The recent anti pvp ideas concern me. Reasons and "better" suggestions inside
- Thread starter rckstr
- Start date
But then the honorable pirate could play in the Open group (as he currently does) where people who prefer the PVP playstyle can play and he can immerse himself all he wants. My immersion is currently being broken because I don't want to PVP but am in an environment where there no other players...moving me from solo to Open PVE does not impact current Open because I never play there so I would never be a target for current pirates.
Apple, barrel, bad... pvp!
Weird that a lot of answers was "form BH ganker hunting wings!", shouldn't the pirates be doing that also themselves as it's them that is tarnished here? Hmm...
Finding a trader with a PvP flag set to 'on' would be a long and frustrating search I would imagine.
Apple, barrel, bad... pvp!
" these clowns are raiding our turfs"
Well that would be because a lot of them don't want it, which is where we started. Point is, if PvP is viable and fun for all you'd find some who DO want it, and you'd know they wouldn't whine or combat log.
I'm seeing it less as "PvP switches" in a separate PvE mode, and more as high security/low profit areas and low security/high profit ones. If a trader WANTS PvP piracy he gets the reward of high profit. If he wants relative safety he can grind all he likes with a LOW (not ZERO) chance of attack. That'd actually make sense from a simulation point of view and would be more "organic" to the game.
Last edited:
Fair enough - I assume your dislike for doing away with SOLO/GROUP is the worry about numpty CMDRs still?
I'd still like to see numpty behaviour - any destruction of another CMDR without a "valid" reason - to be an uber serious issue. And if we then extrapolate that out so "justified" and "mutually agreed" PvP is freely accessible in the game, and players not interested in that can easily not take part, then for all intents and purposes people can easily play "SOLO" and "GROUP" within "OPEN" if they wish, will hopefully very little more risk involved...
While I can still understand some players still wishing to "lock" themselves away from other players, ultimately I think it causes so many issues to the game, it would be nicer tio construct OPEN so it's more appealling to such players. It may still not be 100% what they want, but the benefits to the overall game would be worth it IMHO!
Personally I really am not a fan of the PvP flag idea - however I am supportive of FD making the security ratings of systems more meaningful. High-security systems should have a near-instant and deadly response to criminal players - like a large wing of Deadly/Elite Vultures dropping a few seconds after the interdiction or something like that.
Pirates should have to skulk around the backwaters and stalk targets into low-security areas using wake-scanners. Players should feel safe in high-sec systems.
I like your idea of the higher trader profits in low-security systems.
Consensual piracy is glorified begging. Piracy is as much part of Elite as space itself, so I see no reason why David should spend much time on people who dont like the basic premise of the game. More consequences for crime should be added, but a 'piracy immunity toggle' is just not Elite.
Are you advocating that indiscriminate Arena-type gankfest gameplay in the main game is healthy for the game overall?
And - once again - no one is wanting in-context PvP to go away.
I am only talking about PvP-for-sport ganking being imposed in an out of context manner.
It's awesome how no one has actually tried to counter that one specific point - that's because my point is factually true I suppose. Hence, inconvenient to certain player types
Regards o7
NPCs try to gank me all the time. In fact over the years it dwarfs the fights I've had with commnaders who were players. If we were operating in a bubble of ten systems then your 'arena type gankfest' strawman would hold some weight. Last time I checked there were 400 billion star systems and about ~70k in populated space. If I hadn't actually played the game I'd come away from discussion with folks on the other side of the argument, with the impression we couldn't move for being shot at by those dreaded 'gankers'.. So already we've got some arguing on a false premise. Therefore I don't accept argument nor the hysteria surrounding the whole issue.
Its all rather more baffling because its very easy to escape when you submit to interdiction by high waking.. However, for the record, and I've stated this several times, I'd prefer if there was no solo/pg and Open was a little different. One should expect to be relatively safe in high security systems at risk in Feudalist and Anarchies.. A game based a little more on risk vs reward.. So people on those trading milk runs would make less profit but those who went to dodgy places made more, etc..
Instead thats not what the petitioning is for. We certainly wouldn't see an end to solo or pg (oh, the drama if that happened), the lobbying is to reduce the options for play in Open by maligning shooting at other commanders. Its appears to me a way to enforce a prefered PvE gameplay upon all of us.
By the way, you can shoot back but I suppose that doesnt fit with some peoples view of the game whose focus appears to be taking pictures of the galaxy or space trucking fruit and vegtables.
Last edited:
because it is as stupid WOT clone as it can be, and i don't like those "grind all tiers" and "WOT like" games. i want to play sandbox open world game that supports pvp, and elite OPEN is just what i like.
soooo untrue. rust has no pvp only area. dayz, space engineers, unturned, medieval engineers too.
all those open world games have just one open world, but elite has as much open worlds as you want. it's just ther in one of them (open) there are other players and PVP, and in all the others (SOLO, PRIVATE GROUP) there aren't.
it is true that some mmorpgs have pve and pvp zones, but this game has nothing in common with those kind of games - no leveling, no raids, no +3 on special equpement.
No PvP flags please. That would be waving a white flag at the problem going: we're stumped, here a 0 or a 1 to solve this issue.
Make each and everyone consider the consequence of their actions. Make the trader consider flying through insecure areas to make a bigger profit. Make the Pirate consider going into high sec areas to gain more valuable loot. Make the serial killer decide he is willing to be barred from most civilised stations in order to shoot noobs for lols. Make the bounty hunter consider going into a HazRez in an anarchy for the high value targets, but when the system gets a whiff of a Bounty Hunter in the system, skilled big ship baddies will flock to it.
You ingame actions should have ingame consequences.
Make each and everyone consider the consequence of their actions. Make the trader consider flying through insecure areas to make a bigger profit. Make the Pirate consider going into high sec areas to gain more valuable loot. Make the serial killer decide he is willing to be barred from most civilised stations in order to shoot noobs for lols. Make the bounty hunter consider going into a HazRez in an anarchy for the high value targets, but when the system gets a whiff of a Bounty Hunter in the system, skilled big ship baddies will flock to it.
You ingame actions should have ingame consequences.
LOL @ people thinking Arena/CQC is a viable alternative to what has become the norm for PvP in this game.
That's like saying, "Hey, you like fast cars right? Well your fast driving scares me and I don't like it. Could you go drive that Mustang on that circle(jerk) track to get your speed thrills and leave your Lamborghini Aventador in the garage from now on please?"
Do you see how asinine that sounds?
That's like saying, "Hey, you like fast cars right? Well your fast driving scares me and I don't like it. Could you go drive that Mustang on that circle(jerk) track to get your speed thrills and leave your Lamborghini Aventador in the garage from now on please?"
Do you see how asinine that sounds?
Maybe that's a bad example, with speed laws and racing track days around. I understand your sentiment though
And no, you could not drive your Mustang on a circle track, since it sits in a corner and sulks everytime it sees a bend in a road
Last edited:
Would you like a list of the thousands of MMO games that have split areas/servers for PvP? Easy to make a small list of everything and then claim every other game is not even to be considered because of quest types... I didn't know we were now talking about quests, nice try to deflect the argument but not biting as you well know that is nothing to do with the issue. Aunt Sallies are obvious.
Just a tiny sample of the games which do have both PvP and PvE but keep them clearly defined.
WoW, DDO, LOTRO, STO, Warhammer online, ESO, Conan... It's easier if I just leave this link: http://www.mmorpg.com/
Well see, this is primarily a PvE game with PvP tacked onto it, for one, which explains the NPC's. See: original Elite games for reference as to NPC behaviour. Nothing surprising there. Playing the NPC card is a strawman, frankly. And besides which, the current state of NPC's in this game is ridiculously bugged in many ways - see the numerous threads about various NPC bug-ness joy.
You've taken that entirely out of context. There are wings of players out there who do nothing more than treat this supposed game of Elite like it was CQC, and you well know this. e.g. The Smiling Dog Crew, as one example of a bunch of players who go around in PvP-for-sport style, murdering anything with a heartbeat in an entirely out of context manner.
This renders your next bit null and void, therefore...
You know this. I know this. Noob seal pups getting clubbed to death in Eravate won't know this.
OK fine you'd prefer that, more than you wouldn't. There are very good reasons for those modes to be kept, and less good reasons for them to be taken away. Not going to happen anyway.
Agreed.
This is utter boulderdash and poppycock at the same time. All that is being asked for - repeatedly - is for dissuasion of treating the main game like it was ED: Arena. That's it.
You still seem to not understand that this is primarily a PvE game with multiplayer tacked onto it.
Ah. I get it. I think I have your number now.
And I'm not averse to shooting back where appropriate. Besides which, even my Exploration-fitted Clipper which had shields and guns wouldn't stand a chance against CMDR Rabid Kill-em-all-in-my-Fer De Lance-Lulz-Open-Is-Arena. (In fact it didn't, a few weeks ago.)
Regards o7
all those games have similar gameplay. elite has much different gameplay. elite gameplay is more like rust then like CONAN or LOTRO.
and, most of those games (obviously not WOW) are dead games. i guess you would like to kill elite too?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
no, that is just the way you look at this game.
elite is multiplay open world sandbox game without limitations. if you want to be protected from other players, you choose SOLO and stop limiting other players. limit yoursellf.
Why is it so difficult for you guys to understand why people want to play in open but have an issue with risk free ganking? What is the problem with harsh consequences for pointless killing?
As for having everything they want in solo you're clearly missing the point. People want to play in open but they also want meaningful consequences for murder (or ship murder if you want to split hairs).