Yes PVP is unfair.

[excalibus]

i've gone away from this thread for a bit and have been just chillin and watchin, and thinkin...

Unfortunately the more I think about it, the more I realise we need to fullfil 2 goals which (in my opinion) require a fairly drastic change to the way the current crime and punishment system works... I do not see a 'simple' fix because ultimately simply making the penalty for random murder harsher will not solve the real underlying problem of making PvP meaningful and rarer while seriously deterring the newbie killers and that particular sort of antisocial behaviour while maintaining a beleivable 'justice' system and may well impact on other activities like piracy in a negative way...

Such a system does have to be weighted more towards player vs player interactions, making the choice to kill another player in certain circumstances not as harsh as killing a player in other circumstances.
For example. A pirates choice to kill a player running from them should be a last choice not a first choice, but firing on them to disable their ship should not be unduely harsh because otherwise we drastically affect PvP Piracy in a very negative way and that is not a desired outcome.

The system needs to be much more granular than it currently is and it needs to retain a history of the players behaviour beyond being clean / wanted and in a way the carries on beyond ship destruction.

I propose that what is needed is a lawefulness state (clean / wanted) and a criminal state stat for commanders, the criminal state stat would be both going positive and negative or it could be just a negative stat. The criminal stat of the commander would be different for each major faction, you would have one stat for alliance, one for empire, one for federation and one for independant systems.

Do legal deeds such as complete legal missions (trade, courier, rescues, kill / assasinate miscreants***, etc, bounty hunting criminals*** without breaking local laws, etc) would raise your criminal stat towards the positive.
Doing illegal deeds such as smuggling illegal cargo, fetch illegal cargo, killing / assasinating clean ships***, and missions of those sort would lower your criminal stat towards the negative.
Getting caught doing illegal things (killing clean ships and being reported for it, getting caught smuggling, friendly fire incidents, etc would all have extra negative weighting on the criminal stat as well as having an impact on the lawfulness stat, so you would get the fine or bounty as well as have an additional hit to your criminal stat.

*** Note that the weighting and impact on your criminal state when the target is a Player would be significantly higher than if it were an NPC.

The criminal status AND major faction relationships of a player would go some way to determine wether or not bounties on that player end up faction wide and the response from the faction with regards to docking privliages and police response when seen in their space by that major faction aligned minor faction authority ships. So if you are a ciminal inside of a given major factions space, and you end up with a bad relationship with that faction, you may well be on a KOS list for that faction as well as being denied docking access across that major factions space.
Another aspect to this, if while you are flying and you commit a crime that results in docking privliages being revoked in the major factions space and your last port of call was at a station aligned to that major faction, should your ship get destroyed before you get to dock somewhere else, you end up being placed in a non aligned 'restart' system that may well be on the other side of the bubble. Note I said restart system not starter system.

Player vs Player criminal behaviour weighting needs to be individialised per different crime type, firing on a clean player with shields up should not have significant weighting, hatchbreaking should have less weighting than doing hull damage to a ship, doing hull damage should have suitably more weighting than firing on a ship with shields up or hatchbreaking, and finally killing a clean player should have a very significant weighting on the criminal stat.

The criminal stat would stay with you, permanently, you would only be able to modify it by the deeds you do, and its meant as a means to show what kind of player history that person has. Some will obviously aim for the most negative they can, and that should be okay to do that.

Police response times would be revamped to take full consideration of the following
Systems wealth level - the higher the higher grade of security NPC's (NPC's in high end ships with A class outfittings for example)
System security level - the higher the level, the faster and more intense the response, higher level NPC respondants and more of them in a shorter time frame.
Players lawful stat (clean / wanted) and players criminal stat - the more negative the stat when wanted, the higher numbers of NPC authority ships that are initially sent and the higher the likeyhood of backup reinforcements coming and the more noticable an effect it has on the 'response times' for the authority to arrive.
Relationship to minor faction - the more negative the relationship the higher the likelyhood that security will interdict you in force during supercruise, regardless of lawful state with them, and if you are hostile and wanted then you should expect serious interdiction attempts / authority response whenever an NPC authority sees you in their space.
Relationship with the aligned Major Faction, if your relationship with the aligned major faction is poor and your criminal stat with them is also poor then you would expect higher rates of naval interdiction attempts especially around 'checkpoints, war zones and conflict zones, and when in areas of space where powers aligned to that major faction exist (example, imperial enforcers interdicting you when you are wanted across the entirety of empire space, or fed agents when you are wanted across the entire federation)

The positive and negative aspects of the criminal stat would only be added / subtracted when performing actions outside of anarchy space. Performing actions inside anarchy space would have no impact on the criminal stat.

 

[Lheim]

PvE:

Unfair, unfair, I'm so done with this, I'm out. I don't want to put in the hours those people that beat me did to become informed of the current meta and counter methods.

I've seen arrogance, but this is beyond bull. This is garbage and you ought to be ashamed.

You want to know the real story, lil britches? Here:

PvE

That wasn't fun. Oh well, guess I will try to avoid the unfun bits of this game and go have real fun in Mobius.

And that is all. Preferences differ. PvP and PvE are like two whole different game genres. Go home.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

No. NPCs do not count towards the 32-player instance limit.

No wonder I keep getting hit with Soviet Regiments (27 aircraft in a regiment). All with the latest Flanker variants. Ouch.

Note for you young whippersnappers: A Block 0 (Zero) F-16A, with two AIM-9's, and an M-61 Vulcan 20 mm cannon is no match for a single Flanker, at range. 27 Flankers? Not even Soviet Quality Control is *that* bad with missiles. i"m dead.

Elite is a late WW 2 air-combat game.

 

[Sandmann]

i've gone away from this thread for a bit and have been just chillin and watchin, and thinkin...

[lots of good stuff snipped for brevity]

The positive and negative aspects of the criminal stat would only be added / subtracted when performing actions outside of anarchy space. Performing actions inside anarchy space would have no impact on the criminal stat.

I proposed something very similar 18 months ago. I still think it's an excellent idea. +1.

(Are you listening this time Sandro?)

 

[excalibus]

I proposed something very similar 18 months ago. I still think it's an excellent idea. +1.

(Are you listening this time Sandro?)

great minds eh and it would be nice if they were listening 'this time' because if you prop'd this 18 months ago and I prop'd a similar idea back during the big C&P discussion last year prior to the introduction of the non payable bounty system... then this'll be at least the 3rd time this type of mechanic has been put forward...

 

[Toxic_Waster]

'The receiving party'? You charmer, you.

But no, I'm not asking for Thor, nor any particularly divine approach.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need a judicial system, because we'd all naturally respect the rights of others and take care for their happiness as we do our own. That'd be our default, and we wouldn't be having this year-long discussion because it wouldn't *occur* to any of us to attack other players - even if the game said it was okay - unless they actually arranged it with us for sporting purposes.

Unfortunately we don't live in that world. In this world, we deal with people who view others as nothing more than resources to be exploited for fun or profit. People who'll use any excuse they can convince themselves sounds plausible to justify stealing people's stuff or abusing them.

So we have a legal system. Part of the function of the legal system is to punish offenders; those who've already proven they can't be trusted to respect others' rights 'Just Because'.

The other element of the system is deterrence. If you can't see a simple moral reason to respect others' rights and persons and property 'Just Because', then the law has to hold something over you. You might want to steal, or abuse, or kill, but if you do, such-a-thing will happen to you. Is it still worth it?

Your point is reasonable about a lot of space being uncontrolled - but much of the least impressive, least challenging killing in this game goes on in starter systems or other places where game lore suggests control should be high.

The legal system in these areas should make these behaviours unappealing. Where the law's presence is low - and the odds of being caught are similarly low - then the threat of punishment needs to be higher.

"It's not likely you'll be caught because this is low-security space. But if you *are* caught..."

That's the test: as it stands, do the threatened sanctions for wrongdoers have a substantial deterrent effect? Do they at the very least give prospective criminals pause? Do those choosing to 'roleplay pirates' need to think carefully about whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential penalties?

If not - and at the moment it doesn't sound as though they do - then the judicial system in the game doesn't hold up against the lore we're being presented with.

We would not be able to appreciate the "ideal" world without seeing the back side. There is no good without evil. I personally expect ED to be agressive and dangerous as 80% of ship modes are designed for combat. I saw many other visually beautiful games where pvp is very limited. So far ED is not one of them, but if you want to hold hands and sing Kumbaya you have plenty of alternatives.

I dont have the much faith for the legal system. It exists only to protect those in power and for the rest of us we have the law. Most atrocities happened in the name of the state and were blessed by the so called legal system.

ED piracy has no benefits other than fun. May be if the scooping mechanic, black market prices, salvaging and etc were more profitable, pirates would be less triggerhappy. Right now many of them dont want to bother with the cargo nuisance. What you suggest is taking the fun away by introducing some supposedly harsh penalties and not offering anything back in exchange.

About the starters systems. They dont belong to major powers and they are the independent states where consequences for killing are less severe. I dont know if it was by design, but currently the starter systems are the low security space.

What I would like to see happening is not relying on the game system for protection, but human militia patrolling the areas, human led corporations protecting their assets, escorts, convoys, rescue parties, pirate bases and so on. I would like this game to have the life bent to natural laws, not to the system laws. And it is already going on to some extent. Instancing and no direct credit exchange are not helping, so the efforts are sort of cumbersome. Hopefully the game will become much smoother.

 

[Sandmann]

great minds eh and it would be nice if they were listening 'this time' because if you prop'd this 18 months ago and I prop'd a similar idea back during the big C&P discussion last year prior to the introduction of the non payable bounty system... then this'll be at least the 3rd time this type of mechanic has been put forward...

I don't know why it even needed to be proposed the first time. For a galaxy so strict as to destroy you for a parking violation, and run by civilisations spanning hundreds of systems to ignore criminal activities that upset businesses that the stations and systems rely on is absolutely without sense or reason. If that weren't enough, the constant level of discontent and ongoing migration to solo/group even after the half hearted and frankly useless attempt at dealing with crime & consequence last time would have to tell them there's a real problem here. I suspect that to be the very reason Sandro even broached the topic. Perhaps this time they'll attempt a real fix instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

We would not be able to appreciate the "ideal" world without seeing the back side. There is no good without evil. I personally expect ED to be agressive and dangerous as 80% of ship modes are designed for combat. I saw many other visually beautiful games where pvp is very limited. So far ED is not one of them, but if you want to hold hands and sing Kumbaya you have plenty of alternatives.

I think if you have properly read through this thread you will have seen that nobody wants to hold hands and sing Kumbaya in this game, that everyone realises that combat will and does happen. Please desist with that kind of talk - it's disruptive to the conversation being had here.

<snip>
ED piracy has no benefits other than fun. May be if the scooping mechanic, black market prices, salvaging and etc were more profitable, pirates would be less triggerhappy. Right now many of them dont want to bother with the cargo nuisance. What you suggest is taking the fun away by introducing some supposedly harsh penalties and not offering anything back in exchange.

This paragraph is odd. It almost reads like you want piracy to be some kind of "I win" mode where all you need to do is say "Yarrr!" and the victim's cargo is magically transported into your ship's hold? I can tell you now that I know one or two pirates who find it fun - just because you don't find it fun doesn't mean that it isn't fun. Pirates - like everyone else in this game - need to Do Things in order to make a living in the game. You think piracy is underpaid? Try Exploration for a good example of "credits earned/hour"

About the starters systems. They dont belong to major powers and they are the independent states where consequences for killing are less severe. I dont know if it was by design, but currently the starter systems are the low security space.

That is probably something that FDEV could fix, I suppose. Regardless of the current (and useless anyway) system security level, there shouldn't be wings of players in FdL's going in seal-clubbing noobs in the first place anyway. Highly toxic to the game and I don't believe FDEV intended for this behaviour to happen. Of course, it is happening - and that's FDEV's fault and something they have acknowledged as something that they need to try to fix.

What I would like to see happening is not relying on the game system for protection, but human militia patrolling the areas, human led corporations protecting their assets, escorts, convoys, rescue parties, pirate bases and so on. I would like this game to have the life bent to natural laws, not to the system laws. And it is already going on to some extent. Instancing and no direct credit exchange are not helping, so the efforts are sort of cumbersome. Hopefully the game will become much smoother.

You would like to see that happening, and I can see why you would as you appear to be very keen on PvP. That's fair enough and understandable coming from your preferences as to how to play this game.

But alas, this is not EvE. There are no human-led corporations in this game other than in the minds of those who get together in Teamspeak. There is only NPC factions and powers. Player groups have an NPC faction created in their name. There is no system control other than what a computer algorithm says which NPC faction controls the system, based on how much work a player group has put into keeping whatever internal counter values feed into the Background Simulation's algorithm. In short you are playing a very much PvE-oriented game which has the possibility of PvP tacked onto it.

The game itself is not built around PvP in the way that Counterstrike is built around PvP, for example.

Others aren't as PvP-minded as yourself and at the same time don't want to be penalised into a game playing mode where they can't meet with other players, nor do they wish to be involved in PvP-for-sport, nor do they wish to have PvP-for-sport imposed on them by others as PvP-for-sport doesn't add any value to those player's gaming experience (despite what you may think) and in fact impinges on their wish to play the game the way they want.

No one wants PvP-for-sport to die a death in this game.

What is desired though is for PvP-for-sport players to play amongst themselves (i.e. other willing PvP-for-sport players) and let the other types of PvP in the game proceed the way the officially touted roles naturally generate PvP - for example a bounty-hunting player goes against a wanted player. Or a pirate player goes against a trading player.

I suspect (though I do not have figures to back this up) that the majority of players simply do not wish to "posse-up" against seal-clubbers, instead preferring to blaze their own trail and just, y'know, play the game as advertised.

Regards o7

 

[Querty Out]

...
Unfortunately the more I think about it, the more I realise we need to fullfil 2 goals which (in my opinion) require a fairly drastic change to the way the current crime and punishment system works... I do not see a 'simple' fix because ultimately simply making the penalty for random murder harsher will not solve the real underlying problem of making PvP meaningful and rarer while seriously deterring the newbie killers and that particular sort of antisocial behaviour while maintaining a beleivable 'justice' system and may well impact on other activities like piracy in a negative way...
...

All good ideas except of making PVP rarer. I'd like to argue in favour of PVP.

PVP opportunities should be meaningful and frequent. For example, players wanting PVP could belong to PVP factions / pick PVP missions and those players could then shoot each other without incurring heavy murder penalties. It should have some meaning beyond 'shooting each other is OK' slash 'PVP for sports' though.

No point going into details I suppose. FDev could come up with something to that extent if they wanted to, I'm just not sure if they do. Maybe 'rare and meaningful PVP' remains the objective and ED continues to evolve in that direction.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

All good ideas except of making PVP rarer. I'd like to argue in favour of PVP.

PVP opportunities should be meaningful and frequent. For example, players wanting PVP could belong to PVP factions / pick PVP missions and those players could then shoot each other without incurring heavy murder penalties. It should have some meaning beyond 'shooting each other is OK' slash 'PVP for sports' though.

No point going into details I suppose. FDev could come up with something to that extent if they wanted to, I'm just not sure if they do. Maybe 'rare and meaningful PVP' remains the objective and ED continues to evolve in that direction.

Technically speaking that is something we have in PP with the exception that it is a crime to shoot a PP member due to it still being an illegal act.

Perhaps if they improved PP that could be an area where those who WANT PvP can simply have their PP ticker set to "on"

 

[excalibus]

indeed poweplay does add a valid and meaningful way that PVP could be more active in... It could well be that attacking rival power players in your powers space could influence the level of effect on the criminal status of the commander engaging in combat in that scenerio and it could be 'weighted' the other way for commanders coming into your powers area of space and initiating combat, that would make choosing to engage in combat with another commander inside their powers space more consequential while reducing consequences for defending your powers area of space. Of course in certain 'areas' such as conflict zones the effects on the players criminal status would be turned off for engaging enemies wether they be player or npc like they are now...

Contested systems (where the expanding power is trying to get control of could become lawless for the week that they are contested. Allowing players who might be independantly aligned with the systems controlling faction and not wanting the power to expand there to attack the incoming powers ships with impunity, and the same for the expanding power, they could attack the non authority ships there with impunity as well... just some thoughts ....

 

[Sandmann]

All good ideas except of making PVP rarer. I'd like to argue in favour of PVP.

I hesitate to speak for Eodemos, but I believe (and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong) that he didn't mean to imply that PvP was occuring "too much". If anything what we keep asking for would bring some players back to open who have left which would lead to MORE potential targets for PvP, not less! I'm pretty sure he was referencing DBOBE's video comment back in beta that PvP should be "rare and meaningful". He (Braben) was saying that in his "vision" PvP would happen for a tangible reason and that it would have a purpose, rather than simply being because you'd found a hollow square that seemed beatable, basically meaningless casual murder. The need for meaningful consequences (however they would be done) would change it from "Oh a hollow square! Deploy weapons!" to "Oh, a hollow square. Killing him might be fun but I'd have to deal with <consequence>. Is this something I really want to do?" It'd still be possible, but you'd need a better reason than "he has a heartbeat".

 

[Querty Out]

Technically speaking that is something we have in PP with the exception that it is a crime to shoot a PP member due to it still being an illegal act.
...

indeed poweplay does add a valid and meaningful way that PVP could be more active in...

Powerplay could potentially provide a meaningful backdrop for PVP. Without changes though, Powerplay related PVP would remain a fairly rare occurrence. And, you know, ... Open... Solo.......

I hesitate to speak for Eodemos, but I believe (and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong) that he didn't mean to imply that PvP was occuring "too much". If anything what we keep asking for would bring some players back to open who have left which would lead to MORE potential targets for PvP, not less! I'm pretty sure he was referencing DBOBE's video comment back in beta that PvP should be "rare and meaningful". ...

Yes, I was referring to that comment. And correct, I did not mean to imply that there is too much PVP. I'd like to see more meaningful PVP and plenty of opportunities for it (not just 'for sport').

Heavy murder penalties will hopefully increase the player population in Open but I did not mean for players joining Open to become 'more potential targets'. On the contrary, PVPers should be deterred from going around murdering random commanders - effected by harsher pentalties - and at the same time PVP orienteded players should be retained in Open by encouraging PVP amongst the like minded.

 

[Sandmann]

Heavy murder penalties will hopefully increase the player population in Open but I did not mean for players joining Open to become 'more potential targets'. On the contrary, PVPers should be deterred from going around murdering random commanders - effected by harsher pentalties - and at the same time PVP orienteded players should be retained in Open by encouraging PVP amongst the like minded.

Any time a player's in open they're a potential target. That's not a problem, in fact it's the way it should be. The problem is the complete and utter lack of any consequence of significance for mindless, casual murder.

With the RIGHT sets of consequences consequences, even if we managed to get EVERY SINGLE player from group and solo AND get back all the ones who've left and dump the all into open you'd get a bunch more hollow squares (potential targets) on your scope, BUT the ones who'd get PvP'd a lot would be the ones who WANTED it (coz they'd be going to the areas PvP was more prevalent and without consequences etc (combat zones, anarchies, independent systems etc), and the hollow squares in the safer areas (highly patrolled, high security, high consequence) would rarely (not never, but rarely) get attacked and when they did it would be for a real reason and not just coz they were there, the attacker wouldn't be able to hang around attacking noobz over and over again, and the victim would KNOW that there would be serious consequences... penalties to pay for murder in "controlled space".

 

[Alanpurus]

Great points made about how to beef up security and using dedicated PvP missions, locations etc, but it doesn't really address the issue. The game AI for NPC law enforcement is really pathetic. They'll sit there and scan you while an NPC pirate is blasting you to bits right next to them.

Governance of player murderers (not pirates - piracy should be a part of a rich trading universe, where cargoes are stolen) but players should be penalised if they murder innocent, submitted or defenceless players. It should be a global game option which monitors you in-game. You rack up a set number of PC murders, and the authorities take your ship. End of. You get a stock Sidey, and off you go, Mr Murderer. Go be a little fish again.

The game already notes when you murder people, dishing out paltry fines in individual systems. The exceptions to the murder count would be NPCs, missions and faction assassinations. But sport murder of players should cost you your ship, and no insurance cover.

 

[excalibus]

Great points made about how to beef up security and using dedicated PvP missions, locations etc, but it doesn't really address the issue. The game AI for NPC law enforcement is really pathetic. They'll sit there and scan you while an NPC pirate is blasting you to bits right next to them.

Governance of player murderers (not pirates - piracy should be a part of a rich trading universe, where cargoes are stolen) but players should be penalised if they murder innocent, submitted or defenceless players. It should be a global game option which monitors you in-game. You rack up a set number of PC murders, and the authorities take your ship. End of. You get a stock Sidey, and off you go, Mr Murderer. Go be a little fish again.

The game already notes when you murder people, dishing out paltry fines in individual systems. The exceptions to the murder count would be NPCs, missions and faction assassinations. But sport murder of players should cost you your ship, and no insurance cover.

Meaningless murder should have a consequence... How you play the game should have 'consequences' overall... If you go on a murderous rampage, system security responses should tighten around you especially when in systems where you are wanted / hostile and they have a high security rating and have major faction alliegences where you are also wanted etc...

There should be a 'consequence' for your play style in as far as a history of your activity of sorts goes...

A good example, I have a large number of assassination missions under my belt, a lot of them are for authority ships and traders in a a system that I was working on taking over... So a lot of NPC clean kills, for me there is no consequence to that because as soon as I want to clean my slate I can either go on an exploration run until the bounties time out or I can suiwinder and clear them straight away... sure it cost me some credits to pay off the legacy fine but that is only a fraction of the rewards (just in credit value alone let alone the BGS affects I was seeking) paid out for doing the missions.


I think the highest legacy fine I paid out in that system was just under a million credits, I made well over 20 million credits just doing the kill missions and that was after repairs and upgrades to my python etc... so really it was of no consequence...

If there was a history sure it would show with regards to that controlling minor faction and perhaps it would also affect my reputation with the federation which would have affected my ability to land back at my home base which is federation aligned as well...

 

[Toxic_Waster]

I think if you have properly read through this thread you will have seen that nobody wants to hold hands and sing Kumbaya in this game, that everyone realises that combat will and does happen. Please desist with that kind of talk - it's disruptive to the conversation being had here.



This paragraph is odd. It almost reads like you want piracy to be some kind of "I win" mode where all you need to do is say "Yarrr!" and the victim's cargo is magically transported into your ship's hold? I can tell you now that I know one or two pirates who find it fun - just because you don't find it fun doesn't mean that it isn't fun. Pirates - like everyone else in this game - need to Do Things in order to make a living in the game. You think piracy is underpaid? Try Exploration for a good example of "credits earned/hour"



That is probably something that FDEV could fix, I suppose. Regardless of the current (and useless anyway) system security level, there shouldn't be wings of players in FdL's going in seal-clubbing noobs in the first place anyway. Highly toxic to the game and I don't believe FDEV intended for this behaviour to happen. Of course, it is happening - and that's FDEV's fault and something they have acknowledged as something that they need to try to fix.




You would like to see that happening, and I can see why you would as you appear to be very keen on PvP. That's fair enough and understandable coming from your preferences as to how to play this game.

But alas, this is not EvE. There are no human-led corporations in this game other than in the minds of those who get together in Teamspeak. There is only NPC factions and powers. Player groups have an NPC faction created in their name. There is no system control other than what a computer algorithm says which NPC faction controls the system, based on how much work a player group has put into keeping whatever internal counter values feed into the Background Simulation's algorithm. In short you are playing a very much PvE-oriented game which has the possibility of PvP tacked onto it.

The game itself is not built around PvP in the way that Counterstrike is built around PvP, for example.

Others aren't as PvP-minded as yourself and at the same time don't want to be penalised into a game playing mode where they can't meet with other players, nor do they wish to be involved in PvP-for-sport, nor do they wish to have PvP-for-sport imposed on them by others as PvP-for-sport doesn't add any value to those player's gaming experience (despite what you may think) and in fact impinges on their wish to play the game the way they want.

No one wants PvP-for-sport to die a death in this game.

What is desired though is for PvP-for-sport players to play amongst themselves (i.e. other willing PvP-for-sport players) and let the other types of PvP in the game proceed the way the officially touted roles naturally generate PvP - for example a bounty-hunting player goes against a wanted player. Or a pirate player goes against a trading player.

I suspect (though I do not have figures to back this up) that the majority of players simply do not wish to "posse-up" against seal-clubbers, instead preferring to blaze their own trail and just, y'know, play the game as advertised.

Regards o7

My response is related to the previous discussion I have with my opponent. Taken out of context my points appear to make little sense to you. Yet you're eager to lecture me. Fine.

You have your own perception of the game or how the game is desired to be played. However, the game is released not according to your expectations and you advocate for changing the game core mechanics. I on the other hand enjoy the game and play it as it is designed. The difference between us is that I appreciate the game and dont impose my desires on heads of others with the righteous abomibation.

 

[Karunamon]

You have your own perception of the game or how the game is desired to be played. However, the game is released not according to your expectations and you advocate for changing the game core mechanics. I on the other hand enjoy the game and play it as it is designed. The difference between us is that I appreciate the game and dont impose my desires on heads of others with the righteous abomibation.

The word you're looking for there is "indignation". "abomination" is a word used to describe the current state of the missions system

Anyways - this is a non-argument among non-arguments. Literally any change anyone ever asks for in the game could be deflected with this. Let's just stop, okay? Suggesting that the game is perfect as is and needs no mechanics changes (which you didn't say verbatim, but when you deflect any and all criticism with "the game is fine as designed") is just a little bit silly.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

The word you're looking for there is "indignation". "abomination" is a word used to describe the current state of the missions system

Anyways - this is a non-argument among non-arguments. Literally any change anyone ever asks for in the game could be deflected with this. Let's just stop, okay? Suggesting that the game is perfect as is and needs no mechanics changes (which you didn't say verbatim, but when you deflect any and all criticism with "the game is fine as designed") is just a little bit silly.

Another abominator! Welcome! What I meant to say is that somebody's else perception of how the game is "desired" to be played is not the ultimate source of truth and should be opened for the discussion.

 

[excalibus]

Another abominator! Welcome! What I meant to say is that somebody's else perception of how the game is "desired" to be played is not the ultimate source of truth and should be opened for the discussion.

perhaps what is trying to be discussed is ways to make the PVP component of the game actually mean something and have a more positive value to the game whilst reducing the mindless seal clubbing that goes on... while also adding more overall depth the to current crime and punishment system to get it to a point where it actually makes sense

Are you suggesting that the currem open mode of the game is all good and fine just as it is???