- Status
Because that is the price that the devs have created. If they create something different...then that will be fine also!
I don't care what others think...it's allowed...it's ok. If you fail to realize it's allowed...or do not want to play there...in disagreement to what is designed...that is your lack of understanding or care for an outcome..not the players that are PVP'ing.
----
To answer your question about my personal morality..it changes from game to game on what is allowed by the rules of the game. I have played an old tank board game (Tobruk) with a person that enjoyed historic accuracy...he did a fine job explaining the rules of the game...and refused to play with me ever again, because I beat him by following the rules (I was able to complete my military objective, rather than follow the historic outcome of the battle). I found no discomfort in doing this...it was his choice not to play with me...I only followed what was explained. This is the same situation. I find that in this game I can play with a certain mindset, that 'the ends justify the means'. In RL I would never consider this style of management...rules are there for reasons..and should be followed. The fact that the rules allow for a different way to play is refreshing and is interesting.
I have said in many places within these forums...the ruleset in this game allows for some of the dirtiest gameplay...if people would embrace and accept it. Many will not accept it and be quite judgmental...<shrug>....this will not stop the dirty playing...because this is all part of the game.
Last edited:
Meta meta meta. My belief is that the meta-game is deciding how you want to play the game. Thankfully, FD figured that out and offered us the Three Modes, which seems to be working as intended.
Perhaps FD's metagame is to see if the "pvp anything, anywhere" crowd is more prevalent than the "I like this game and I like to play however I want" players.
"all that's left is the few pvpers in open, spinning their wheels while the real game is decided in solo."
And that not only makes pvp "rare and meaningful," as spoken by DB, it indicates that there are a whole lot of players that don't wish to play in a shark tank. The tank is left there for the sharks; if they get bored ganking each other, that's no skin off my nose.
I do like logic, and I'd rep you, but apparently I already did...
I am just curious if people can point to any Elite lore which talks about the prevalence of Reaver-type homicidal maniacs who can afford endless spaceships with which to attack anyone they please.
Hmm... INRA? <grins wryly>
Ask the devs that question...it's not the players issue. They just have to play the game as designed. The game is made entirely of PVE rewards...there is no real reason to PVP. Yet..the devs have left the capability within the game. We can accept the rules...or try to get the devs to change them. It would appear this will have as much traction to change as the modes...so what do you do?
Either play in Open with the expectation that bad things occur....or fight against those doing bad things...or not play in the open and avoid the issue...all ways are correct as far as the devs are concerned..and that seems to be a good way to be about these issues.
Last edited:
THIS.
Who was the most-powerful guild in 'Dune'? The Pilot's Guild. If you [censored] them off, you're dirt-bound and stuck.
In many, many science fiction stories, the Pilot's Guild/Organization/whatever were the people who both punished and protected their members internally. I don't understand why this is not so in ED.
That would neatly take care of the murder/psycho problem; do enough of it and who cares what your bounty is; you ain't goin' nowhere, or the Pilot's Federation would work with player bounty hunters; perhaps a kick-in from member donations (part of your Pilot fees)?
Last edited:
I go 100% with this idea. It fits in neatly with all of the Elite games' lore. Pirates, anarchists & psychos should be able to dock freely at "anarchy" and edge systems. They should have a very hard time docking at "settled" or hi-sec systems & stations. This would actually increase the immersion for me; I mean, a guy has a +500mil bounty and he/she can dock at Sol? It's ridiculous.
If someone wants to act and play crazy, they should have a very hard time running from syscops.
Its a nice idea, although the reward for piracy would have to be increased as well.
Would be hard to give more money directly, but there could be some indirect benefits. For example, at pirate stations you get a bigger discount based on your pirate "rank" (or wanted level or something) as you are more feared and respected by the merchants there.
I agree. It would definitely be more realistic (logical?) to me. We could have a bit of variance with that too. I would expect that some factions (even in 'higher' security systems) might tolerate certain pirates if it suits their needs. Psychos probably not so much. I might also suggest that a feared pirate would probably be less likely to be interdicted by other (NPC) pirates.
It shure was proposed before, but I didnt read my argument in the last 10 postst.
SOLO - GROUPS - OPEN:
are all valid choices to play the game (explore, trade, missions, bountyhunting, pirating, ...) with one exception: and this is POWERPLAY.
Do I really need to explain why? Powerplay is all about multiplayer. Its about a powerstruggle of different factions. Its about diplomacy, strategy and not least about open *pun intended* conflict. All these things require player interaction and therfore open multiplayer gameplay.
Imo powerplay should be for players in open gameplay ONLY.
- Prepare
- Undermine
- Expand
- Oppose
- Fortify
All thes actions should be forbidden in solo-mode, for the single reason becouse any of those actions performed in solo cant be targeted by othep player-cmdrs and therefore limits the tactical and strategical possiblities of human commanders in powerplay. Since powerplay is all about the "power"-grind all commanders who are not 100% roleplay and honour will be forced to go to solo at some point to evade enemy activity and to bring her own power forward with maximum effect. This cant be good for the gameplay. Going solo for powerplay-grinding undermines the power-play part of the game itself, witch should be the player driven power-struggle and not the merit-grind for the faction-souvenirs at given ranks imho.
There is enough gameplay for solo. Powerplay should not be part of it though.
It wouldnt be hard to do to seperate powerplay from solo. Ships with fortification or preperation cargo could be tagged for open-play only. NPC-Targets for undermining and expanading could spawn in open-play only. End of story. Thank you for reading.
SOLO - GROUPS - OPEN:
are all valid choices to play the game (explore, trade, missions, bountyhunting, pirating, ...) with one exception: and this is POWERPLAY.
Do I really need to explain why? Powerplay is all about multiplayer. Its about a powerstruggle of different factions. Its about diplomacy, strategy and not least about open *pun intended* conflict. All these things require player interaction and therfore open multiplayer gameplay.
Imo powerplay should be for players in open gameplay ONLY.
- Prepare
- Undermine
- Expand
- Oppose
- Fortify
All thes actions should be forbidden in solo-mode, for the single reason becouse any of those actions performed in solo cant be targeted by othep player-cmdrs and therefore limits the tactical and strategical possiblities of human commanders in powerplay. Since powerplay is all about the "power"-grind all commanders who are not 100% roleplay and honour will be forced to go to solo at some point to evade enemy activity and to bring her own power forward with maximum effect. This cant be good for the gameplay. Going solo for powerplay-grinding undermines the power-play part of the game itself, witch should be the player driven power-struggle and not the merit-grind for the faction-souvenirs at given ranks imho.
There is enough gameplay for solo. Powerplay should not be part of it though.
It wouldnt be hard to do to seperate powerplay from solo. Ships with fortification or preperation cargo could be tagged for open-play only. NPC-Targets for undermining and expanading could spawn in open-play only. End of story. Thank you for reading.
actually power play is all about politics, shadow play, and it is multiplayer as far as the Background simulation goes and ALL MODES contribute..
No. Powerplay should be available in solo and group. The instancing system means that you may not be able to target other players even if they are in open. Oh, and people can tweak their router settings to stay in open while avoiding all contact.
Cheers, Phos.
Your suggestion is a bit confusing. You say it should be open only, or solo should be excluded, but what about group? Your main reason for open only/no solo seems to be "because its multiplayer", which group also is about so surley it should not be open only but open and group?
Alltough I cant really agree all that much, Powerplay has been designed to work with solo and all the mechanics have been designed to work without getting into the same instance with your Enemy and/or Allies. No Powerplay mechanic even incudes PvP.
- Status