Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen

Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Start Screnn

  • Yes

    Votes: 638 55.4%
  • No

    Votes: 514 44.6%

  • Total voters
    1,152
  • Poll closed .
Its limited in the way that the chance of it happening is really minimal
.
Even in what is being put up as the worst case possible the attack on a group that wishes to avoid PVP how many people did this actually affect? 1% or less?, Even those affected were probably in some sort of community goal so where easy to find.
.
and then there is an assumption that every player you meet is some sort of PVP player when actually the reverse is true. Less than 1% of players I meet is hostile in any way

The griefing/PVP problem is so heavily over exaggerated in this game it truly proves the rule that empty vessels make most noise

Played in open three or four times, got interdicted once by a wing of three with at least one Anaconda. Just because it doesn'thappen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen...
 
Why not have security blow them the hell up? Why not club the clubbers?

We've been asking that very question for months and months. Why no consequence for crime? Why is the entire 400 billion star systems one glorious Anarchy puddle?

I've personally missed the answer to that particular question, suffice to say that a Developer has commented and stated that they are looking into measures. Until then, it's a veritable free-for-all buffet of goodness if you're an Anarchist lol
 
Played in open three or four times, got interdicted once by a wing of three with at least one Anaconda. Just because it doesn'thappen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen...


It has happened to me - once in 12 months and btw I have clear saved three times and started again in starter systems - And I have even delayed clearing datum for 3 weeks in one of them.

If you go to choke points you will find PVP that much is obvious - that's why they are choke points - move away from choke points you wont

and you don't have to stay away from choke points forever - carry a big stick people tend to leave the strong alone
 
Last edited:
I don't see the need for Elite: Trammel. We've got private groups, solo, and open already splitting the playerbase enough for such a huge player area. It's so genuinely rare to be attacked in this game, all these alarmists screeds about it have nothing to do with the game I've been playing since beta. I think I've been killed three times? The station walls had a higher body count when I was first starting out.
 
Last edited:
I know but it's the only argument in favour of PvP so with that gone what do they have to justify their existance?

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

Why not have security blow them the hell up? Why not club the clubbers?

I can't seem to get the hang of this reply vs reply with quote thing, guess I'm going senile...


Just a question do you have "report crimes against me" on or off?
 
*sigh* Yes, if you go where PvPers don't care to look for you, you won't get attacked. Now why didn't I think of that? Problem is I won't be making a whole lot of credits if I stay at the other side of the freaking galaxy and since I've only started playing in december of last year I have some catching up to do in terms of buying that big stick. Not to mention my combat rank of "Competent" is a clear invite to all the PvP heroes to come and have a ball...


On the other hand you won't meet anyone once you're there soyou might aswell play in solo.

Oh and btw a fractured "community" is indeed way better than a split one. /sarcasm off
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Its limited in the way that the chance of it happening is really minimal
.
Even in what is being put up as the worst case possible the attack on a group that wishes to avoid PVP how many people did this actually affect? 1% or less?, Even those affected were probably in some sort of community goal so where easy to find.
.
and then there is an assumption that every player you meet is some sort of PVP player when actually the reverse is true. Less than 1% of players I meet is hostile in any way

The griefing/PVP problem is so heavily over exaggerated in this game it truly proves the rule that empty vessels make most noise

I would expect that players who play in populated areas at popular times during the day may disagree with the contention that "the chance of it happening is really minimal" - as threads on these forums show.

Regardless of how many players were affected, recent events have shown that the only way for players to truly minimise the encounter frequency of meeting a hostile player is to play in Solo or a small population Private Group. Forcing PvE players to fragment even further would seem to be contrary to Frontier's apparent desire for the game community to co-operate and also Sandro's recent statement:

Player versus player conflict is integral to the game, as is player versus environment (and cooperative game play as well).

There is a difference to hoping that a player met is a friendly and knowing that every player encountered is friendly. Some players obviously enjoy the uncertainty of such encounters in Open - others obviously do not.

Given that there is no clear definition of griefing, naturally there are those who will claim that it is rife - just as there are those who will claim that it is impossible in this game. The fact that it is frequently debated would suggest that players have differing opinions as to what constitutes griefing and therefore their perception of the frequency of occurrence of griefing type behaviours.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I would just replace 'Solo' with Open/PvE where PvP is technically disabled (weapons, ramming).

Solo serves a different purpose - some players choose not to have the possibility of meeting any other players at all - and the game design has accommodated that choice from the outset.
 
I would expect that players who play in populated areas at popular times during the day may disagree with the contention that "the chance of it happening is really minimal" - as threads on these forums show.

Regardless of how many players were affected, recent events have shown that the only way for players to truly minimise the encounter frequency of meeting a hostile player is to play in Solo or a small population Private Group. Forcing PvE players to fragment even further would seem to be contrary to Frontier's apparent desire for the game community to co-operate and also Sandro's recent statement:



There is a difference to hoping that a player met is a friendly and knowing that every player encountered is friendly. Some players obviously enjoy the uncertainty of such encounters in Open - others obviously do not.

Given that there is no clear definition of griefing, naturally there are those who will claim that it is rife - just as there are those who will claim that it is impossible in this game. The fact that it is frequently debated would suggest that players have differing opinions as to what constitutes griefing and therefore their perception of the frequency of occurrence of griefing type behaviours.

Perhaps it would be in FDs interests to define what they consider to be griefing, and what is/is not permittet with regard to private groups. At least then we could put an end to the forum rules-lawyering and eula speculation.
And please, not in Reddit. Do it here or as a TOS update where more that 0.005% of the players will see it.
 
that quote from Sandro is interesting, and very clear...

Yes PVP is important to the game, it is also no less important than PVE and cooperative gameplay...

Really there is no need to continue the arguement... All play styles are equally important to the game, so it is about time there was a Multiplayer PVE Only mode so we can play PVE with other people that want to play that style without interference from PVP types...
In such a mode you would not need to be playing cooperatively, you could still 'pvp' through the environment...

As for 'griefing' tactics, no matter the mode they will exist, NO MATTER THE MODE!!! That can and will be dealt with on a case by case basis like it has been in the past (aka ramming griefing resulting in speed limits etc)...

Robert Maynards idea of the Pilots Licence would handle most of that... and the instance changing from PVE to Open mode when you try to interdict or you fire on a player and get forced to flee from security etc and then being suspended from entering PVE mode for a period of time would address most of the issues as far as stopping PVP without the need for player damage mechanics to be drastically changed so there is 'a no damage model' for example.
 
I would expect that players who play in populated areas at popular times during the day may disagree with the contention that "the chance of it happening is really minimal" - as threads on these forums show.

Regardless of how many players were affected, recent events have shown that the only way for players to truly minimise the encounter frequency of meeting a hostile player is to play in Solo or a small population Private Group. Forcing PvE players to fragment even further would seem to be contrary to Frontier's apparent desire for the game community to co-operate and also Sandro's recent statement:


There is a difference to hoping that a player met is a friendly and knowing that every player encountered is friendly. Some players obviously enjoy the uncertainty of such encounters in Open - others obviously do not.

Given that there is no clear definition of griefing, naturally there are those who will claim that it is rife - just as there are those who will claim that it is impossible in this game. The fact that it is frequently debated would suggest that players have differing opinions as to what constitutes griefing and therefore their perception of the frequency of occurrence of griefing type behaviours.

You say "regardless of how many players were effected"

But surely that is the point - how many people does it Genuinely effect - from some of the posts you would think that Mobius group was wiped out - how many were effected <1%? now some may say that 1 Cmdr is 1 Cmdr too many but I would argue against that

The most dangerous CMDR that I have met in the game is me no-one has griefed me more- if you want to get rid of dangerous commander get rid of me from the game - Ill never be killed again!
 
You say "regardless of how many players were effected"

But surely that is the point - how many people does it Genuinely effect - from some of the posts you would think that Mobius group was wiped out - how many were effected <1%? now some may say that 1 Cmdr is 1 Cmdr too many but I would argue against that

The most dangerous CMDR that I have met in the game is me no-one has griefed me more- if you want to get rid of dangerous commander get rid of me from the game - Ill never be killed again!
If the experience of a few don't matter, why should your personal expierence matter? ;)
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
You say "regardless of how many players were effected"

But surely that is the point - how many people does it Genuinely effect - from some of the posts you would think that Mobius group was wiped out - how many were effected <1%? now some may say that 1 Cmdr is 1 Cmdr too many but I would argue against that

The most dangerous CMDR that I have met in the game is me no-one has griefed me more- if you want to get rid of dangerous commander get rid of me from the game - Ill never be killed again!

The recent event(s) have shown that there are players who will knowingly request to join a PvE Private Group with the clear intent of breaking the agreed rules of that Private Group (but not, of course, the rules of the game). How Frontier will ultimately react to repeated occurrences of this duplicitious behaviour is, as yet, unknown.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree that one commander is too many.

If you feel griefed by yourself then you may need to reconsider your play-style.
 
The recent event(s) have shown that there are players who will knowingly request to join a PvE Private Group with the clear intent of breaking the agreed rules of that Private Group (but not, of course, the rules of the game). How Frontier will ultimately react to repeated occurrences of this duplicitious behaviour is, as yet, unknown.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree that one commander is too many.

If you feel griefed by yourself then you may need to reconsider your play-style.

I lol'd. Damnit Robert, enough with the good posts already - I'm still trying to spread enough rep to be able to upvote your pilot's license ideas :p
 
Last edited:
The recent event(s) have shown that there are players who will knowingly request to join a PvE Private Group with the clear intent of breaking the agreed rules of that Private Group (but not, of course, the rules of the game). How Frontier will ultimately react to repeated occurrences of this duplicitious behaviour is, as yet, unknown.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree that one commander is too many.

If you feel griefed by yourself then you may need to reconsider your play-style.

tbh I grieffed myself the other day. It was in Omicron Ursae Majoris on a High Metal world. I was on approach to dock as So-Yeon Landing when I fumbled my thrusters and hadn't deployed my landing gear.
The crater was pretty, as was the sight of my python exploding but I found the rebuy screen quite bland.

Please arange for the planet and the rebuy screen to be banned.
 
Back
Top Bottom