Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place

[bootsam]

The ZX7 is a good track tool. Kwakers are great bikes. The 955 is a great engine, lovely triple sound. I was riding or rather i was crashing one when the van drove over my bonce. The T955.

I'd love a go of the new ZX10RR, thats a weapon.

The haircut Bowie has in that avatar made me cry as a wee kid as when i demanded one just like it my gran said no. I was only 5 or so. I sobbed my heart out.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/394241-The-boring-way-to-get-merits-in-Powerplay

PP is working as designed, look at the excitement...

 

[Jockey79]

PP is working as designed, look at the excitement...

Folks were excited about;

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/391777-3-million-merits-and-30-billion-credits-later

But as something note worthy happened and it didn't even make it into the footnotes of GalNet that week, people are understandably annoyed.

Perhaps someone should seek out all the interesting and fun things that happen and make a newsletter with it on, as GalNet doesn't want to promote PP then the people who play it should. It might stir more interest in it, if people see fun things going on.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

See title.

What about having PvE in relegated areas? I mean it could be controversial, but aside from cries that "FD sold us a game that said I could blaze mah own trail!", it would be a fair riposte to players that want to bring Open mode down to the exact same level of Solo play.

So, what are the arguments for this? And it They can be summed up in a single word: Toxicity.

Toxicity is the bane for many games, and with PvP in any game, you get very high levels of toxicity generated by PvE players that are terrified of the idea of interacting with other human beings.

No, PvP isn't immune to toxicity, but it gets much worse when any discussion around it is instinctually invaded by pitchfork wielding knights on high horses.

Ok, having said all that, there are times PvE can be useful and fun, even for those who are predominantly...no sorry, I can't bring myself to finish this one.

Suggestions:

1) Restrict PvE only to private groups. Players that don't want PvP...oh wait, this is already working as intended

2) Create special zones where PvE players are safe from murder. It could be called "private group" or something.

3) Implement a system of PvE consent. All who want to PvE have to ask the NPC nicely, as it is not ethical to shoot an NPC that hasn't given his consent. The consent lasts until the NPC despawns, and circumventing this mechanic to shoot an NPC that hasn't given consent will have you labeled as a neckbeard sporting psycho.

Thankyou for your consideration xxx

Ahhh, yeah I'm sure this is a spin off of the post Agony Aunt made.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

So then Open PvE was not intended either? Gotcha.

Open IS PvE just with added PvP. The PvP exclusive mode is CQC if you wonder.

Don't confuse the issue with facts!

Thye fact is that the PvP folks are a small minority.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

No worries. That you have accepted you were making assumptions means you are already more reasonable than the vast majority of the forum here. Have some rep.

Ultimately this thread is not entirely...austere, and I am not going to pretend I am one of the good guys of ED; but I keep that out of such discussions to avoid this becoming the focus. Unfortunately the assumption that anything pro-Open or pro-PvP means the poster is a dirty griefer is pretty much the de facto stance, and unlike yourself most will cling to the psychology cannon as though their (real) life depends on it. I've even seen PvEers battered by other PvEers for showing support and not making it clear they don't PvP.

Consequently all discussions around PvP, even during the most constructive attempts, get inevitably dragged into a poo flinging contest. And we get labelled as the toxic ones?

I'd say you are the one teasing people with the OPs topic.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

We have this group, its called open play.
Everyone who plays there consented to PvP.
If someone combat logs they will be put to shame in a special sub redit. Its the best punishment since fdev dont care.

Dont see the problem, everything is working as inteded.

I thought naming and shaming wasn't part of open. Either way, maybe if enough people combat log, everybody won't care anymore.

Explain why are you so triggered over a video game.

Dunno how triggered you need to be to make a shame list of people.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

FDEV designed pvp to be the core mechanics and its availble on all modes except solo.

PvE is in all modes and solo. Does that mean that PvE>PvP?

Ironically enough, PvP is the end game (if there's any). You need to do all other areas in the game (excluding surface exploration of geysers etc) in order to PvP nowadays…

It is one of the end games but certanly not the only one.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

You assume many things and you know what happens when you assume?

My channel is in my sig, see the ratio of fair 1 v 1 fights to seal clubbing and you will realize you made yourself look funny typing the above.

Dunno but I assume that you assume you know what happens when you assume.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

I thought naming and shaming wasn't part of open. Either way, maybe if enough people combat log, everybody won't care anymore.



Dunno how triggered you need to be to make a shame list of people.

They cheat - they are shamed. Fdev dont punish cheaters so nothing else left to do but take laws in your own hands.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

See title.

What about having PvE in relegated areas? I mean it could be controversial, but aside from cries that "FD sold us a game that said I could blaze mah own trail!", it would be a fair riposte to players that want to bring Open mode down to the exact same level of Solo play.

So, what are the arguments for this? And it They can be summed up in a single word: Toxicity.

Toxicity is the bane for many games, and with PvP in any game, you get very high levels of toxicity generated by PvE players that are terrified of the idea of interacting with other human beings.

No, PvP isn't immune to toxicity, but it gets much worse when any discussion around it is instinctually invaded by pitchfork wielding knights on high horses.

Ok, having said all that, there are times PvE can be useful and fun, even for those who are predominantly...no sorry, I can't bring myself to finish this one.

Suggestions:

1) Restrict PvE only to private groups. Players that don't want PvP...oh wait, this is already working as intended

2) Create special zones where PvE players are safe from murder. It could be called "private group" or something.

3) Implement a system of PvE consent. All who want to PvE have to ask the NPC nicely, as it is not ethical to shoot an NPC that hasn't given his consent. The consent lasts until the NPC despawns, and circumventing this mechanic to shoot an NPC that hasn't given consent will have you labeled as a neckbeard sporting psycho.

Thankyou for your consideration xxx

You crack me up, StiTch. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

They cheat - they are shamed. Fdev dont punish cheaters so nothing else left to do but take laws in your own hands.

Well, what if everybody combat logs? Does everybody become cheater? If so then I guess it isn’t a big deal.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Well, what if everybody combat logs? Does everybody become cheater? If so then I guess it isn’t a big deal.

It is a big deal if you cheat in the game where other people are directly involved, its also breaking the TOS.

It is a big deal because it killed piracy and player bounty hunting.
Its cheating, there is no other way to put it.

 

[Mike Reacher]

All I see in this type of (many) threads is this:
Somebody wants to steal from you. If you run away you are a cheater!
If somebody wants to murder you. If you run away you are a cheater!

Get over it, play the game and carry on soldier.

 

[Jockey79]

It is a big deal if you cheat in the game where other people are directly involved, its also breaking the TOS.

It is a big deal because it killed piracy and player bounty hunting.
Its cheating, there is no other way to put it.

I find that if you want to point out something is breaking the rules, it's useful to link to the rules and tell people what section number to read.
And I agree, cheating is cheating. No matter how many do it, where or why they do it - it's still cheating.

(For future reference, something to copy/paste if you want to use it;

https://www.frontierstore.net/ed-eula/

4.4 You may not use the Game or any Online Features in a manner that could damage, disable, impair, overburden or compromise our systems or security or interfere with the experience of other users of the Game or any Online Feature. )

 

[StiTch]

Thye fact is that the PvP folks are a small minority.

PvE is in all modes and solo. Does that mean that PvE>PvP?

There are a myriad binmen in this world and in comparison just a handful of cardiac surgeons. And yet...surgeon > binman.

In a galaxy where players' hearts break down at the sight of another human, we accept your thanks for being the dedicated heroes this game needs.

Either way, maybe if enough people combat log, everybody won't care anymore.

Maybe if enough people start spawn killing while throwing racial insults, everyone won't care anymore.

Or perhaps FD should punish both CLing and true griefing like intended, yes?

All I see in this type of (many) threads is this:
Somebody wants to steal from you. If you run away you are a cheater!
If somebody wants to murder you. If you run away you are a cheater!

Get over it, play the game and carry on soldier.

Srs bsns, the notion that PvPers are campaigning to prevent others running away is disturbingly misplaced. It's no more than a fabrication, touted constantly because no doubt it's harder to call someone a psychopath for simply wanting consistent gameplay.

Simple truth is PvPers have been giving players guidance on how to escape for some time now. For most, the main desire is to restrict or remove the ability to change the Open BGS through PG/Solo, or split it to a different BGS, because there would be one game mode where players can make a real difference, and true consequence reigns for all (murders most definitely included).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Srs bsns, the notion that PvPers are campaigning to prevent others running away is disturbingly misplaced. It's no more than a fabrication, touted constantly because no doubt it's harder to call someone a psychopath for simply wanting consistent gameplay.

I'll be sure to come back to this contention the next time someone complains about high-wake being an exploit.

Simple truth is PvPers have been giving players guidance on how to escape for some time now. For most, the main desire is to restrict or remove the ability to change the Open BGS through PG/Solo, or split it to a different BGS, because there would be one game mode where players can make a real difference, and true consequence reigns for all (murders most definitely included).

Frontier consciously chose to design, develop, deliver and continue to advertise the game where players in all three game modes can make a real difference - with the consequence that direct PvP is not dominant with regard to the single shared galaxy state.

 

[StiTch]

I'll be sure to come back to this contention the next time someone complains about high-wake being an exploit.

I've seen those complaints perhaps a handful of times, and even less throw to a non-PvPer; it is usually aimed at another PvPer for taking the easier way out.

Using an edge opinion to tar a player base is not befitting of a moderator, Rob.

Frontier consciously chose to design, develop, deliver and continue to advertise the game where players in all three game modes can make a real difference - with the consequence that direct PvP is not dominant with regard to the single shared galaxy state.

As you incessantly remind us. Just remember that as long as it's the case, murder will have negligible consequence and will continue to thrive.

Frontier also consciously designed the game without Open PvE, so I am really glad to hear you no longer support that

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've seen those complaints perhaps a handful of times, and even less throw to a non-PvPer; it is usually aimed at another PvPer for taking the easier way out.

Using an edge opinion to tar a player base is not befitting of a moderator, Rob.

The contention related to a claim of fabrication - which has been acknowledged not to be the case (as "others" does not specify the playstyle preference of those fleeing).

As you incessantly remind us. Just remember that as long as it's the case, murder will have negligible consequence and will continue to thrive.

Frontier also consciously designed the game without Open PvE, so I am really glad to hear you no longer support that

We'll see how murder fares when the C&P changes arrive. It's self regulating, to a degree, as only those that make themselves available as targets can be "murdered" - as such they only really have themselves to blame if they didn't enjoy the experience.

Thankfully an effectively unlimited number of Private Groups either already exist, or can be created in short order, for those seeking to play co-operatively (with careful membership management, of course).

Actually, the design rather clearly includes the possibility of an Open-PvE mode (from my reading of the "How will multi-player work" KS FAQ answer, anyway) - it's the implementation that's lacking. I'm not holding my breath though - as the existence of Private Groups mitigates that lack somewhat.

 

[StiTch]

We'll see how murder fares when the C&P changes arrive. It's self regulating, to a degree, as only those that make themselves available as targets can be "murdered" - as such they only really have themselves to blame if they didn't enjoy the experience.

It has a number of offsets when a murderer is killed, but because players would rather make a loud noise about punishing dem nasty griefors than actually thinking it through, there is still nothing to actually kill the murderers in the first place.

Now if we had PvP bounty hunting...

Actually, the design rather clearly includes the possibility of an Open-PvE mode (from my reading of the "How will multi-player work" KS FAQ answer, anyway) - it's the implementation that's lacking. I'm not holding my breath though - as the existence of Private Groups mitigates that lack somewhat.

But early discussions are not what the game was actually designed around, are they? I am sure I can find a myriad "possibilities" from when the game was first being planned that never made it.

If we want to tout early discussions as the very foundation of this game, I want to know where the engaging piracy is that was all the rage - and was actually supposed to make it in game.