The way it is now, with no consequence system and bounty hunting broken? Nope. Absolutely not.
- Status
The way it is now, with no consequence system and bounty hunting broken? Nope. Absolutely not.
Instant Solo Mode takes two seconds.
If there was no Solo - plenty of people would just make their own Solo mode. Buy a $20 router (as bad as you can find), the rest is history.
Absolutely not. I have vowed to never again play any game with non-consensual PvP; if others can attack me without my consent I'm out, regardless of how good or enjoyable the game might otherwise be.
Yup. If you notice.. I'm not in Eve anymore.. I wonder why...
Nope....
Well, yes, that's come up before. Not really the point of the question.
Fair enough.
DarkWalker, was a purely a principled stance or was it because you personally were tired of putting up with the annoyance?
I'm assuming he meant if this wasn't possible either. It's a theoretical question, after all.
BTW, if Solo was never announced or promised, I wouldn't have gotten the game even if the feasibility of creating a "fake Solo" mode was common knowledge. Though, to be honest, if I knew offline would be axed I wouldn't have gotten the game either, I refuse to pay more than about $10 for any game that only works online if I am planning to play it solo.
Already far too many people think I'm using router or NAT/Firewall/Bandwidth/Bacon manipulation to get people out of the game at my convenience, which is simply not the case. It's so simple though, your average vegetable could do it.
CMDRs are additional content, available in Open and Groups. The environment is what FD creates for us, planets, stations, NPCs (and other stuff).
The question was more of a, "If it had been this way from the start" question. There would have been no need to ask for your money back because presumably you would have known from the start.
What Asp Explorer is referring to is that since the architecture of the game is that player interactions happen in a P2P way (player client software talks directly to another player client software) it is quite possible to force a "Solo" mode by either forcing bad connections or firewalling other people out of your network.
EDIT: What he said...
Last edited:
You don't want to even guess what happens when player C becomes Player B "with an attitude", that's where it gets messy, lol
.Player B & C say "tut tut" together and then "Oh deary me" then find a group or go solo to play in, A gets upset at the loss of interaction in open.
When B & C decide to "interact" with A again at a later date, just like A wanted to interact all along, by undermining A, then it all falls apart and A has many "metaphorical kittens" (if B & C decide to do it in solo, why would they want to meet A again if A killed them? really its undermining not PVP, sorry A! that's how it works).
Exactly - then A throws a fit because he's being "beaten" by "invisible cowards hiding in Solo" who aren't "brave enough to face me in PvP" who have "no chance in a fair fight, because I'm a PvP Pro who doesn't DO fair fights!"
Moar Lulz were had by B&C
Player D - *facepalm*
I would say a mix. My gaming time is too precious to waste on things I don't enjoy, and I certainly don't enjoy non-consensual PvP of any kind. This goes for both attacking and being attacked; I never, ever, attack a player without being sure he wants to fight. This is why anything that made NPCs indistinguishable from players would make me leave the game, I would simply stop shooting anything out of not knowing what I could shoot.
While I never could bring myself to attack unprovoked, I wasn't so adverse to the possibility of non-consensual PvP finding me in the past; up to half a decade ago I might try a game or two with it. What happened is that, well, I did try a game or two with it
For me to enjoy PvP, it needs to be balanced, with everyone involved giving explicit (or at least very strongly implied) consent, and devoid of PvE elements (I never liked mixing them). Given those constraints I actually love PvP. But the kind of PvP that ED has in Open is of a kind that not only I can never enjoy, encountering it could ruin my day.
Another "I quit" here, I'm afraid. I've done my stint as a PvPer, I've even won the occasional prize for being 'gud at vidyagamz', but Elite is not a PvP game for me. What you describe would destroy the pleasure found in too much of the game that I wouldn't want to invest time or money in it any more. I can play flight combat simulators anywhere, I don't need another one here. In fact I'd be quite cross that my kickstarter money (and a great concept and prospect) had been pitched into the canal like some sort of greasy shopping cart for gankers and PvPers to burn up.
Personally, I prefer kitten manipulation.
I would say a mix. My gaming time is too precious to waste on things I don't enjoy, and I certainly don't enjoy non-consensual PvP of any kind. This goes for both attacking and being attacked; I never, ever, attack a player without being sure he wants to fight. This is why anything that made NPCs indistinguishable from players would make me leave the game, I would simply stop shooting anything out of not knowing what I could shoot.
While I never could bring myself to attack unprovoked, I wasn't so adverse to the possibility of non-consensual PvP finding me in the past; up to half a decade ago I might try a game or two with it. What happened is that, well, I did try a game or two with it
For me to enjoy PvP, it needs to be balanced, with everyone involved giving explicit (or at least very strongly implied) consent, and devoid of PvE elements (I never liked mixing them). Given those constraints I actually love PvP. But the kind of PvP that ED has in Open is of a kind that not only I can never enjoy, encountering it could ruin my day.
That's fair enough. I think it would great if the downside to being attacked weren't potentially so devastating - particularly to those, like you and me, who don't have a lot of time to waste on annoyances. It reminds me of when I started playing WoW for a bit. I was generally only playing PvE in it and it always bugged me when some level 80 player would ride by and kill me with one hit and ride off. Not sure what the fun of that was to them. But at least all I had to do was walk back and carry on what I was doing before.
As for the NPC indistinguishable thing, I really like the transponder idea that is floating around. That there would be a settable flag that would make yourself indistinguishable to others if you so desired and I think you could choose whether to see people as people or not. There's more detail to it. But I liked it.
Thanks for your comments.
one comment,
every single version of elite with the exception of elite dangerous has been a pure pve game. just because pvp has been added to the current version of elite doesn't make it a pvp only game.
people need to treat it as such, just because one group prefere pvp doesn't mean that everyone should have to play it.
many knock our group because we play a pve game but looking at the complete history of the franchise we have our reasons, its only since the latest release of elite that these topics of pvp vs pve have risen.
Elite on the acorn electron was a pve game
Elite on the BBC was a pve game.
Elite on the Spectrum was a pve game
Elite on the C64 was a pve game
Elite on the MSX was a pve game
Elite on the IBM PC was a pve game
Elite on the AMSTRAD CPC was a pve game
Elite on the APLLE II was a pve game
Elite on the ATARI ST was a pve game
Elite on the AMIGA was a pve game
Elite on the ACORN ARCHIMEDES was a pve gam
Elite on the NES was a pve game
Elite Frontier on the AMIGA was a pve game
Elite Frontier on the CD32 was a pve game
Elite Frontier on the ATARI ST was a pve game
Elite Frontier on the DOS was a pve gam
Elite First Encounters on the Windows was a pve game
Elite First Encounters on the Linux was a pve game
Elite First Encounters on the MAC OS was a pve game
Elite Dangerous on the PC/MAC/XBONE is a pve game with a pvp element.
every single version of elite with the exception of elite dangerous has been a pure pve game. just because pvp has been added to the current version of elite doesn't make it a pvp only game.
people need to treat it as such, just because one group prefere pvp doesn't mean that everyone should have to play it.
many knock our group because we play a pve game but looking at the complete history of the franchise we have our reasons, its only since the latest release of elite that these topics of pvp vs pve have risen.
Elite on the acorn electron was a pve game
Elite on the BBC was a pve game.
Elite on the Spectrum was a pve game
Elite on the C64 was a pve game
Elite on the MSX was a pve game
Elite on the IBM PC was a pve game
Elite on the AMSTRAD CPC was a pve game
Elite on the APLLE II was a pve game
Elite on the ATARI ST was a pve game
Elite on the AMIGA was a pve game
Elite on the ACORN ARCHIMEDES was a pve gam
Elite on the NES was a pve game
Elite Frontier on the AMIGA was a pve game
Elite Frontier on the CD32 was a pve game
Elite Frontier on the ATARI ST was a pve game
Elite Frontier on the DOS was a pve gam
Elite First Encounters on the Windows was a pve game
Elite First Encounters on the Linux was a pve game
Elite First Encounters on the MAC OS was a pve game
Elite Dangerous on the PC/MAC/XBONE is a pve game with a pvp element.
I'm sensing a pattern here....
A good observation.
Additionally, ED has much more severe consequences for death / destruction than previous versions of the game. In the past, a CMDR could save their game at any time, and as often as they wished, and in the event you lost an encounter you simply went and re-loaded from where you last saved, or indeed any of your previously saved states, no cost involved, and the only thing you lost was a bit of time.
The death / destruction mechanic we have in ED (and I'm not objecting to it) is not quite so straight forward, and can lead to a more conservative play style. Not necessarily risk averse, but taking a more measured view of the risks that you can encounter in any mode.
Last edited:
bu .. bu .. but.. they keep telling us that unless we play in open the game isn't Dangerous...
Know they know..IT IS
- Status