Hey, I'm pushing for crime and punishment for a while now, ask FD that.
Dear FD. The hunt begins on the 28th - but ends a few hours later
- Thread starter Leut
- Start date
Hey, I'm pushing for crime and punishment for a while now, ask FD that.
No I'm not. I'm pointing out that players are responsible for what happens as a result of their actions.
This is getting off topic.
To get back on topic:
I hope that FD learned that the way the did this event wasn't the best way to do it (NO not because of players killing a "quest giver").
Your statement certainly did not read that way:
Players' responsibilities imply there is a morality of some kind that you are holding said players to, certain obligation as a player.
They could have scripted a unique NPC to give the information, which again I still do not understand why they did not.
Yep, the time to kill compared to regular weapon use seems very much OP.
I think my biggest concern though is once SDC showed up, it pretty much destroyed the instance I was in and that can't be good for Open, or the game as a whole.
Especially if they're planning to force players into Open only events as it will only feed the trolls and give them the candy they so desperately seek.
I do hope FD do have a good, long look at how some of these special weapons work.
If Sandro was saying that NPC's are only using some Engineer setups, it does make me think that they are aware there are issues and hopefully in the process of trying to fix them.
Yes, they do play the game legitimately. Never claimed something different.
Not sure if it needs to be harsher, in my opinion it needs to be more "realistic" - but that would probably mean harsher.
That's the part where I think you are too focused on other things to see how it affects you.
In addition, it's clear that the ignore list on the forums works better than the ignore list in the game.....
LMAO!
It's just an analysis you don't like, because you cling to the "but technically they did nothing wrong".
Technically they did many things wrong that a properly socialized adult would do right.
The only one constantly obsessing over morality is you, btw. That much should be clear by now.
To get back on topic - my technical solution: opt out of PvP flag.
Activate and you cannot attack another player and cannot be attacked by another player.
That simple.
Last edited:
The problem is that SDC is pretty much symbolic of those that push the limit of hostile player interaction, it shows FD what needs to be adjusted in crime and punishment to make certain actions less appealing to players. FD just need to take non-direct action to address the mechanics instead of addressing SDC.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Baseless accusation, I gave you the reasoning for why it's inappropriate. You ignoring it doesn't make it nonexistent.
They are actually very properly socialized adults, from my many conversation with members and leaders of the SDC. So keep your morality to yourself. It's irrelevant.
I have to constantly remind people to keep morality out of the discussion, which you still fail to do at this point.
I agree with you on that.
"inappropriate" .. uh huh.
Now you're holding me to some moral standard of "appropriate". Didn't we want to keep morality out of this?
We are discussing the behavior of players in game, so yes, we want to keep morality out of that since it has no bearing on the issue. Mechanics either exist to reduce or encourage certain behaviors, morality is irrelevant on that front.
Here, on the forum, where people are trying to have civilized conversation with one another, your approach that is identical to calling pure PvE players "spineless cowards" and "carebears" is not an analysis nor critique of any kind, but throwing a tantrum and overreacting.
Yea, that happened several times in the stream I was talking about.
And as "appropriate reply on their level of comprehension" I called them "spineless cowards" (for switching into instances with no real PvP players) and "bad players" (in direct response of them thinking they could "tutor other players on how to play this game")
I know they crave the attention, but they might just consider to stop streaming. That "filter" properly socialized adults have between what they think and what they say is surprisingly absent.
Still .. Opt out of PvP flag.
Or yea, extend "ignore" filter to never instance with another player.
More open, less .. soiled socks.
Last edited:
Yea, that happened several times in the stream I was talking about.
And as "appropriate reply on their level of comprehension" I called them "spineless cowards" (for switching into instances with no real PvP players) and "bad players" (in direct response of them thinking they could "tutor other players on how to play this game")
I know they crave the attention, but they might just consider to stop streaming. That "filter" properly socialized adults have between what they think and what they say is surprisingly absent.
Still .. Opt out of PvP flag. More open, less .. soiled socks.
Ah, so it's two wrongs make a right, thank you for the confirmation.
Sure, you're qualified to comment right?
Pretty sure you don't understand or haven't thought about the difficulties/complications of implementing it how you think it should work.
It is not a straightforward problem.
Last edited:
Oh, so it's two wrongs, not just mine? Thanks for the confirmation.
The question FD need to ask themselves is, what they want "open play" to be.
That mode they call "the most social" in the official manual (social contract applies?)
The mode that, unlike CQC has no in-game hint as of what to expect there and no meaningful mechanics to police or self-police player behaviour.
I suggest cargo-unloading and clean-up duty in an SRV for a week until you learn to behave yourself!
(* that's "you" as in the pirate, not "YOU" for suggesting this!)
Oh, so it's two wrongs, not just mine? Thanks for the confirmation.
I never considered "chest-beating PvP MLG Pro 360 no scope" an appropriate attitude, don't know what makes you believe otherwise.
I think FD is gradually inserting crime and punishment into Open, it's visible with the changes in 2.1/1.6.
I've seen a few posts from you GF stating that C&P needs, 'some tweaking', 'some more work' and the like, lets be totally honest here, even the changes that came in 1.6/2.1 have barely scratched the surface. Sadly, with Frontiers stance on powerplay, (small changes possible but no overhaul that is badly needed), I do not hold out much hope for what is truly needed in regards to C&P, a complete revamp, the longer, (and it has already been ages), Frontier dilly dally around the edges of the C&P system the PVE players and those focused more on PVP are both suffering the consequences of the current failures on Frontiers part. Whether that manifests itself as a less populated open, more combat logging, less piracy, bounty hunting or any other number of possible ways doesn't matter, all harm the game and the developer.
That's still "PvP". Destroying cargo ships? With the silly cargo ship design of FD? .. let's not give them any offensive capabilities (unlike the 1shot missles of previous Elites)... and a tiny defense as well .. which works against NPCs so so, but mainly because they toned them down to nothingness.
Yea, and it seems they've accomplished to make cargo-piracy hard to impossible for the solo commander thanks to the overresponse in security while not touching 4 vs. 1 ganksquads at all.
Back to the design bench.
Well, this has turned into a saucy thread
Please correct me if I'm wrong CMDR's, but my understanding of the in-game 'Ignore Function' is to filter communication, not instancing.
Please correct me if I'm wrong CMDR's, but my understanding of the in-game 'Ignore Function' is to filter communication, not instancing.