Modes The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California

[Lateralus]

NPC's we own. Bases we own and worked for.

You can spin it any way you want. I really dont care.

Hes attacking a player faction. Colonia has its own bubble full of powers. Just like powerplay. We all had to work to get there. And we could all fight over territory and push and pull people out of groups. THATS CALLED PVP. Bottom line. Just because I attack NPCS in the game and still make an impact on other players. Thats what the BGS is about. And its Called PVP.

When angry solo warriors start tanking your BGS faction you know you're doing something right

Let them have their giggles grinding, it's the only weapon they have... If they ever pop-up in open it's an easy kill (got to love squishy PvE grind builds).

 

[Tygra]

Well, since I was ran off else where, I will drop my .002 here. ---------------- [knocked out]


Player Mode: (PVE / PVP).

I have a simple question....

Why does this game not have a PVP/PVE toggle?

New option in systems panel:
Player Mode: (PVE / PVP)
* Must have a fully clean record in order to change it, otherwise locked.
* Will count down an hour before the mode change goes into effect.
* Any combat while the timer is active will cancel the timer, Including from wing men.
* Can not be changed while in a wing, can not be changed while in Multi-crew.
* Combat does 0 damage between PVP / PVE ships.
* Crimes are still reported.

The rest of the game already in place handles the rest of the harassment issues; Communications blocks, and station port policies.

It's not like it 'sorta' doesn't already, if you join Mobius, their whole point is not to bug other people, and there's solo, but why let that leave Open to PVP only? To fix 'exploiting' it, it has a charge up time: Not cool down, but count up, before it changes state.

Example: if it's on PVP, you set it to PVE, it will say "Switching to PVE in 1 hour, change back to cancel timer." and the reverse, "Switching to PVP in 1 hour, change back to cancel timer."

Any weapons fire on PVE mode ship just does 0 damage. The 'attacker' still gets reported as attacking a ship, and all the consequences it incurs. This is true for both ships, so if a PVE ship attacks a PVP ship, same effect, no damage, but crime reported.

As for bounty collection, if your in PVP mode when you get it, you can't turn it off. If your in PVE mode, only NPCs can collect it, and again, you can't change modes. Example: "You can't change this option now." Any kind of (Dormant) Bounty, Fine, or other legal issue, and you can't change it.

You will need a clean record in order to change it.

my 0.02. [big grin]

 

[hunvagy]

From this thread I have learned that ... I am Ziggy Stardust, I am an explorer, exploring purely in a Private Group, and hardly ever interacting with other players and I am a PvPer. To be a PvPer I need to be able to influence the environment where other players reside in. Technically I'd call that PvEvPer. Whether it's PMFs or me tagging planets that other CMDRs can't tag anymore.

But you could make that case for every player in the game. A trader influences the BGS, taking on missions does. About anything anyone does. Using that reasoning, close to all players who lift a finger are PvPers. Making the term perfectly useless.

Or, you could use the term how it was intended to be used, and the ambiguity goes out the window.

Well technically you PvP every single star you refuel at. You attack it with your scoop and steal their hard fought reserves of Hydrogen

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why does this game not have a PVP/PVE toggle?

Probably for the same reason that it does not have an Open-PvE mode (even though the initial design information would permit one):

Questions to DBOBE on the Engineers Live Stream:

Will there be an Open-PvE mode? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q;t=42m30s

The game was not sold as a PvP game! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q;t=44m10s

.... plus the fact that being magically invulnerable to the actions of other players would offer new and interesting ways to annoy other players.

 

[Lateralus]

Well, since I was ran off else where, I will drop my .002 here. ---------------- [knocked out]


Player Mode: (PVE / PVP).

I have a simple question....

Why does this game not have a PVP/PVE toggle?

New option in systems panel:
Player Mode: (PVE / PVP)
* Must have a fully clean record in order to change it, otherwise locked.
* Will count down an hour before the mode change goes into effect.
* Any combat while the timer is active will cancel the timer, Including from wing men.
* Can not be changed while in a wing, can not be changed while in Multi-crew.
* Combat does 0 damage between PVP / PVE ships.
* Crimes are still reported.

The rest of the game already in place handles the rest of the harassment issues; Communications blocks, and station port policies.

It's not like it 'sorta' doesn't already, if you join Mobius, their whole point is not to bug other people, and there's solo, but why let that leave Open to PVP only? To fix 'exploiting' it, it has a charge up time: Not cool down, but count up, before it changes state.

Example: if it's on PVP, you set it to PVE, it will say "Switching to PVE in 1 hour, change back to cancel timer." and the reverse, "Switching to PVP in 1 hour, change back to cancel timer."

Any weapons fire on PVE mode ship just does 0 damage. The 'attacker' still gets reported as attacking a ship, and all the consequences it incurs. This is true for both ships, so if a PVE ship attacks a PVP ship, same effect, no damage, but crime reported.

As for bounty collection, if your in PVP mode when you get it, you can't turn it off. If your in PVE mode, only NPCs can collect it, and again, you can't change modes. Example: "You can't change this option now." Any kind of (Dormant) Bounty, Fine, or other legal issue, and you can't change it.

You will need a clean record in order to change it.

my 0.02. [big grin]

Perhaps because they don't want to turn open into a 'PvP mode', but instead rather it be a mode where any and all encounters are possible.

Oh and attacking other players is not classed as harassment.

 

[the100thmonkey]

An uncontroversial term would RvR - realm Vs. realm.

To the best of my knowledge, there are counters to every BGS action in the game.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why does this game not have a PVP/PVE toggle?

Practicality and immersion assassination.

I might be a PvEer all day long and twice on Tuesday, but when bullets hit my ship, I expect them to have impact.

What the game needs is consequences which aren't debilitating for the offender, but also aren't easily shrugged off. The offender still should have incentives to engage in PvP, but the consequences would have to mean that the offender thinks about it before engaging. Is the reward worth the consequence? To the point that "seeing explosions" would not be worth it.

But that needs an overhaul and is quite complex to balance right.

 

[Tygra]

.... plus the fact that being magically invulnerable to the actions of other players would offer new and interesting ways to annoy other players.

This is why I had:
* Will count down an hour before the mode change goes into effect.

So you can't just flip it on and off at a whim. The change will not automatically occur, and also many actions will cancel that timer as well, or even prevent you from changing it.

It seems no one knows what this game even is supposed to be? Open IS pvp mode, there is no PVE co-op cept for Private. There's no Open PVE. So, you can't mix people who want to PVP with PVE, otherwise, you will have what you have now, PVP'ers owning the roost. Seem first thing in order is to decide what the game is even supposed to be, cus PVE Co-Op is what it's not. What I was suggesting was a way to allow the groups to intermingle without the conflict.

Off the top of my head, a large PVE ship running interference covering a PVP ship is the biggest exploit I see possible, IMHO. Creatively solve that, then what's left? But, unless you have something like this, I don't see anyway to allow the Elite Community to fly in a single environment. Just like what you have right now, is this working, really?

My .02 cents anyway.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is why I had:
* Will count down an hour before the mode change goes into effect.

So you can't just flip it on and off at a whim. The change will not automatically occur, and also many actions will cancel that timer as well, or even prevent you from changing it.

It seems no one knows what this game even is supposed to be? Open IS pvp mode, there is no PVE co-op cept for Private. There's no Open PVE. So, you can't mix people who want to PVP with PVE, otherwise, you will have what you have now, PVP'ers owning the roost. Seem first thing in order is to decide what the game is even supposed to be, cus PVE Co-Op is what it's not. What I was suggesting was a way to allow the groups to intermingle without the conflict.

Off the top of my head, a large PVE ship running interference covering a PVP ship is the biggest exploit I see possible, IMHO. Creatively solve that, then what's left? But, unless you have something like this, I don't see anyway to allow the Elite Community to fly in a single environment. Just like what you have right now, is this working, really?

My .02 cents anyway.

How would the proposal handle players with PvP permanently off? (one Dev has indicated that Frontier are well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP)

Both multi-player modes are PvP enabled, in the sense that they make no distinction, in terms of damage, whether the targeted ship is a CMDR or NPC.

The game design information published long ago would permit more than one Open mode and would also permit those modes to have different rulesets to accommodate different play-styles (see quote from FAQ in post #5131). Frontier would seem to have chosen, at some point, to only offer one Open mode - and are now dealing with the consequences of that decision, in terms of introducing changes to provide consequence for particular player / player interactions with changes to the Crime & Punishment system, waking up the Pilots' Federation (to deal with member / member disharmony) and also a karma system to track longer term player behaviours.

We'll see, in time, if these changes have the desired result (while acknowledging that Frontier are the only ones that have access to the in-game analytics and are therefore the only ones in a position to judge whether the changes will have, in fact, brought about the desired result).

 

[willowfan]

*lots of stuff*

Bottom line is that I, and everyone else, paid the same for this game as you did.

You, and anyone else, have no right to dictate what influence I, or anyone else, have on the BGS from whatever mode.

Want to stop "invisible" attacks? Use the tools available to you to do so. Choosing not to use them is a problem only created by you.

 

[Jockey79]

Bottom line is that I, and everyone else, paid the same for this game as you did.

Actually, that's not quite true;


£5,000+ = 1 backer
£5,000+ = 5 backers
£4,500+ = 12 backers
£3,000+ = 7 backers
£1,500+ = 16 backers
£750+ = 100 backers

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous

Some people paid a lot more for Elite Dangerous, wonder if That90skid has the cash to refund people.
As they are the one demanding core gameplay be changed, they should be the one to pay for it....

or they could go write their own "perfect" space game

 

[willowfan]

OK. I and anybody who was not a kickstarter backer or bought during a sale period....

 

[Crank Larson]

My .02 cents anyway.

Shouldn't that be 2 cents or $0.02? But anyway...

Your suggestion has been made dozens if not hundreds of times in the last two years. It's simply not going to happen, and many of us are happy with that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

OK. I and anybody who was not a kickstarter backer or bought during a sale period....

.... and apart from those that have bought the LEP (at either £35 or £130).

 

[willowfan]

.... and apart from those that have bought the LEP (at either £35 or £130).

Them too

 

[PeLucheuh]

How would the proposal handle players with PvP permanently off? (one Dev has indicated that Frontier are well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP)

Both multi-player modes are PvP enabled, in the sense that they make no distinction, in terms of damage, whether the targeted ship is a CMDR or NPC.

The game design information published long ago would permit more than one Open mode and would also permit those modes to have different rulesets to accommodate different play-styles (see quote from FAQ in post #5131). Frontier would seem to have chosen, at some point, to only offer one Open mode - and are now dealing with the consequences of that decision, in terms of introducing changes to provide consequence for particular player / player interactions with changes to the Crime & Punishment system, waking up the Pilots' Federation (to deal with member / member disharmony) and also a karma system to track longer term player behaviours.

We'll see, in time, if these changes have the desired result (while acknowledging that Frontier are the only ones that have access to the in-game analytics and are therefore the only ones in a position to judge whether the changes will have, in fact, brought about the desired result).

Sorry if i am missing the correct quote (about multiple Open) but :

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different.

This part is true. You can make your own Open group (you can join without validation from the owner).

The issue is, and unfortunately i can't find where i read it, Frontier can't provide players functionality to enforce their own rules because of the game architecture.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sorry if i am missing the correct quote (about multiple Open) but :

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different.

This part is true. You can make your own Open group (you can join without validation from the owner).

The issue is, and unfortunately i can't find where i read it, Frontier can't provide players functionality to enforce their own rules because of the game architecture.

Open is one of the "open groups" mentioned - previously referred to as the "all group".

Frontier have chosen not to offer in-game optional rules for groups - if the expectation was that rules would be both out-of-game and only enforceable by agreement of players in the group then it seems rather odd that they included any mention of rules in their pitch.

I would contend that it is not that Frontier "can't" provide optional rules - it's just that they have chosen not to. Simple rules like:

1) Players cannot be interdicted by players (attempt to do so drops the interdictor in Open);
2) Players cannot follow player wakes (unless Winged);
3) Mega-karmic consequence for attacking a player;
4) No loss of credits, cargo, exploration data, bounty vouchers, etc. on destruction by another player.

No requirement to modify the damage model at all.

 

[PeLucheuh]

Open is one of the "open groups" mentioned - previously referred to as the "all group".

I agree and it is under FDev rules.

Still you can create your own Open group (actually it is a private group with free access)

Frontier have chosen not to offer in-game optional rules for groups - if the expectation was that rules would be both out-of-game and only enforceable by agreement of players in the group then it seems rather odd that they included any mention of rules in their pitch.

Here is what i read about Frontier not being able to enforce players own rules (the "because of game architecture" was a wrong assumption from me based on memory)

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...update-Reiteration-of-player-harassment-rules
We have previously stated, and it remains true, that Frontier are not able to manage group specific rules. Players considered to be breaking these group rule sets as established by group moderators should be removed from those groups by said moderators.

I can't find where it has been previously stated though (and yes my forum skill is terrible).

I would contend that it is not that Frontier "can't" provide optional rules - it's just that they have chosen not to. Simple rules like:

1) Players cannot be interdicted by players (attempt to do so drops the interdictor in Open);
2) Players cannot follow player wakes (unless Winged);
3) Mega-karmic consequence for attacking a player;
4) No loss of credits, cargo, exploration data, bounty vouchers, etc. on destruction by another player.

No requirement to modify the damage model at all.

But those rules require to change game functionalities and affect generale equality.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree and it is under FDev rules.

Indeed.

Still you can create your own Open group (actually it is a private group with free access : open to everyone)

Indeed.

Here is what i read about Frontier not being able to enforce players own rules (the "because of game architecture" was a wrong assumption from me based on memory)

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...update-Reiteration-of-player-harassment-rules
We have previously stated, and it remains true, that Frontier are not able to manage group specific rules. Players considered to be breaking these group rule sets as established by group moderators should be removed from those groups by said moderators.

I can't find where it has been previously stated though (and yes my forum skill is terrible).

It's in Zac's thread on reiteration of the harassment rules. Of course Frontier cannot enforce out-of-game rules in a Private Group - and it is up to the group creator / membership manager to control membership.

But those rules require to change game functionalities and affect generale equality.

The first two would require a simple logical test; the third a multiplier and the fourth would reset the "empty ship on destruction" flag that would seem to be set for ships (when destroyed by a player only).

No change to the damage model though....

 

[Zambrick]

Indeed.



Indeed.



It's in Zac's thread on reiteration of the harassment rules. Of course Frontier cannot enforce out-of-game rules in a Private Group - and it is up to the group creator / membership manager to control membership.



The first two would require a simple logical test; the third a multiplier and the fourth would reset the "empty ship on destruction" flag that would seem to be set for ships (when destroyed by a player only).

No change to the damage model though....

As long as they let the players be proper criminals one day instead of what we have right now, then I am fine with rules. Without rules or laws to break, then you are not committing crimes. In this game setting all the people who are RPing crime are doing is ruining the experience.

Private groups are all well and good, but it limits your interactivity with people from all over the world.

I am wondering if FDEV can implement a plan to allow all ships in all modes to be visible in the game to people in Open and Player Group mode. That way text, chat, and voice coms can be used by each side with each other. But the only way they can interact with each other in any other way, then the people must be in the same Player Group or in Open.

It could work as a stop gap until a real working C&P system is put in place. That way FDEV has the time to work on it instead of rushing out the Punishments before creating real gameplay around crimes.