To all opposers of Open PVP why don't you fit something nimble A-fitted of course, undock and let yourself loose in the hunt for the clueless traders out there? They wouldn't know what hit them and you may discover the whole new world for yourself.
- Status
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Don't forget high-waking, interdiction submission and the 15-second graceful exit (in any circumstances)....
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There are already sufficient players doing that.
Why adopt someone else's play-style? It's about how the individual wants to play the game, not how other want them to play it....
I know - that's what I meant by PVP optional - I mean open as it is now - that's what I play.
Apologies for the confusion - I'm
(inebriated-ish).ETA - quite like the way they smiley out "undesirable" words now
Last edited:
I have no interest whatsoever in shooting at another player for no reason. Why not take them along on an interesting exploring trip? Show them how to mine? Take them to a little-known but outrageously lucrative trading run? Why is simplistic pew-pew just so important to some people?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which play-style causes other players direct financial set-backs (that takes time to recoup)?
More is merrier.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It's another option. We can throw it as well into the mix!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I doubt that the traders that you suggest as targets would agree....
They already agreed by signing EULA.
You know they give interviews, take part in AMAs, and make forum posts, right?
Besides, this is how the game's multiplayer was first described by Frontier:
"Multiplayer: 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 as you choose. This technology is already working, using a combination of peer-to-peer (to reduce lag) and server connections."
Pretty clear that the intent was to allow players to choose who, and how, they play with.
Another interesting David Braben quote, which might help show why it doesn't fit the usual MMO mold:
"I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."
(For reference, during much of the Kickstart campaign DB, and Frontier, refused to call Elite Dangerous a MMO. They had to be convinced by fans that the game they were proposing was, indeed, a MMO, before they would start refering to the game as such.)
No they didn't.
The interaction (fighting the other player in Battlefield, tackling the falling pieces in Tetris) is desired. What is unwanted in your examples is the result.
From my point of view, not killing, but making it bearable and enjoyable. Apart from pure PvP games without PvE elements, it's been a few years since I last purchased any game where I couldn't completely remove even the slightest possibility of PvP, and I doubt I will ever spend another cent in any game where I can be forced into a PvP situation against my will.
Right now it's the opposite. There are but a handful of MMOs where the player has no choice but accept that non-consensual PvP can happen. Most MMOs, though, either have no PvP at all in the main world (The Secret World, Guild Wars 2, Elder Scrolls Online, Trove, Star Trek Online, Marvel Heroes, etc) or have the option of PvE servers where PvP is restricted to specific battlegrounds and arenas (WoW, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Age of Conan, Wildstar, DC Universe Online, Rift, most WoW clones, etc).
Yep. The point was the tools are there. The presence of opposing tools does not negate the validity of the first.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The tools also apply to interaction with NPCs - and there are many more of them than there are players.
Last edited:
Im glad you brought that up. Players moving into an open PVE would definitely have a direct financial setback to my play style.
Because it would make me feel like a jerk. I never attack other players without first being sure they want to fight.
That doesnt mean thats what they are only used for. They work on players, hence they are to be considered a valid tool to perform pvp.
Even those who would move from solo or private groups?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indirect maybe - you do not know how much you would have earned.
The direct impact on a player who loses a ship and cargo to another player is quantifiable.
The point is that the argument can be made for both sides of the coin, sir. As is, I am able to perform my playstyle. No, I dont want to stop playing that way.
Edit: And you dont know how much they would lose. I dont just blow things up. I steal 50%, and am willing to negotiate lower if the pilot is willing to talk it over.
Last edited:
- Status