Indeed. I have repeatedly mentioned this in previous posts on this thread.
Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.
- Thread starter CMDR Generic EventHandler
- Start date
Indeed. I have repeatedly mentioned this in previous posts on this thread.
It's to place value judgment on them, for a person to contribute positively to a subject there needs a baseline of appreciation and dedication for said subject. I don't think the people I described have those things to any extent based on their description.
- - - Updated - - -
No doubt that would be your reading again, with no responsibility on the bearer to deliver a coherant and clear message.
Made me think of:
https://s24.postimg.org/g1nqbod51/74560390.jpg
No, I think it's a pretty accurate interpretation this time.
Hold on hold on, let me try this...
"Grow up, perhaps?"
*Chuckles in the background*
Now let's see if the moderator takes sides.
Last edited:
Using it in the way the person I was relying to, in the example given, would be game tampering, and thus a violation.
What miffs me is when people either don't read or have no comprehension.
Ciao
Funnily enough, I could see no interpretation of what the person you where replying which contained information suggesting tampering with the game itself... From what I read, they where talking about using third party tools to monitor their network connections... That does mean it needs to do anything with the game client... What it does mean is that they will know when another network connection has been requested or established... Of course if they are only running ED and the network monitor, then it would be a reasonable assumption that another player has joined their instance, and all that without breaching the EULA or the TOS...
Please do understand that I actually normally have pretty good comprehension, and pretty good reading skill... not to mention a fairly analytical mind and some 30 odd years of background in networks, computer systems, programming, etc so as I was saying, where is the game tampering you refer too, running a network sniffer is not tampering with the games data nor is it tampering with the game client and it should not even be tampering with the other connection... Maybe I am thick, please explain it to me...
Also perhaps you are unaware, but you come across fairly terse with people with whom you disagree or (it seems) who point out / ask for backup to claims made... maybe it is just my personal interpretation of your posting style...
Still I digress... I did go back and re-read sleutelbos's post (and your post where your quoted and replied), and there is absolutely zero indication in Sluetelbos' post that he infers interferring with the game client to pinpoint a player who has connected... Perhaps you are actually to new to the game and the networking model to understand the possibilities using the in game systems to detect and pin point a player with great accuracy
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Do you learn english by reading books in the 1800s or perhaps just watch ripper street. Sometimes i think i am stepping back in time trying to fathom your posts
(Maybe its the pirate in you
)
Last edited:
Do you learn english by reading books in the 1800s or perhaps just watch ripper street. Sometimes i think i am stepping back in time trying to fathom your posts
(Maybe its the pirate in you
Ahhrrr.
I love reading well written posts. I wish I could write that well.
Dipping into forums again after some time away and finding new threads on the same topic, it always makes me wonder: while we debate over and over the merits or not of a PVE Open mode, or of a revamped crime and punishment system, and these become the repeated focus of forum discussion...
I wonder whether, had FDev simply built ED as a single-player game like all its predecessors, whether the greater focus on the forums would have been actual gameplay, player stories, suggestions and tips, and so on. Or would it, perhaps, have just been an endless cycle of thread after thread complaining about how the game would've been so much better with a three-mode system that no-one seems 100% happy with?
In short: still not convinced that the single-player mode they dropped, having of course never promised it in the first place, wasn't the mode that would've represented most players' ideal.
I wonder whether, had FDev simply built ED as a single-player game like all its predecessors, whether the greater focus on the forums would have been actual gameplay, player stories, suggestions and tips, and so on. Or would it, perhaps, have just been an endless cycle of thread after thread complaining about how the game would've been so much better with a three-mode system that no-one seems 100% happy with?
In short: still not convinced that the single-player mode they dropped, having of course never promised it in the first place, wasn't the mode that would've represented most players' ideal.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I'm 100% happy with the current three-mode system.
I'd be 100% happy with the current three-mode system if the population of Private Groups was unlimited (like Open's) and if the administrative burden of large Private Group management could be shared.
Last edited:
Rafe Zetter
Banned
Do you learn english by reading books in the 1800s or perhaps just watch ripper street. Sometimes i think i am stepping back in time trying to fathom your posts
(Maybe its the pirate in you
Or it could be he is educated to a better standard of english than you, has a larger vocabulary than you, with a better than average grasp of grammar than seemingly 90% of the english speaking population, and furthermore, what you perceive as "1800's toffeenosed talk"; my paraphrase of your post sentiment, is his natural mode of writing and speech. It might surprise you to know that there are people in the world for whom writing "properly" is a professional requirement, apart from most journalists it seems nowadays, and for yet others, simply a matter of personal pride; a skill that once learned, is all but impossible to not utilise to it's fullest extent.
It would be akin to having one particular gait whilst walking during the day, and an entirely different gait used for the evenings.
Some things you just CANNOT turn off.
Last edited:
I'd be 100% happy with the current three-mode system if the population of Private Groups was unlimited (like Open's) and if the administrative burden of large Private Group management could be shared.
You are of course right about that.
I was talking on a personal level. The only private group I'm a member of is 'Canonn'.
Fix the limit and management issues with groups and even more people will be happy as Han Zen.
Nah. It's just like the 'formal communications' from EvE players - all worded to sound like people are more official and important than they are, hence assigning titles like ambassador etc. It's a very easy trick to play seen from teenagers up
Do you learn english by reading books in the 1800s or perhaps just watch ripper street. Sometimes i think i am stepping back in time trying to fathom your posts
(Maybe its the pirate in you
I think its called 'an education' Mike. Didn't they have any round your way?
Being erudite and verbose is also picked up by playing old fashioned role play games i.e. literature. You may know it as 'reading books'. Sorry but 2nd hand copies of Razzle will not help you here.Blimey! Are we really going to argue about language now!
I wonder how many people actually play in wings, because the argument that a PvE mode would not change how the game functions is being thrown around so effortlessly.
Let's assume you are using rail guns and your wingmate passes by and you hit him/her instead. Or a wingmate or you yourself by mistake boosts into someone else's torpedo or mines.
Or if you want a much more common scenario, the wingmate is really close to the target when your Plasma Accelerator connects.
What happens then? They take no damage?
That would mean an inherent advantage over the other modes, where there is no friendly fire. Thus, fighting in wars and bounty hunting has even less risks, yet once again all of the rewards? Not only do you remove the risk of a hostile player, but also the risk of accidental friendly fire, a feature inherent to the core gameplay regardless of game mode. Yes, even solo, you can damage yourself with collateral damage.
Whatever alternative (aka band aid fix) you can find to counter this example will be available to the griefers to use against you. So that's not even a consideration, since it removes your main goal: A mode where they have no ways of hurting you.
This is why I claim that such a request is so egocentric that it shows from which subsets of players it stems from.
Let's assume you are using rail guns and your wingmate passes by and you hit him/her instead. Or a wingmate or you yourself by mistake boosts into someone else's torpedo or mines.
Or if you want a much more common scenario, the wingmate is really close to the target when your Plasma Accelerator connects.
What happens then? They take no damage?
That would mean an inherent advantage over the other modes, where there is no friendly fire. Thus, fighting in wars and bounty hunting has even less risks, yet once again all of the rewards? Not only do you remove the risk of a hostile player, but also the risk of accidental friendly fire, a feature inherent to the core gameplay regardless of game mode. Yes, even solo, you can damage yourself with collateral damage.
Whatever alternative (aka band aid fix) you can find to counter this example will be available to the griefers to use against you. So that's not even a consideration, since it removes your main goal: A mode where they have no ways of hurting you.
This is why I claim that such a request is so egocentric that it shows from which subsets of players it stems from.
Last edited:
Well even a fix would be a consideration, if the negatives outweighed the positives. If the wing situation was really that bothersome then you could simply apply friendly fire to wing-mates, the assumption being you would only wing with people you trust anyway. But I doubt the 'advantage to PvE mode' would be so great as to upset anyone. Everything has a downside, even the current situation. Holding out for perfection won't be possible in a game where players have opposing preferences.
Last edited:
So what you are saying is that it's a necessary evil downside?
And see, like I said, your idea can be used against you. You get winged from someone, he annihilates your ship much faster than what you can leave the wing. There, griefed. So the mode is now pointless because it's main reason of existence is nullified and has a turnaround.
How is that argument any stronger than someone saying that griefers are a necessary evil downside of keeping that integrity intact instead?
Because, once again, the reality is that these people are not there every 2 jumps, they are only where they know they will find victims. So they are very much avoidable and people can enjoy the current Open the way they want if they change systems. Dark sectors exist, you can just avoid them. Meanwhile, the Open PvE alternative has imposed measures instead.
Although I'd be in favor of some changes to starter systems, but even those changes wouldn't include turning off friendly fire. More in line that elite anaconda security vessels jump in as soon as an instance is created.
Last edited:
It's always an option not to actually throw the baby out with the bathwater, but don't let me stop you from being overly dramatic.
Overly realistic you mean.
Just like people exploit the loops in the current open, they will exploit them in open PvE. And you and everyone else will be here to complain about it. Just like people complain about suicide sidewinders/eagles/fighters. The system was imposed exactly in order to tackle a previously griefing method of ramming. The measure imposed has a window which allow a new method of griefing and as soon as it is found out, it gets exploited.
What makes you think that won't be the case again in the future? Apart from Open PvE being an utopia in people's minds?
Speaking of which, what is the Open PvE supposed to do about that? I assume that there will be no crime charged around stations either so that people don't get griefed this way, so people playing in Open PvE would also pay less fines/bounties, right?
Speaking of which, what happens to ramming damage? Is that gone as well? Is Open PvE a bumper car simulator? Do Open PvE players have more maneuvers available to them because they can now just use other players as a forced break and not have to worry about it?
Sure it doesn't change anything, until it does.
Last edited: