youve_dun_goofed_fix_your_base_game/

Am I reading it wrong? The OP isn't even talking about modes as far as I can tell, only complaining that most career paths are monotonous which is basically true.

Oh, my mistake, he did mention Open a couple of times. But it was only a small part of what he's saying.

I still don't really understand this clamoring for more dosh because you play in Open. The only argument I can sympathise with is "the game is shallow, only PvP is still interesting". There are two ways to fix this - bring PvE up to scratch, or switch focus to PvP. But to date I've not seen any good arguments for the latter over the former.

 

[Jockey79]

Am I reading it wrong? The OP isn't even talking about modes as far as I can tell, only complaining that most career paths are monotonous which is basically true.

Oh, my mistake, he did mention Open a couple of times. But it was only a small part of what he's saying.

I still don't really understand this clamoring for more dosh because you play in Open. The only argument I can sympathise with is "the game is shallow, only PvP is still interesting". There are two ways to fix this - bring PvE up to scratch, or switch focus to PvP. But to date I've not seen any good arguments for the latter over the former.

You're right, it has nothing to do with the modes - it's a general moan over the game as it currently is and a new expansion coming out despite more work being needed.

I think it was just atak2 trying to drum up readers of it and make it more popular than it actually is.
That is why normally I do not follow links to Reddit - some people over there think they are way more important than they actually are, then use that same attitude here.

I think I just might start responding to all this "proof" from Reddit with the same line - It's patriarchy's fault.
Because they both hold exactly the same value to this forum and topic......

None whatsoever!

 

[Asp Explorer]

Reddit is like Speakers Corner. Most people go there for the entertainment value, or to start riots

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

an automatically revokable letter of marque might be a way to regulate some of the activity that chases people out of open.
there is already a pirate leader in the game for issuing a letter good for any ship, and of course a limited letter could be issued by one of the non-pirate factions but would have restrictions making it a much more difficult set of conditions for your acceptable/legal targets.

finding an issuing agent might be a several step quest/mission that might begin at a black market for pirate faction, or other location for other factions.
it could be a mission where you need to find a specific person in a specific location and then maybe get a temporary letter to run a couple of missions to "prove your ability to do the job" before you get the permanent letter.

no non-consenting pew between players without the letter.
otherwise ramming and weapon fire passes right through a player ship causing no damage.

you can still pew in CQC and in the combat zones with or without the letter.

if you kill someone without cargo or in a sidewinder you lose the letter.
permanently.

ok maybe that's a bit harsh.

if you kill someone without cargo or in a sidewinder more that once in 20 hours of game time, not real time, time actually logged into the client in one of the modes, you lose the letter.
and rather than permanently you lose it for 200 hours of game time.
at least enough to really hurt and make you want to be careful the FIRST time rather than after doing it once.

this would mean that pirates could still be pirates, and griefers will be less common.

i also posted a copy of this in the open-pve thread.

So basically you want to force pirates to jump through hoops and put restrictions on their profession just to stop griefers? That doesn't sound very "blaze your own trail"-y to me.

Thats like only allowing traders to carry a few type of goods until they "become certified" in handling each of the others. If you mess up, "oh you carried animal meat and uranium in the same cargo bay" you lost your certification to carry food products. That isn't a very fun game imo.

 

[Stigbob]

So basically you want to force pirates to jump through hoops and put restrictions on their profession just to stop griefers? That doesn't sound very "blaze your own trail"-y to me.

Thats like only allowing traders to carry a few type of goods until they "become certified" in handling each of the others. If you mess up, "oh you carried animal meat and uranium in the same cargo bay" you lost your certification to carry food products. That isn't a very fun game imo.

Pirates should be able to rampage about the place complete with parrots and grog, stealing, killing effectively spreading mayhem. They should be hunted men whenever they leave safe ports however, with tasty nourishing bounties (especially for killing).

Cargo hatches should be flimsy, a few hits and they should dump at least 10 tonnes of stuff.

They need safe havens, illegal ports (or systems) that buy anything no black-market because the station itself is a black market. These pirate havens should be extremely dangerous for the law-abiding, and only allow landing to people with a respectable bounty (deter suicidal sidey bounty erasure) unwanted ships should be shot at by the station guns.

Pirate stations should offer lucrative piracy/cop/bh hunting missions.

 

[Julissa Silver]

Pirates should be able to rampage about the place complete with parrots and grog, stealing, killing effectively spreading mayhem. They should be hunted men whenever they leave safe ports however, with tasty nourishing bounties (especially for killing).

Cargo hatches should be flimsy, a few hits and they should dump at least 10 tonnes of stuff.

They need safe havens, illegal ports (or systems) that buy anything no black-market because the station itself is a black market. These pirate havens should be extremely dangerous for the law-abiding, and only allow landing to people with a respectable bounty (deter suicidal sidey bounty erasure) unwanted ships should be shot at by the station guns.

Pirate stations should offer lucrative piracy/cop/bh hunting missions.

While we're wishlisting, I'd like a amethyst-studded space tiger, a magic wand that does my hair and makeup perfectly in seven seconds and to be able to eat an infinite amount of sour candy without getting fat.

If my demands aren't met in two days I'll declare that FD just don't care about PvE at all.

 

[withnail]

I play mostly in open (except for times when lag in super-cruise in Open makes the game barely respond to control inputs making it unplayable) - just last night I was in a trading Wing - extra credits from trade dividends that can't be gained in Solo....

It's good to play with others, isn't it? Thought I would always play in solo, but ever since my first wing, I haven't really looked back.

Whilst I am of the opinion that PP should be played in open, the two other modes can be a pleasant resort from time to time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's good to play with others, isn't it? Thought I would always play in solo, but ever since my first wing, I haven't really looked back.

Indeed it is good to play with players - it's playing versus them that generally causes issues for one of the "sides" in the engagement.

 

[Mouse]

While we're wishlisting, I'd like a amethyst-studded space tiger, a magic wand that does my hair and makeup perfectly in seven seconds and to be able to eat an infinite amount of sour candy without getting fat.

If my demands aren't met in two days I'll declare that FD just don't care about PvE at all.

I am dismayed that you didn't add Bacon covered ships to the list..

 

[Mouse]

Indeed it is good to play with players - it's playing versus them that generally causes issues for one of the "sides" in the engagement.

And then you have the issue of some of those who instigated the VS deciding that if they can force FD to make it so you can't get away from them than their game would be better and poo poo on you for your game. Because to them only their game and enjoyment is what is important.

 

[Jockey79]

......... Because to them only their game and enjoyment is what is important.

To be fair, that applies to us all.
After all, if we didn't put our enjoyment first we'd not be insisting the game stay as it is - as we enjoy it.

The main difference between the sides, is those who knew what they were buying before buying it and those who found out afterwards.

 

[Mouse]

To be fair, that applies to us all.
After all, if we didn't put our enjoyment first we'd not be insisting the game stay as it is - as we enjoy it.

The main difference between the sides, is those who knew what they were buying before buying it and those who found out afterwards.

I disagree for one reason, if those in solo and private felt that only their game was important and acted like those few in open who feel that way, then they would be campaigning as hard to remove PVP completely from the game. Maybe I worded it wrong. Yes we all feel our games are important, but we do not feel that it is so important that it should trump everyone else's feelings on the game.

 

[Julissa Silver]

To be fair, that applies to us all.

Honestly? I'd be very happy if a way to entertain and please the 'other side' was found. It's the general insistence that I get no say in whether I'm engaged in PvP or not and the declaration that non-PvPers are somehow the ruination of the game that irks me. One is utterly disrespectful and rude, the other is just an excuse to abdicate personal responsibility.


The freedom of personal choice, the ability to say "no thanks" within otherwise entertaining situations or activities, that's what I advocate. Nobody should get to force me into things without my explicit consent. FD has given us that, whether by intent or very happy accident. It's a (mostly) great system for personal choice and it's worth defending.

 

[Dave1235]

Pirates should be able to rampage about the place complete with parrots and grog, stealing, killing effectively spreading mayhem. They should be hunted men whenever they leave safe ports however, with tasty nourishing bounties (especially for killing).

Cargo hatches should be flimsy, a few hits and they should dump at least 10 tonnes of stuff.

They need safe havens, illegal ports (or systems) that buy anything no black-market because the station itself is a black market. These pirate havens should be extremely dangerous for the law-abiding, and only allow landing to people with a respectable bounty (deter suicidal sidey bounty erasure) unwanted ships should be shot at by the station guns.

Pirate stations should offer lucrative piracy/cop/bh hunting missions.

I agree with the safe havens in anarchy's for pirates and safer systems doing more to prevent piracy in their yard, the memory is hazy but in the original I doubt I went to the anarchys often until I upgraded the lasers.

There was talk about it in the crime update thread, IIRC some DDA quotes about it, although I can't be 100% sure, it was a while back.

I would hope its on the to do list, I doubt there was any point working on it before the AI were up to the job, why have different security levels in different systems if they don't do something, I don't think jumping via an anarchy in my weapon less type6 should be a trivial matter almost every time.

- - - Updated - - -

Pirates should be able to rampage about the place complete with parrots and grog, stealing, killing effectively spreading mayhem. They should be hunted men whenever they leave safe ports however, with tasty nourishing bounties (especially for killing).

Cargo hatches should be flimsy, a few hits and they should dump at least 10 tonnes of stuff.

They need safe havens, illegal ports (or systems) that buy anything no black-market because the station itself is a black market. These pirate havens should be extremely dangerous for the law-abiding, and only allow landing to people with a respectable bounty (deter suicidal sidey bounty erasure) unwanted ships should be shot at by the station guns.

Pirate stations should offer lucrative piracy/cop/bh hunting missions.

I agree with the safe havens in anarchy's for pirates and safer systems doing more to prevent piracy in their yard, the memory is hazy but in the original I doubt I went to the anarchys often until I upgraded the lasers.

There was talk about it in the crime update thread, IIRC some DDA quotes about it, although I can't be 100% sure, it was a while back.

I would hope its on the to do list, I doubt there was any point working on it before the AI were up to the job, why have different security levels in different systems if they don't do something, I don't think jumping via an anarchy in my weapon less type6 should be a trivial matter almost every time.

 

[Mouse]

Honestly? I'd be very happy if a way to entertain and please the 'other side' was found. It's the general insistence that I get no say in whether I'm engaged in PvP or not and the declaration that non-PvPers are somehow the ruination of the game that irks me. One is utterly disrespectful and rude, the other is just an excuse to abdicate personal responsibility.


The freedom of personal choice, the ability to say "no thanks" within otherwise entertaining situations or activities, that's what I advocate. Nobody should get to force me into things without my explicit consent. FD has given us that, whether by intent or very happy accident. It's a (mostly) great system for personal choice and it's worth defending.

rep button out of reps.. +1 plus +10 bacon

I am all for people pvping and all, but personal choice and the ability to say "No thanks" and to interact with others on a level I am comfortable with . Rocks!

 

[Stigbob]

Honestly? I'd be very happy if a way to entertain and please the 'other side' was found. It's the general insistence that I get no say in whether I'm engaged in PvP or not and the declaration that non-PvPers are somehow the ruination of the game that irks me. One is utterly disrespectful and rude, the other is just an excuse to abdicate personal responsibility.

The freedom of personal choice, the ability to say "no thanks" within otherwise entertaining situations or activities, that's what I advocate. Nobody should get to force me into things without my explicit consent. FD has given us that, whether by intent or very happy accident. It's a (mostly) great system for personal choice and it's worth defending.

Well said I agree totally, but I do prefer it when you mention bacon.

I agree with the safe havens in anarchy's for pirates and safer systems doing more to prevent piracy in their yard, the memory is hazy but in the original I doubt I went to the anarchys often until I upgraded the lasers.

There was talk about it in the crime update thread, IIRC some DDA quotes about it, although I can't be 100% sure, it was a while back.

I would hope its on the to do list, I doubt there was any point working on it before the AI were up to the job, why have different security levels in different systems if they don't do something, I don't think jumping via an anarchy in my weapon less type6 should be a trivial matter almost every time.

I don't play as a pirate, but i think buffing piracy (rewards and dangers) would possibly steer some gankers away from slaughter and towards better game-play.