Modes The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
A PVE option is not needed. Some people want a PVE option. Some people want to force everyone into open. Please explain how one opinion has more weight than the other.

Wanting an additional mode isn't forcing anybody into that mode. It's offering an additional option to players who want to play this game in a certain way. It's adding freedom of choice without taking away choice or options.

Wanting everybody in one mode is forcing players to do something they don't want. It's forcing players into a gameplay they don't want. It's removing freedom of choice while taking away options.

Has one of those two opinions more weight? At first glance no, both are just opinions.
But the opinion about adding a PvE mode is beneficial for the whole group/community, while the other opinion is selfish and hurts the community.
One opinion is promoting an idea that is helpful for the community, the other opinion promotes an idea that hurts the community.

I think ideas that hurt the community should simply be ignored. So yes, one opinion has more weight.

 

[Roland2]

YOU agree its grief play. I dont. Maybe I think YOU are griefing, and you should have to buy another copy of the game. See how that works? Players dont make rules.

A PVE option is not needed. Some people want a PVE option. Some people want to force everyone into open. Please explain how one opinion has more weight than the other.

Forcing everyone into open is forcing everyone to play a certain way, explicitly against the devs stated goals. Adding a PVE option would not force anyone to do anything, would allow players to play how they want, and, in my opinion, fulfill the devs stated goals better than what we have now.

Edit: Ninja'd

 

[fademist]

Forcing everyone into open is forcing everyone to play a certain way, explicitly against the devs stated goals. Adding a PVE option would not force anyone to do anything, would allow players to play how they want, and, in my opinion, fulfill the devs stated goals better than what we have now.

Edit: Ninja'd

us i agree in general with you the best solution is to let the game us it is

 

[relayer]

Quick, someone deploy a Heatsink!

Chaff! Boost! Boost! Boost!

 

[Leto Thule]

Wanting an additional mode isn't forcing anybody into that mode. It's offering an additional option to players who want to play this game in a certain way. It's adding freedom of choice without taking away choice or options.

Wanting everybody in one mode is forcing players to do something they don't want. It's forcing players into a gameplay they don't want. It's removing freedom of choice while taking away options.

Has one of those two opinions more weight? At first glance no, both are just opinions.
But the opinion about adding a PvE mode is beneficial for the whole group/community, while the other opinion is selfish and hurts the community.
One opinion is promoting an idea that is helpful for the community, the other opinion promotes an idea that hurts the community.

I think ideas that hurt the community should simply be ignored. So yes, one opinion has more weight.

Forcing everyone into open is forcing everyone to play a certain way, explicitly against the devs stated goals. Adding a PVE option would not force anyone to do anything, would allow players to play how they want, and, in my opinion, fulfill the devs stated goals better than what we have now.

Edit: Ninja'd

The option for a PVE mode benefits YOUR community, or the PVE community, which is not everyone. It certainly does not benefit me. I am not advocating the latter idea either, just so you know. I dont think anyone should be forced.

Players can already play how they want. Thats what was advertized, and that is what has been delivered. Dont want to be shot at? Play solo. Want player interaction? Play open. Both modes have their benefits and associated risks, as intended.

 

[Roybe]

The option for a PVE mode benefits YOUR community, or the PVE community, which is not everyone. It certainly does not benefit me. I am not advocating the latter idea either, just so you know. I dont think anyone should be forced.

Players can already play how they want. Thats what was advertized, and that is what has been delivered. Dont want to be shot at? Play solo. Want player interaction? Play open. Both modes have their benefits and associated risks, as intended.

Actually, the game does not provide an equivalent Open experience for those that desire to play in a large Open contact area...and not be worried about someone shooting them.

Mobius is a workaround at best...and probably an exploit against the actual desires of the devs, i.e. not allowing a PvE only area.

There is a very strong argument made that there should be a place where people can play cooperatively without possible interference...but again, this appears to go against a desired design/wish of the devs.

On the topic of the Mobius incident...regardless of how you might have a different point of view, deliberately joining a non-PvP group, with the express purpose of PvP'ing is harassment. If people did not get banned, they should consider themselves fortunate.

To relate this to my first point, people will probably NOT get banned because, overall, the devs really do not wish there to be a large scale PvE option within the game.

To be honest, I would love to see an organized group constantly harass Mobuis' group to prove that this will not be considered harassment. One off attacks can be overlooked...a massive influx of people, terrorizing the player base over time would be interesting to watch.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

The option for a PVE mode benefits YOUR community, or the PVE community, which is not everyone. It certainly does not benefit me.…

It would benefit PvP players. They could be sure that everybody playing in Open (PvP) Mode know what could happen. They would be save from "griefing" accusations (in most cases and the word "griefing" could be used again in a more useful way).

It wouldn't harm PvP players as those who don't want to PvP and know their options don't play in Open Mode. I guess the amount of players in Open Mode wouldn't be reduced dramatically. It would have a huge impact on larger private groups.

An open PvE mode could create a more enjoyable PvP environment for those who like PvP.

It would help the whole community of Elite Dangerous players.


Oh, and I would probably not play that much in an Open PvE mode.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

…
To be honest, I would love to see an organized group constantly harass Mobuis' group to prove that this will not be considered harassment. One off attacks can be overlooked...a massive influx of people, terrorizing the player base over time would be interesting to watch.

It would be interesting to watch and result in a PR nightmare for FD.

 

[Asp Explorer]

That would simply result in Möbius swinging the banhammer after the pew-pews have had their laugh, and probably a distribution of certain details on their private forum. What some members may do with those details is open to interpretation, but it's probably not good for anyone.

 

[Jockey79]

That was my entire point, that group bans should never affect a GAME ban.

It depends on what it is for, your poor attempt at distraction with "my rules are bring me..." rubbish is nonsense and you know it.
Someone clearly lying with the intent to break the group no PvP rules is a real matter and a serious one Frontier failed to address.

You say real world should not be connected to the game system, but it is connected - every time you click play in the real world you agree to the real world terms of service;





If you breach the ToS, then the service part should be removed. Simple.
Perhaps spending another £40 on the game will teach someone to follow the rules and not load the game to maliciously harass / grief other players.

Also, laws and consequences of actions are not pushed aside when you sit in a computer chair.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tweets-that-got-people-arrested-2013-7?IR=T
http://www.businessinsider.com/people-arrested-for-facebook-posts-2013-7?IR=T
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/virtual-land-scam-morgan-county-resident-leads-arrest-80685/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071114/113704.shtml


I thought a ban from the game was quite lenient of me, but perhaps we should also look at the time those people lost when they lost their ships to fraudulent use of the game software by another player.
Compensation at say £10 per in game hour lost + expenses (electricity to run the computer, heating for the room it is in, the actual hardware it is played on.... you get idea).

Or perhaps the answer is, an open PvE mode - so we don't end up with it happening any more and all players can enjoy the game their own way without others forcing themselves on them through deceit.

 

[Roybe]

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



It would be interesting to watch and result in a PR nightmare for FD.

I honestly wish nothing bad to happen to the Mobius group...however, I have come to completely disagree with that groups existence...because it removes the pressure from FDev to commit to a clear statement about their desires for their player base and the huge demand for a PvE only Open version.

As I said, I believe the devs have no interest in a PvE Open mode. And Mobius undermines this games reward system completely if that is the case. The reward for playing in Open is to play with others. The disincentive to this is the lack of interaction in the Private modes. By removing the ability to interact, the player has to decide if they want to interact or not. For many this is not a problem...but for those that want an 'MMO experience', they will be more happy in Open...and less satisfied in Private...so they have a natural pressure to be in Open.

In a nut shell: Mobius breaks the balance of the modes, by making a PvE only mode that the devs do not desire.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There is a very strong argument made that there should be a place where people can play cooperatively without possible interference...but again, this appears to go against a desired design/wish of the devs.

Actually, re-reading the description of how multi-player was envisaged to work (at the start of the Kickstarter), a number of Open game modes with the provision for different rules was possible:

.... or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different.

At the time, it was not clear how the different game-play options would be offered. What we have ended up with is Open (PvP/PvE), Private Groups (PvP/PvE) and Solo (PvE) - although it was inferred that other open modes with different rules that would accommodate different play-styles would be possible. In short, not implemented (yet) but not outwith the scope of the Kickstarter description of multi-player game modes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Mate, if the post was created over 3 years ago, I think its safe to assume its been implemented as intended. I think you are looking for something between the lines that isn't there -- the rules for each group ARE different, and set down by the group leader. I can have a group where I tell everyone we MUST remain in-character. Another group may not. It is mentioned there because immediately after, it says they can be removed from the group for "antisocial" behavior. You appear to be attempting to interpret that as an allusion to dev support for PVE checkboxes in group rules.

But, no matter what the real answer to that is, the point is still true that no GAME BAN should be levied based on rules a player set down, which was the point of my reply to begin with.

Where did I refer to in-game bans for breaking the rules that each player member of the Private Group agreed to on joining?

Are there any RULES that say you cannot lie in the game? I cant find any, nor can you state for a fact the intent was to "grief". If I were to do this, it wouldnt be to grief, it would be to earn money through piracy from targets who think they were immune. I am not greifing you by performing acts of piracy. Piracy isnt greifing or harassing.

Joining a Private Group with out-of-game rules is not an in-game action. Requesting to join a Private Group cannot be achieved from inside one's ship / SRV. Therefore it is the player themself who applies to join the group on behalf of their avatar. If the player chooses to lie when agreeing to the rules of the Private Group then that is not in-game role-play.

 

[Dave1235]

YOU agree its grief play. I dont. Maybe I think YOU are griefing, and you should have to buy another copy of the game. See how that works? Players dont make rules.

A PVE option is not needed. Some people want a PVE option. Some people want to force everyone into open. Please explain how one opinion has more weight than the other.

Please explain how I am greifing

 

[Leto Thule]

Actually, the game does not provide an equivalent Open experience for those that desire to play in a large Open contact area...and not be worried about someone shooting them.

Mobius is a workaround at best...and probably an exploit against the actual desires of the devs, i.e. not allowing a PvE only area.

There is a very strong argument made that there should be a place where people can play cooperatively without possible interference...but again, this appears to go against a desired design/wish of the devs.

On the topic of the Mobius incident...regardless of how you might have a different point of view, deliberately joining a non-PvP group, with the express purpose of PvP'ing is harassment. If people did not get banned, they should consider themselves fortunate.

To relate this to my first point, people will probably NOT get banned because, overall, the devs really do not wish there to be a large scale PvE option within the game.

To be honest, I would love to see an organized group constantly harass Mobuis' group to prove that this will not be considered harassment. One off attacks can be overlooked...a massive influx of people, terrorizing the player base over time would be interesting to watch.

You are right, the game does not. Nobody ever said it would, either.

Mobius doesnt set rules of the game, he sets the rules of his group. Its not an exploit, because he cant DO anything about it other than kick people from his GROUP.

My views, your views, or anyone other player's views dont matter. They didnt break any rules that FD had set down, they were accepted into the group by the leader, and were removed for breaking the rules of the group, not the game.


There arent ANY PVE options in the game, large scale or otherwise. Mobius group is not a PVE option, its just a group where the participants agree not to engage in PVP.

No matter how many people attack Mobius, it will never be considered harassment or grief play because Mobius doesnt need to accept them, he chooses to. He has taken it upon himself to build a community that the game does not support, and never made the claim to provide. Group play, no matter what group it is, is still part of the game and thus governed by the same rules regarding player behavior.

 

[Jockey79]

Where did I refer to in-game bans for breaking the rules that each player member of the Private Group agreed to on joining?

I did.

Joining a Private Group with out-of-game rules is not an in-game action. Requesting to join a Private Group cannot be achieved from inside one's ship / SRV. Therefore it is the player themself who applies to join the group on behalf of their avatar. If the player chooses to lie when agreeing to the rules of the Private Group then that is not in-game role-play.

+1

I pointed out in my last post Frontiers own rules they have failed to enforce regarding this.
Which explains why I'm spending less and less time in Elite: Dangerous and more time in other games.

I find it difficult to support a company that does not stand by its own standards / ToS / EULA.
The phrase "Play your own way" is just a bad joke at this point in time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No matter how many people attack Mobius, it will never be considered harassment or grief play because Mobius doesnt need to accept them, he chooses to. He has taken it upon himself to build a community that the game does not support, and never made the claim to provide. Group play, no matter what group it is, is still part of the game and thus governed by the same rules regarding player behavior.

"never made the claim to provide"? What is PvE except a play-style, just as PvP is a play-style:

.... or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different.

 

[Roybe]

Actually, re-reading the description of how multi-player was envisaged to work (at the start of the Kickstarter), a number of Open game modes with the provision for different rules was possible:

But IIRC the community had to fight to get unlimited sizes for private groups.

Originally, the size was supposed to be limited.

This is the mistake the devs made in this discussion.

 

[Jockey79]

....
No matter how many people attack Mobius, it will never be considered harassment or grief play because Mobius doesnt need to accept them, he chooses to. He has taken it upon himself to build a community that the game does not support, and never made the claim to provide. Group play, no matter what group it is, is still part of the game and thus governed by the same rules regarding player behavior.

It never claimed to provide fish in a barrel either...... yet PvP'ers treat it like one by demanding all avenues of play that prevent forced PvP be removed.

Frontier did claim interacting with other players would be "rare" - so perhaps they need to disable uPnP again so the game goes back to what it was at launch - where no one would see anyone else, except for "rare" cases.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

....

This is the mistake the devs made in this discussion.

The mistakes by Frontier were

• Advertising as an MMO
• Having any Open option on the menu to start with

If there was no option of "Open" on the menu, and everyone had to play in private groups from the start (don't need "Solo" either, just make a group of 1) - then people just might have been more respectful of each others group rules.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But IIRC the community had to fight to get unlimited sizes for private groups.

Originally, the size was supposed to be limited.

This is the mistake the devs made in this discussion.

My memory of the issues that Mobius experienced due to the increasing size of the Private Group were related to the ability to accept new members - while Frontier may have underestimated the popularity of a PvE group, there was no stated limit on the size of Private Groups.

 

[Roybe]

My views, your views, or anyone other player's views dont matter. They didnt break any rules that FD had set down, they were accepted into the group by the leader, and were removed for breaking the rules of the group, not the game.

Actually, the lack of enforcement does not equate with there not being rules. Like I said, if so many people thinks that this is an allowable/acceptable way to play the game..get organized and start joining the group and keep killing players in it. A secretly organized group, with the intent of forcing PVP into Mobius will prove once and for all the devs will not enforce the issue...and everyone can agree.

On the rest, I know it's my opinion...and you are welcome to disagree with that opinion...on whatever basis you would like. Your points will not change that.