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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypx5pqzzOS0

I dont think Star Citizen is going to be any more PvE mode friendly, mate. If you listen to this interview, Chris Roberts says "If you attack people in a PVE area, the game wont ban you, but youll get REAL bounty on your head". Also he has a great risk vs reward policy. If you dont go out to the lawless areas, you cant get the special stuff that people who do get. "You can still get the same amount of wealth, it just may take a lot longer".

It will be interesting to see how effective their PvP slider will be in lawless areas then. I think it still applies in those areas doesn't it? If truly effective, it will be all but a PvP flag - and if it is that effective it will arguably be more friendly towards PvE than the open mode we have now. That said, I think our open mode is already pretty PvE friendly if one is prepared to avoid the high traffic areas like starter systems, PP hubs and CGs. Personally, I think it is all but impossible to effectively balance things (like ship and weapon loadouts) in a combined PvE and PvP environment such as open.
.
My current preference, therefore, would be a PvP flag - but that would supposedly ruin the 'immersion' for PvPers (which I personally couldn't care less about, it's a game), is easily exploitable (eg tool to avoid bounty hunters - easily addressed though by having bounties automatically trigger the flag to PvP and forcing the player into open mode) and isn't on the cards anyway so is something we're not likely to see. It's the best compromise I think though - for a minor impact on a few PvPer's so-called immersion we would have an indicator clearly identifying whether a player truly consents to PvP as part of the open mode multiplayer experience (noting that the multiplayer experience is not exclusively limited to PvP, despite what some seem to think/want). It could even be switched on/off automatically when entering/exiting combat zones, RESs etc. You could potentially even have certain (but not all, I would argue) CGs activate it on accepting the CG mission. A PvP flag seems to work just fine in games like SWTOR from what I can see (and generates a certain level of trepidation if one accidentally finds themselves flagged until a timer runs down).
 
Last edited:
...... Likewise, the viewpoint from what is actually considered grief play differs drastically from player to player - on both sides of the argument. Most likely why it hasnt been done.

See, for the most part I am quite chilled on that.

Open PvP Mode = basically anything goes (I'm not sure if you can "grief" in Open)
Private Groups = Whatever rules the group owner sets (within reason).

I don't even class all incidents in the Mobius Group as "griefing" myself.
Some were players being slightly over zealous in their actions or not fully understanding the group rules.
Only the ones that involved lying for the purpose of accessing the group to kill non-consenting PvE'ers in my book would come under "griefing".

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

... I am just pointing out that there are no rules to say you cannot do it.....

I just pointed out there are rules that can be used to cover the situation. :p
 
See, you missed a few points - mainly that court rooms are making more and more judgements on what is / is not acceptable in the online world - not just from Facebook or Twitter, but in games as well.
(And I've not even touched the attack on gaming by Feminism yet :p - it's a sad time to be a gamer, so many problems from so many directions)

Ok, I read those links and thought you were directly referencing them to our discussion. I understand now. Yes, court rulings are being made more and more often to defend people from the harsh reality of the video game world :rolleyes:

At the point in time where they rule that in-game attacks on fake assets are considered assault, I expect ill have a problem. Until that time, (which seems to be growing closer, I weep for the next generation) Ill stand by my point.

But this is the biggest miss you've had.

I do not have "free" time.

I have my time, that I choose who to share it with.
Or I have paid time, where I am on the clock providing a service to others for which I now get to pick the rate of pay I do that for.

Currently, you are getting my time for free - but that does not make it, "free" time. ;)
( I'm actually waiting to do some remote PC work, so you're staving off the boredom for me :p )

Ok, so you have YOUR time. I didnt hire you, so I cannot be expected to cover assets you have lost in a game. If we do that, I reserve the right to send you a BILL for the time it took me to divest you of your said virtual earnings. Lets see here:

DEMAND FOR PAYMENT:

Re: Jockey 79

Good sir, below you will find an itemized list of services rendered and expenditures incurred on my behalf while playing Elite Dangerous. Please ensure prompt payment is received to avoid any collection actions.

---------------------------------------------------------
Time expended finding your ship: 34 Hours @ 9.00 hr = 306.00 USD
Ammunition cost: 46.00 USD
Emotional Distress from repeatedly failing to interdict your vessel: 2000.00 USD
Strain on my wrist from yanking the HOTAS too hard, once: 13.00 USD
Docking cost: Free!! SPECIAL THIS WEEK ONLY!!!
Wife yelled at me during pursuit for uttering curse words: Priceless

Total = 2,365 USD.
 
By the same token, adding a PVE mode doesn't hurt anyone either. Forced pvp would. The two are not comparable.

Just because "it wouldnt hurt anyone" doesnt mean its good for the community. The current modes allow you to play in all advertized methods of play. Solo, group, or open. Each has benefits, each has drawbacks. Its already fair.

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

And we'd still have this thread.

Because as we all know, it boils down to PvP'ers want more targets and anything that gives the rest of us a choice is bad for them.

OPEN
SOLO
GROUP

It seems to me you have three choices. One makes it impossible to PVP with other players. The second makes it extremely unlikely. The third is also less likely, but possible. Choose away!
 
Just because "it wouldnt hurt anyone" doesnt mean its good for the community. The current modes allow you to play in all advertized methods of play. Solo, group, or open. Each has benefits, each has drawbacks. Its already fair.


I think you are right about the fairness of the current design. The request for an Open-PvE Mode is more for convenience, and information, than for fairness. Just letting a new player know there are options other than solo or open to choose from. As Private Groups are not completely intuitive, and there is no in-game directory for PG's that offer membership, I believe something like a PvE Mode, or a tool-tip explaining how to join willing groups with alternate rule sets could only help the community overall.
 
Just because "it wouldnt hurt anyone" doesnt mean its good for the community. The current modes allow you to play in all advertized methods of play. Solo, group, or open. Each has benefits, each has drawbacks. Its already fair.

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



OPEN
SOLO
GROUP

It seems to me you have three choices. One makes it impossible to PVP with other players. The second makes it extremely unlikely. The third is also less likely, but possible. Choose away!

PvP
PvP
Go sit in the corner by yourself as you're not allowed to multiplay a multiplayer game.
 
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.
In keeping with Leto's loophole mentality, how could Frontier not have foreseen Mobius? The size of Mobius is the sole aspect that Frontier could not have seen. This reduces your argument to a matter of scope, and an imaginary line. Would a group of 3 undermine FD's intent? A group of 8? Clearly, those were intended. As someone who argued technicalities for a living, let me point out that the above fails, because you can find no clear line. Before Mobius can be accused of undermining intent, you'll have to produce a clear and definitive line at which point it does so. Without such, it's just a vague and inconclusive argument with no real substance. You're left with oft mocked "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Justice Potter argument. Didn't work out well for Potter, and it doesn't hold water today.
 
Just because "it wouldnt hurt anyone" doesnt mean its good for the community. The current modes allow you to play in all advertized methods of play. Solo, group, or open. Each has benefits, each has drawbacks. Its already fair.

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



OPEN
SOLO
GROUP

It seems to me you have three choices. One makes it impossible to PVP with other players. The second makes it extremely unlikely. The third is also less likely, but possible. Choose away!

Except in open mode, of course, one can't choose not to PvP if a PvPer wants to impose that on someone. So if one wants to play in a massively multiplayer environment in a PvE context, one is forced to accept that PvP is possibly going to be inflicted on them whether they like it or not - and that includes the impact resultant from the constant see-saw balancing of weapons and such that PvP inevitably imposes, not simply just the threat of attack. Not saying we need a separate mode (I'd prefer a PvP flag, personally), just that I understand where that side of the argument is coming from - the alternative currently relies on using a private group, which is not an ideal solution but it's the best we have for now.
 
... 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.

Sorry Roybe but I must disagree with this whole approach, most strongly to "secretly" "forcing PVP" and creating a PK-group to deliberately transgress the internal rules of the group. What makes this secret group any different from Code? Sure, split hairs with an "explanation" but no amount of that will negate the absolutely nasty intent to "get" Mobius members.
 
Last edited:
I think the problems with this are the lack of rules governing it. FD has flat out said combat logging is an exploit, but nothing is done regarding it because it is almost impossible to PROVE. Likewise, the viewpoint from what is actually considered grief play differs drastically from player to player - on both sides of the argument. Most likely why it hasnt been done.

Those complaining against 'combat loggers' refuse to admit they are using a different criteria than the devs. For the devs, 'combat log' means an 'inelegant removal of oneself from the game', basically using some method to disconnect your machine from the internet/bypass the countdown timer on the logout.

Those screaming about combat loggers are crying because players are able to log out properly, denying the attacker the salty tears of their victims...something that IS acceptable under the rules.

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

Sorry Roybe but I must disagree with this whole approach, most strongly to "secretly" "forcing PVP" and creating a PKJ group to deliberately transgress the internal rules of the group. What makes this secret group any different from Code? Sure, split hairs with an "explanation" but no amount of that will negate the absolutely nasty intent to "get" Mobius members.

Honestly, this is the only way to force FDev to state whether crashing someone's group rules is legit gameplay...or a TOS violation.

We might not agree it 'should' happen, however, it is necessary to push for the ToS to be enforced.

..as for those that have a 'nasty intent to get Mobius members'...this does not appear to be a moral problem for those that have done this...and think it is a fantastic way to spend their time.

Rather than small incursions...get smart...and bring numbers into play. Show everyone that 'group invasion' is emergent gameplay and not a ToS violatioN!
 
Last edited:
Those complaining against 'combat loggers' refuse to admit they are using a different criteria than the devs. For the devs, 'combat log' means an 'inelegant removal of oneself from the game', basically using some method to disconnect your machine from the internet.

Those screaming about combat loggers are crying because players are able to log out properly, denying the attacker the salty tears of their victims...something that IS acceptable under the rules.


I do accept the 'Graceful Exit' as accepted game play. Combat Loggers use means other than the included log out mechanism.
 
I do accept the 'Graceful Exit' as accepted game play. Combat Loggers use means other than the included log out mechanism.

You are in a vast minority.

Go and bring this idea up in any thread about combat logging...you will be shouted down, in very high numbers.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom