They violated the EULA? How? Mobius is a "private" group that allows anyone in on the honor system. These players violated Mobius' "rules", not FD's. If you truly wish to tightly control other player's actions, then tighten up the private group. That's on you to do, not FD.
Are you upset about the Mobius attack? Are you unhappy about the dev response? Then embrace the Ides of March!
- Thread starter Roybe
- Start date
They violated the EULA? How? Mobius is a "private" group that allows anyone in on the honor system. These players violated Mobius' "rules", not FD's. If you truly wish to tightly control other player's actions, then tighten up the private group. That's on you to do, not FD.
There's always going to be bungholes, though. You can't introduce blanket rules that change the entire face of the game because of a group of bullies. That's what moderation is for.
Now, whether moderation is strict enough - that's a post worthy of discussion. In my mind, game moderators are far too lenient on players that are clearly breaking the rules. When the instance comes up you need to make it very clear that while roleplaying is one thing, taking the smeg is another, and you need more than a slap on the wrist for being said bunghole.
But it still doesn't mean we should introduce more game modes or restrict existing game modes for the sake of a couple of offenders. The game modes available are actually very, very well thought out and comfortable. In a gaming generation where online only games are pretty much the norm, or online/solo if you're lucky, it's nice to see a fully online mode, solo mode to keep safe, and game mode for playing with your mates but no interference from others.
There are so many people wanting to play PVE in Mobius's PG that FDev had to split the PG into two. Sadly they are not comfortable..
And then two months down the line, someone will grief that group by boosting them into asteroids mid mining, or pulling cops on them when smuggling etc., and this discussion will come up again and we'll want more.
There will always be bungholes. You cannot avoid this. But as I said, you can't introduce whole new game modes to prevent it each time something crops up, or a year down the line we'll have 42 different games modes and about 10 players in each.
This is moderation grounds. I don't see new game modes being created for "hackers" in CoD online modes. What do you do? Take each of the bungholes and ban them for a month. Or whatever - that's up to the people in charge. But these problems arise when moderators just sit back and leave offenders to do their thing, and that's not a fault of the game modes - that's failure to enforce game rules, and is a different kettle of fish entirely.
Of course there will always be other 'bungholes' but that does not devalue closing as many as possible, and doing so does not require a new mode each and every time. An 'Open PVE' mode will close a lot of these holes, all of them? - of course not, but it will make it more difficult and less likely that infiltrators will be successful, in effect, reducing their opportunities.
I'm talking beyond the griefers.. Mobius hit 20k.. had to be split.. now the combined groups are at 21k.. the griefers are just the icing on the cake on why some have called for a PVE Mode, especially since PVPers have their own mode, BUt you are correct there will always be griefers..
But why should they? It's still skirting the main point here. Doing this still encourages bungholes, because you're basically saying "do what you want and we'll work around you".
This also encourages the "bubble wrapping" of players, which is never a good thing. The more you hack away at PvP interaction because of a few sore losers the more you take away from any game. Part of the beauty of games like Elite is that it's supposed to feel pretty open, and already people are saying there's a lack of content. Separate the player base into yet another game mode, a non-PvP game mode at that, and you're killing things like PvP piracy. That's making the game more and more bland, and you can do less and less outside the standard activities in game. I didn't buy Elite so I could spend my time grinding bounties in a HRES, I tell you that now
But why should they? It's still skirting the main point here. Doing this still encourages bungholes, because you're basically saying "do what you want and we'll work around you".
This also encourages the "bubble wrapping" of players, which is never a good thing. The more you hack away at PvP interaction because of a few sore losers the more you take away from any game. Part of the beauty of games like Elite is that it's supposed to feel pretty open, and already people are saying there's a lack of content. Separate the player base into yet another game mode, a non-PvP game mode at that, and you're killing things like PvP piracy. That's making the game more and more bland, and you can do less and less outside the standard activities in game. I didn't buy Elite so I could spend my time grinding bounties in a HRES, I tell you that now
Except you are not killing PVP piracy, those that play solo and group are already avoiding it, those that want to play open are doing so, what exactly will change? As for 'why should they?', well, I can't believe I have to answer that but I will, they should because there is a sizeable demand for it, (obviously from a decent amount of players). They should do because software development companies always strive to create the best experience possible for as many as possible as well as other reasons. 'Killing PVP piracy' - as I said above, please explain to me why someone playing open now as a trader, when they have the option of solo or group is suddenly going to vanish from open into another mode when they already have all the tools/opportunities to do so?
Because before you've even considered the actual nature of interaction you're splitting the player base into another group. And not every player goes into Elite with the mindset of "I'mma do open unless I am trading today, in which case I'll play solo to avoid hassle". Piracy is just one example...the bottom line is that reducing all player to player interaction is a negative.
And none of this has still breached my original point. Why is this not being covered by moderation? Why are we seeing rulebreakers or griefers not covered by roleplaying because they're clearly smegheads being treated with little more than an "oi, stop" or worse facilitating it by splitting them into groups?
Reducing player interaction, well, some would/could argue that an Open PVE group would increase player interaction of a non confrontational kind, it's a valid argument. It also depends on the type of interaction involved, reducing PVP for those that do not want it is a positive not a negative, there are definitely two sides to this coin.
As for your original point, the current PVE groups are a sticking plaster, nothing more, they lack the tools, functionality and clear rules that an open PVE mode would offer. Currently an infiltration into say the Mobius group is in a grey area, because Frontier don't want to deal with the prevention of such incursions and alll Mobius and the group admins can do is deal with the symptoms and not the cause. As you stated earlier, there will still probably be incursions and unwanted PVP, I concede that point, but as I said, making it harder for those that intrude, having clear rules laid out by Frontier and not 'Joe Bloggs - group creator' would help. At least then when rules were broken Frontier would be more inclined to frown upon such incursions and act accordingly.
I would say because the game is relatively new and does not have the number of players it needs to make it work as Frontier wished. Multiplayer games are always going to have the same problems. The people who design and build them know the issues but no one knows exactly how to solve them so they change, watch, alter, watch, change, watch ..... etc, hoping that they will reach a point that the game works for them.
Take for instance, World of Tanks. In the beginning it was a good if 'buggy' game. It has now become a dreadful game but because of the system that has evolved within it's elitist player base, but it's a machine to make money for the people who own it.
I'm certainly not putting FD in the same bracket as them, I still think FD make great games but it is a business after all. They have to pay their bills and wages and that comes first. There may be a ten year plan but I doubt their real plans range much ahead of six months in reality.
I think I am going to draw a line here as "not agreeing on a point", because internet arguments suck more than your last pint of milk being off. But I think the main thing to take away is that games need a drastic change such as a new play mode when there's a strong imbalance that needs to be resolved. There's no imbalance here...players that want to play without hassle can, as you've already pointed out, use solo or private play, and those that want the full experience head to Open.
A single grieifing incident, admittedly with the offenders being total smeg for brains, is not a strong imbalance. When half the Elite playerbase proves there's something in Open available to them that isn't available in Private but is being hindered by PvP (of which unplanned PvP is kinda nature of the game) then maybe the consideration should be made, but this is the first post I've seen showing dissatisfaction at the current game mode situation.
It has not been a 'single incident' for a start, and look around the MMO market, (not going to get into the 'is Elite an MMO' debate), obviously with some exceptions the PVP/PVE server split is popular. And there is an imbalance, (imo), those that want a fully functional, cooperative PVE experience are not catered for in the same way as those that want the PVP experiences of open, that to me, and others, is an imbalance.
As it happens, I think there's quite some intention for the full on Elite experience to have the risk of unintentional PvP. A bit of risk can be a really good thing in a game, and if people take advantage of that it's when moderators need to step in, and I see so few reasons Private play wouldn't cover the desires of what's in Open.
But yeah...there's only so many replies of the same nature until a debate is just throwing soggy tissues at each other
I don't know...that's the strangest metaphor I've used in a few days. Looking towards more constructive talk, perhaps we need unique paint jobs for known bungholes? Moderators could enforce vivid pink paint jobs on offenders for a few weeks, with crude pictures of male genetalia drawn over it. A man can only imagine...
But yeah...there's only so many replies of the same nature until a debate is just throwing soggy tissues at each other
A man can only imagine...
See, I knew we'd find some common ground somewhere!
Going to have to pull you up on this. Open is not a PvP mode. Its a common mode where PvEers and PvPers and XYZers can all play together.
Unless you meant CQC, but that's not a mode, its almost a separate game. Its not like you can fly your Clipper in CQC... at least, not yet
Now, if FD put a separate mode called Open PvP - then they would have their own mode.
Going to have to pull you up on this. Open is not a PvP mode. Its a common mode where PvEers and PvPers and XYZers can all play together.
Unless you meant CQC, but that's not a mode, its almost a separate game. Its not like you can fly your Clipper in CQC... at least, not yet
Now, if FD put a separate mode called Open PvP - then they would have their own mode.
Not sure on that AA, whether we or Frontier like it or not open has pretty much become 'open PVP', sure we can get into the rarity of PVP in the current open etc etc but to all intents and purposes it is what it is. Sure, if you nerf your own playstyle and avoid Sol, Achenar, The Lave cluster, Robigo, Cg's and many of the more profitable trade routes and Powerplay in open then you are going to avoid PVP, (largely), but to some extent at least, doesn't having to avoid all of those listed areas and activities indicate that open is PVP?, because that's some of the more interesting aspects of Elite D right there, that is where the players are, so if you want PVE interaction in open how do we square that circle?
Going to have to pull you up on this. Open is not a PvP mode. Its a common mode where PvEers and PvPers and XYZers can all play together.
Unless you meant CQC, but that's not a mode, its almost a separate game. Its not like you can fly your Clipper in CQC... at least, not yet
Now, if FD put a separate mode called Open PvP - then they would have their own mode.
Im thinking they dont understand the game, or what its about. Its sad that the "PvEers" think that Open is PvP, but those in Private groups are such a small fraction onf the player base....i wonder if anyone would even notice if they stopped playing
Don't know about you, but I am sure that FD would notice if the 20,000+ players in Mobius suddenly stopped playing... and that's only 1 group...
Sure you may not see a difference, but it'd affect future sales, and the people who matter would.
Open isnt pvp, i mean if you are doing a CG expect some resistance from a player group trying to stop it from happening. its political. i MAY get attacked here and there but usually can escape if im caught in a sticky situation. but running into players is fun, thats why many CGs have support forces keeping the lanes clear, intel being passed, anchors being placed. i mean hell the odds are in your favor and against any pirate or enemy forces