I would rather be destroyed than give stuff to a Cmdr pirate!

[Cosmos]

I expect that Frontier only want to create one Open mode and would like all players to want to play there. Introducing direct rewards, in terms of loot drops, for jumping straight to destruction (rather than pirating) is unlikely to encourage PvP-intolerant players to want to play in Open and would therefore be a change that would be counter-productive to their desired aim.

While you may not agree with Frontier's stance regarding player freedom, it is what it is.

.... and killing them regardless may get a bit more interesting, for the attacker, if Sandro implements the karma system he has mentioned a few times now.

Until there are more recent quotes that contradict / amend the Developers' stance, they are still relevant, no matter how much some players would wish that they are not.

You are contradicting yourself, you previously quote the devs when they say the modes were intended (which they were), then you are claiming what they really want is to have only Open.

It can't be both.

 

[jasonbarron]

What has been introduced in that regard?

My point is not about the introduction of new mechanics. It's about the current climate of players being incentivised to destroy other players; it's already happening and will continue to happen no matter what, and denying a loot drop will change nothing. Including a loot drop will not encourage players to kill any more than the simple fact that a player target is a player target regardless of reward or lack thereof. Denying a loot drop might have made sense back when the game was on the drawing room table, but it's just silly and foolish now.

 

[Cosmos]

Why did Frontier not make players drop materials when 2.1 was introduced?

Whoa, now that would be a salt mine. [haha]

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are contradicting yourself, you previously quote the devs when they say the modes were intended (which they were), then you are claiming what they really want is to have only Open.

It can't be both.

Not at all. DBOBE has mentioned previously that he would prefer if players played in Open - that's different from forcing them to do so - and the repeated Frontier stance is that the modes are equal and valid (and they're aware that not all players agree with that).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Whoa, now that would be a salt mine. [haha]

Of course it would have been - and Frontier choosing not to do that is consistent with their apparent stance on encouraging destruction of players.

.... same with no cargo, combat bonds, bounty vouchers or exploration drops on destruction.

 

[Robert Maynard]

My point is not about the introduction of new mechanics. It's about the current climate of players being incentivised to destroy other players; it's already happening and will continue to happen no matter what, and denying a loot drop will change nothing. Including a loot drop will not encourage players to kill any more than the simple fact that a player target is a player target regardless of reward or lack thereof. Denying a loot drop might have made sense back when the game was on the drawing room table, but it's just silly and foolish now.

What incentives?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Why did Frontier not make players drop materials when 2.1 was introduced?

How much cargo space does a meta-of-the-minute PVP build ship have anyway? Pew-pews aren't after cargo - they are after kills. That is why I find them so endlessly entertaining.

 

[Robert Maynard]

How much cargo space does a meta-of-the-minute PVP build ship have anyway? Pew-pews aren't after cargo - they are after kills. That is why I find them so endlessly entertaining.

Well, the recent T7 example had none, apparently.

 

[Sterling MH]

Not at all. DBOBE has mentioned previously that he would prefer if players played in Open - that's different from forcing them to do so - and the repeated Frontier stance is that the modes are equal and valid (and they're aware that not all players agree with that).

And forcing Open would kill the PvPers argument that it was agreed that entering Open was agreeing to be their gameplay.

'course they'd then jump to the "Elite DANGEROUS!!!" and whenthat's debunked, if it sticks, "Well, it's an open world game, and everyone gets their gameplay in it, why can't I have mine?". To which the answer would be "Then give us somewhere else to play without you in it".

 

[Cosmos]

Well, the recent T7 example had none, apparently.

It did, it was hauling hull reinforcement packages.

 

[jasonbarron]

What incentives?

People are being destroyed for no reason beyond roleplay or simple pleasure at present, so the incentive would be "that they exist." Denying a loot drop makes no difference. It only makes sense to drop this stance that introducing a loot drop would lead to more killing. And if it DID lead to more players learning combat skills and entering the PvP arena, I actually think that would be a fantastic outcome.

 

[Cosmos]

Not at all. DBOBE has mentioned previously that he would prefer if players played in Open - that's different from forcing them to do so - and the repeated Frontier stance is that the modes are equal and valid (and they're aware that not all players agree with that).

I hate to break this to you but you clearly haven't been paying attention. They are making this up as they go along, seemingly thinking no further than today. The number of ridiculous inconsistencies in game are bad enough, their vision for the game much the same. So much of what they say and do defies logic.

Of course it would have been - and Frontier choosing not to do that is consistent with their apparent stance on encouraging destruction of players.

.... same with no cargo, combat bonds, bounty vouchers or exploration drops on destruction.

The reason why materials don't get dropped is because they are all, beliveably [knocked out], collected in our commnaders utility belt which happens to come with us, as we are instantly teleported to the last place we docked.

Yeah right.. someone pass me the onion head [wacky]

 

[Asp Explorer]

That has simply resulted in pew-pews being denied targets for no reason beyond roleplay or simple pleasure at present; denying a pew-pew attention or someone to play with makes no difference. It only makes sense to drop this stance that introducing an incentive to play with pew-pews would lead to less pew-pew. And if it DID lead to more players who want to be pew-pews creating private groups and entering their own PVP arena where pew-pew is guaranteed, clean, combat-log-free and not bothering n00bs or lulzbucketry group drama, I actually think that would be a fantastic outcome.

 

[jasonbarron]

It did, it was hauling hull reinforcement packages.

Setting aside Nitek's most awesome T7 vs Cutter display, there are a number of ways to build a T7 with mine launching capabilities (as I'm sure you're aware, I just want to get this into the discussion) and great shielding & fast running to easily withstand the unwanted attentions of gank squads or pirates. Rinzler o7o7o7 and MassiveD's recent videos showcasing these builds and methods come to mind.

- - - Updated - - -

That has simply resulted in pew-pews being denied targets for no reason beyond roleplay or simple pleasure at present; denying a pew-pew attention or someone to play with makes no difference. It only makes sense to drop this stance that introducing an incentive to play with pew-pews would lead to less pew-pew. And if it DID lead to more players who want to be pew-pews creating private groups and entering their own PVP arena where pew-pew is guaranteed, clean, combat-log-free and not bothering n00bs or lulzbucketry group drama, I actually think that would be a fantastic outcome.

Is that your new thing? Substituting your constant spamming of "lulzbunnies" when referring to PvPers with "pew pew's?" Seems kind of immature to me

Oh, wait, I see lulzbunny made it in there too. My mistake.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Is that your new thing? Substituting your constant spamming of "lulzbunnies" when referring to PvPers with "pew pew's?" Seems kind of immature to me

Oh, wait, I see lulzbunny made it in there too. My mistake.

It's hardly a new thing. Pew-pews are not all lulzbunnies. Not all lulzbunnies are pew-pews. Both pew-pews and lulzbunnies fill lulzbuckets. It's delicious.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It did, it was hauling hull reinforcement packages.

Hehehe - hardly an efficient trader then - as there's no profit on module sales.

 

[Cosmos]

That has simply resulted in pew-pews being denied targets for no reason beyond roleplay or simple pleasure at present; denying a pew-pew attention or someone to play with makes no difference. It only makes sense to drop this stance that introducing an incentive to play with pew-pews would lead to less pew-pew. And if it DID lead to more players who want to be pew-pews creating private groups and entering their own PVP arena where pew-pew is guaranteed, clean, combat-log-free and not bothering n00bs or lulzbucketry group drama, I actually think that would be a fantastic outcome.

Why do you constantly use pejorative terms like this and attempt to malign how people play? pew-pews? Are you for real? I mean what are you doing in the game that is so much more enlightened?

- - - Updated - - -

Hehehe - hardly an efficient trader then - as there's no profit on module sales.

Well they don't just magically appear in the shops you know, someone has to transport them. Lucky for us Nitek is happy to do it.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I think someone needs a hug. Here, have a hug!

 

[Robert Maynard]

I hate to break this to you but you clearly haven't been paying attention. They are making this up as they go along, seemingly thinking no further than today. The number of ridiculous inconsistencies in game are bad enough, their vision for the game much the same. So much of what they say and do defies logic.

Oh, but I have. They are heading in a direction of their choosing.

.... and it would seem that they value gameplay rather than adherence to "sim" (as Mike Evans has said before now).

The reason why materials don't get dropped is because they are all, beliveably [knocked out], collected in our commnaders utility belt which happens to come with us, as we are instantly teleported to the last place we docked.

Yeah right.. someone pass me the onion head [wacky]

The reason that they are not lost is because the player *has* to collect them for themself - there's an unavoidable requirement to spend time gathering them. This is also probably why they don't drop when a player is destroyed by another player - as the attacker is also required to collect them for themself (rather than acquire them by any other means).

 

[Cosmos]

I think someone needs a hug. Here, have a hug!

No, but I will put you on ignore.