Modes WOW CGs in open have got really toxic haven't they!

[kofeyh]

It's pathetic really.

Frontier have elected to create a set of choices; not all of them are positive. Amoral choices exist, regardless of personal desire to see them exist, or not. The only lever Frontier has to, essentially, reign in some of the behaviour, are consistent, applicable laws. That the AI are incapable of policing behaviours, is not by chance. As is always the way, people's perspectives always change, depending on which end of the imbalance, they are on.

The same folks who endlessly argue for AI to be irrelevant and easily dispatched, are the same people who are suddenly offended the moment they are irrelevant and easily dispatched. The only thing that can, ironically, solve at least part of the problem, is the same thing that is endlessly resisted when it's introduced. Consequences.

The developer isn't an innocent party here, Mike. There is intent and expectation for conflict to exist. There always will be. Essentially, a portion of the player base refuses to accept the ToS, but play anyway. It's hard to cater to that in a reliable fashion. It's also difficult to expect some to honour the terms of the game, and others not, because they aren't convenient.

Either way, the developer has choices around how it can deliver content; they aren't always going to be 'lawful good' in that respect.

 

[Ryder35]

So you were bored. And decided to add some risk. Okay. With you so far.



What, was it not boring? Why was it a mistake to see how the game works when the things the CG warns about, might happen?



I'm sensing a 'but'.



There it is. It's funny, but this is what the developer wants. Because this is what people want. Asymmetric fighting. Be it commanders massively outgunning AI, or other commanders. The consequences of being so unspeakably, obscenely overpowered, is that you can use that against other people.

Who knew?! Right? Probably worth remembering that little snippet when the developer tries to reset the balance and people whine about TTK for AI and their own survival. Anyhoo.



Yay! Do you feel better for throwing, like the entirety of open, under the bus, to extol the virtues of Mobius? Good stuff. [up]

Wow, possibly the most patronising post I have read for a while... hope it made you feel better because it certainly did not help me in any way.

 

[Ozram]

Wow, possibly the most patronising post I have read for a while... hope it made you feel better because it certainly did not help me in any way.

Forum pvp s nasty stuff sometimes.

 

[kofeyh]

Wow, possibly the most patronising post I have read for a while... hope it made you feel better because it certainly did not help me in any way.

I sort of read the original post the same way, as being a fairly patronising take on the fact people can get shot at in open, at a CG, and dumping literally everyone into the ganker, or "toxic" bucket as a consequence (also, go team mobius!). I'll go re-read it again to make sure I'm not missing anything, though. I'm sure I've just missed something?

I don't have a problem with folks playing in whatever mode they want, though. I just find it a bit amusing when everyone in open is automatically tarred with the same brush and literally everyone is a toxic ganker. As though this somehow explains everything.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Frontier have elected to create a set of choices; not all of them are positive. Amoral choices exist, regardless of personal desire to see them exist, or not. The only lever Frontier has to, essentially, reign in some of the behaviour, are consistent, applicable laws. That the AI are incapable of policing behaviours, is not by chance. As is always the way, people's perspectives always change, depending on which end of the imbalance, they are on.

The same folks who endlessly argue for AI to be irrelevant and easily dispatched, are the same people who are suddenly offended the moment they are irrelevant and easily dispatched. The only thing that can, ironically, solve at least part of the problem, is the same thing that is endlessly resisted when it's introduced. Consequences.

The developer isn't an innocent party here, Mike. There is intent and expectation for conflict to exist. There always will be. Essentially, a portion of the player base refuses to accept the ToS, but play anyway. It's hard to cater to that in a reliable fashion. It's also difficult to expect some to honour the terms of the game, and others not, because they aren't convenient.

Either way, the developer has choices around how it can deliver content; they aren't always going to be 'lawful good' in that respect.

its early so may be missing something but I *think* i agree..... I am fine with players being "allowed" to be a bad guy, even so far as being a serial killer and an enemy of humanity as would be the case with the current CG......... but the consequences of this should be logical.
fight to get a CG to allow access to anti thargoid weapons to fail, you dont get access to the weapons - not for ever, players CAN change play style, but it should be for a period of time that players do notice.

i am with you on the ai, in all cases. CZs can get sticky but aside form those even with my sensible ships (i do not do the invincible builds) it would take a series of errors on my part to get destroyed by AI (I have still managed it on a few occasions however) but if anything it is becasue the ai are so weak that i got complacent and got destroyed when i did.... so i am with you there too.

it is actually not the indiscriminate player killers which annoy me (ok i admit that do... but it shouldnt be becasue they are doing something which the game allows) it is the fact that it is consequence free for them, they get to do what ever they want, without any consequences to their game. They get to act like they want but in a weeks time all can be forgiven again, with no down sides. that is what annoys me more than anything.

and on that i agree with you again...... it is mostly on the devs.. .and their vague inconsistent comments about the game. I always fall back to early dev diaries from DB, but other talks from different devs are seemingly not on the same page.

 

[kofeyh]

its early so may be missing something but I *think* i agree...

lol, in shock twist, mike agrees with kofeyh for a brief moment and the entire universe stops for a moment, to say "wait, wut?".

.. it is mostly on the devs.. .and their vague inconsistent comments about the game.

We have a brand new bounty that only applies to commanders. Yes, this is pretty much the latest poster child, for entirely inconsistent application of law within the game, and embeds a lack of balanced consequence. Sure, Sandro to his credit did a massive amount of work to ensure it played as best possible within PowerPlay, which was a good thing, but the entire thing is still redundant.

We have existing laws. We have an existing bounty system. We have existing security levels. These are the levers that can be used, and absolutely should be used. Instead, the developer is inventing karma and whole new bounty systems to skirt around them. Is this because they are afraid to hold commanders accountable, or is it because the player base, ostensibly, doesn't want to be held accountable?

There are days, I simply cannot tell.

--

Oh, and quietly? David checked out of ED a while ago. It's still part of his history and he does tend to wax lyrical about the universe and the aliens and what not, but it's pretty obvious he's moved on to other projects. The reality is, his vision whilst grand and amazing, doesn't need us to function; the game literally plays itself. He'd be quite happy if we payed for it, and never actually stepped foot into the thing at all to muck it up.

Oh no, I feel for Sandro and the rest of the team, who have to somehow deliver an engaging experience, because not needing players? Doesn't pay the bills. Sandy will be aware of that, as will be the entire dev team.

 

[WR3ND]

Well, I largely agree with both of you, and am just adding this comment here since I'm out of rep for both of you, apparently. And who knows, maybe a dev or the like are watching this thread...

Cheers.

 

[Ryder35]

I sort of read the original post the same way, as being a fairly patronising take on the fact people can get shot at in open, at a CG, and dumping literally everyone into the ganker, or "toxic" bucket as a consequence (also, go team mobius!). I'll go re-read it again to make sure I'm not missing anything, though. I'm sure I've just missed something?

I don't have a problem with folks playing in whatever mode they want, though. I just find it a bit amusing when everyone in open is automatically tarred with the same brush and literally everyone is a toxic ganker. As though this somehow explains everything.

I have admitted and apologised that my first post (mainly the title was a little ranty, probabvly due to the fact that I had just been killed several times I even made a thread to discuss the best way to survive station blockades.

At no point though do I blame the people who killed me or call them Gankers or anything else. I actually think we pretty much agree on the problem. It is not the players it is that lack of any response from the authorities in game. I do fine at interdictions etc and view that as fair game but for a station, even in an anarchy, to let people hide inside their superstructure sniping at people who are bringing the requested supplies to said station is mind boggling. It is not even about the quality of the AI, even in their cirrent state enough of them would be able to occupy the bad guyd long enough to give the traders a chance I would thinjk.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

lol, in shock twist, mike agrees with kofeyh for a brief moment and the entire universe stops for a moment, to say "wait, wut?".



We have a brand new bounty that only applies to commanders. Yes, this is pretty much the latest poster child, for entirely inconsistent application of law within the game, and embeds a lack of balanced consequence. Sure, Sandro to his credit did a massive amount of work to ensure it played as best possible within PowerPlay, which was a good thing, but the entire thing is still redundant.

We have existing laws. We have an existing bounty system. We have existing security levels. These are the levers that can be used, and absolutely should be used. Instead, the developer is inventing karma and whole new bounty systems to skirt around them. Is this because they are afraid to hold commanders accountable, or is it because the player base, ostensibly, doesn't want to be held accountable?

There are days, I simply cannot tell.

it would be nice for FD to at least *try* realistic consequences and see how it works out.

hell do it in beta, limit the systems to like the old 5 system bubble

stick in a CZ in one of them, with rules that once you pick a side you are stuck with that side for the duration.
in another system add a CG, with 2 competing sides, again once you sign up for one side you cant sign up for another
and if you go against the aims of BOTH CGS then a player is tagged enemy of the state... if the CG you are on the side of "wins" you get a time limited bonus, be it reduced prices on gear for a time or increased rares allowance etc etc. if you are on the losing side you do not get the bonus.... if it is for totally new gear, if you were against the CG then you have a few month lag time before you are given access to the gear.

add an anarchy pirate faction in to one system and just TRY banning players from docking in the high sec systems in this beta test if they are flagged "enemy of the state" but they can land in the pirate base. "clean" players either do not have access to this base or if they do they have to pay more for stuff where as the illegals get a bonus

and FD could look at the metrics and listen to the feedback.


oh and buff the ai. imo that bloody eng bug which gave ai insane killer weapons came at the worst possible time. the complaints on the forum were legendary, but, if memory serves (and i am not 100% on this) they didnt actually try buffed ai with reasonable eng mods after they fixed the insane bugs.

sure apparently some high level ai have very weak eng mods right now, but i think they can push it a bit more.

and if it all fails and everyone hates it.... welll..... its beta right?

PS equally i LIKED the invincible shield fixes that FD put into beta a while back. i was v dissaponted when they did not make it in.

PS and FGS FD need to increase the no fire zone outside of a station, possibly unless a player has a permit to fire inside it (if they wanted to build gameplay around combat outside a station). Such a permit would be revoked for destruction of non hostile / non criminal vessels within the NFZ

 

[sollisb]

but not sure why anyone would want to run the gauntlet of engineered PVP builds who sit there taking out unarmed Cobras!

Lesson learned and thanks to Mobius for providing a safe haven!

Easy meat for them. They need stories for the schoolyard

 

[NeilF]

it would be nice for FD to at least *try* realistic consequences and see how it works out.

hell do it in beta, limit the systems to like the old 5 system bubble

stick in a CZ in one of them, with rules that once you pick a side you are stuck with that side for the duration.
in another system add a CG, with 2 competing sides, again once you sign up for one side you cant sign up for another
and if you go against the aims of BOTH CGS then a player is tagged enemy of the state... if the CG you are on the side of "wins" you get a time limited bonus, be it reduced prices on gear for a time or increased rares allowance etc etc. if you are on the losing side you do not get the bonus.... if it is for totally new gear, if you were against the CG then you have a few month lag time before you are given access to the gear.

add an anarchy pirate faction in to one system and just TRY banning players from docking in the high sec systems in this beta test if they are flagged "enemy of the state" but they can land in the pirate base. "clean" players either do not have access to this base or if they do they have to pay more for stuff where as the illegals get a bonus

and FD could look at the metrics and listen to the feedback.


oh and buff the ai. imo that bloody eng bug which gave ai insane killer weapons came at the worst possible time. the complaints on the forum were legendary, but, if memory serves (and i am not 100% on this) they didnt actually try buffed ai with reasonable eng mods after they fixed the insane bugs.

sure apparently some high level ai have very weak eng mods right now, but i think they can push it a bit more.

and if it all fails and everyone hates it.... welll..... its beta right?

PS equally i LIKED the invincilbe shield fixes that FD put into beta a while back. i was v dissaponted when they did not make it in.

Well, I'd see this as part of simply more orchestrated/dedicated PvP gameplay. eg: CGs in OPEN only, where indeed you sign up to just one side and that's it!

But there's no reason this ethos couldn't follow through to Powerplay, where obviously players immediately are assigned to different sides. Or indeed, even the BGS in effect making a system or two "hot spots" and then dishing out missions to deliver, prevent delivery, of things. And all these would be aimed at OPEN only play, specifically to orchestrate PvP. If you don't want to PvP, simply don't take part in these particular activites.

And...

Note1 - We need more involved & interesting combat scenarios. eg: Protect a location, ship, station, platform, convoy, along with the counter attack mechanics.

Note2 - Piracy needs a huge bucket of love. It needs to reward stealing cargo (& general nefarious activites), especially if illegal destruction of other CMDRs is going to be penalised. It needs in effect a career!

 

[kofeyh]

I actually think we pretty much agree on the problem. It is not the players it is that lack of any response from the authorities in game.

Indeed; please note that no malice was intended. Essentially we are increasingly seeing the need for one (easily dispatched AI) outweigh the importance of the other (consequences from authorities). It's very difficult to actually get traction on this, because the natural reaction is just to be a bit morally offended at it, rather than recognising that this is ostensibly the outcome of several changes that has made AI irrelevant, whilst simultaneously relying on AI to police crime.

The latest bounty system, is essentially an admission that they can't get traction on solving the underlying problems, and that's the best they can do.

 

[kofeyh]

it would be nice for FD to at least *try* realistic consequences and see how it works out.

They did. 2.1 AI -- ignoring the broken module issue -- was still rolled almost all the way back. The reality, Mike, is the folks Frontier listen to, don't want consequences, they just want to punish others. And look I can't blame people for essentially wanting a game that prioritises their experience over someone else's; I just wish Frontier didn't entertain that quite so much as they do.

Laws have to work, they have to be enforceable, or the system breaks down. It's clearly evident, the system has broken down. It will take a very brave developer, to un-break. I'm not sure if they are up for another fight to get that balance back to where it should be. They lost the last attempt.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

...

There it is. It's funny, but this is what the developer wants. Because this is what people want. Asymmetric fighting. Be it commanders massively outgunning AI, or other commanders. The consequences of being so unspeakably, obscenely overpowered, is that you can use that against other people.

...

I don't think "the people" want it. Evolve pretty much died off very quickly. Not just because the asymmetric gameplay, but it was a factor. All that was left is a very small subset of the originally interested players. Doing PvP right is not just throwing stuff out and hope the players enjoy it - just like SP gameplay MP has to be given consideration.

ED tries to be the game for all and everything - but it just doesn't work that way. My imperssion is that the developer not just wants it - it's rather the way it would play out was grossly mispredicted or simply wasn't thought through at all. But that's just me.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Well, I'd see this as part of simply more orchestrated/dedicated PvP gameplay. eg: CGs in OPEN only, where indeed you sign up to just one side and that's it!
r!

see i just dont see that at all... imo there is no need for any open only (imo) nonsense.

but if a CG is competing - and esp if it has a combat element - it stands to reason that in open competing ships would potentially attack each other. For those who want this ,then they do the CG in open. For those who dont, then they do it in a PG.

if the CG is get meds to base X.
the counter CG is STOP ships getting meds into base X

then there really is no argument about not expecting conflict in open.

in solo / PGs however it would be ai carryign the meds or doing the hunting to stop the deliveries....

would that mean open would be objectively more risky than solo.... sure, absolutely but if this is the gameplay some players are wanting, then, does it matter...? if players are asking for it, and then they get it that is great... but please as much as it would be lame for a player to complain when a competitor shoots at them in open doing this CG, it would equally be lame to complain that, said CG is harder in open because of player risk.

and if everyone chooses to do it in solo or PG, well sorrry, that is the majoriy speaking that they are not interested in the emergent game play.. but at least it would be on offer . a legitimate in game lore friendly reason for player conflict.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Did a couple of runs with a mate yesterday, both of us in Pythons. Number of interdictions: zero. Quite disappointing, really. Guess it really depends on your neighbourhood.

I did a number of runs last night at Maia, and I WAS interdicted... my first player interdiction in months! I naturally turned to face them, boosted a few times to stay behind them, and high waked.

Once safe, I checked the chat log. Turned out that I had bravely Sir Robined from a random act of kindness. I was all set to be attacked by PKs, murder hobos, and station campers, and instead I was attacked by a random gifter.

What it is it for me to hunt people in anarchy zones who kill people in anarchy zones? Nothing. Its your job to keep your ship in one piece and you failed. Dont shift the blame on other people. A proper cobra shouldnt be griefed anyway, its way too fast and small for it.

Until a proper C&P is in place, the only reason to play in Open is if you enjoy PvP, even if it's just running a gauntlet, and making it through alive. I would prefer a much friendlier environment, where chronic murderers are identified as such, but that's not the environment we have now.

 

[kofeyh]

I don't think "the people" want it.

Yeah, they do. The developer has just added a commander only bounty system, and when questioned as to why this wasn't pushed to PVE as well, then no of course not because that would induce consequence and AI don't matter. They do if you want them to prosecute crime, though.

So which is it? They can't be both. Either they matter, and security forces are effective, and laws are consistent, and people end up being held accountable (that's the bit where it comes unstuck, by the way) - or they don't and the status quo remains. You can only pick one. Choose wisely.

--

Have you ever noticed the only time people complain about consequences, despite endlessly asking for them, is when they actually happen? For example, being held accountable for speeding and causing the total loss of another ship. Or being set upon in a RES site or CZ (because of committing a crime) by overwhelming force. Whenever the criminal code can be enforced, due to AI actually being in a position to do so, it's suddenly the worst thing ever.

You can perhaps see why the developer at times has serious traction issues, trying to resolve any of this. When you peel the onion, ultimately it always comes back to consequences.

 

[NeilF]

Until a proper C&P is in place, the only reason to play in Open is if you enjoy PvP, even if it's just running a gauntlet, and making it through alive. I would prefer a much friendlier environment, where chronic murderers are identified as such, but that's not the environment we have now.

Can you imagine when such a C&P (Karma) mechanic is in place? Such that if you illegally destroy more than X CMDRs in period Y, you start incurring quite significant penalties (eg: more and more station denying you docking. Or you're highlighted as a psycho to all other CMDRS.

Can you imagine then how much more depth is instantly added to piracy? At the moment piracy can be used to mindlessly destroy whatever, whenever you like. But if you're suddenly held accountable, then all of a sudden your choice to destroy a victim matters. You can of course still do it. And if you don;t do it very often, you'll probably get away with it. But if you're not a very good pirate, and destroy to many victims, you will get noticed, and wil get penalised.

And this then would mean two more things:-

1) Piracy of course needs some attention. At the moment it's a bit of a vapid shambles!

2) The game would need to offer "legal" PvP, ideally in interesting ways. eg: Dedicated OPEN CGs, or dedicated Powerplay tasks, or the actual BGS offering a couple of "hot spots" in OPEN and forcing CMDRs togethor via missions/rewards.

PS: C&P (Karma) is required in Anarchy systems. The game will remain broken without it.

 

[CMDR Greg Wayne]

When I first heard about this seal clubbing I thought that it would be really cool if a couple of wings of max out vettes could come in and take them on. But then I realized that the probable outcome of that would be the same as some punk/bully being challenged on even ground: They would run. Cowards are like that.

If this thread is about some of the PvPers I know that are blockading the CG then no. They would not run. Bring all the firepower you've got and you'll see them fight to the death. However, it is more likely that any who tries to stop them will be the ones biting the grass and/or running away.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

If this thread is about some of the PvPers I know that are blockading the CG then no. They would not run. Bring all the firepower you've got and you'll see them fight to the death. However, it is more likely that any who tries to stop them will be the ones biting the grass and/or running away.

are you one of said blockaders? if so out of curiosity how would you feel about some of the suggestions in this thread? would you be ok with the RP of if the CG succeeds you are not allowed any anti thargoid gear for a few months due to trying to stop the CG from succeeding?
(I ask because if the players involved in this sort of thing are happy to go all in on the RP and are not just doing it for pew pew jollies against weaker players, then, there really is no downside to FD implementing proper consequences.)