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

[Jockey79]

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

The people of Birmingham UK would like to disagree.
After a 4 month strike they rather wanted binmen more than heart surgeons.

See it's all a matter of perspective.

I want my bin emptying every week, but I don't want my heart looking at every week.
I want my PvE every session, but I don't want PvP every session.

So PvE > PvP for some folks, and PvP > PvE for others.
Which is why it is great the game lets us choose what we want each session

 

[Robert Maynard]

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...

Why should players change their play-style to deal with them? Those that choose not to engage in PvP aren't likely to want to do so.

There would seem to be plenty of scope for the development of PvP bounty hunting - however knowing players, if it applied to *any* bounty then there would be those who would destroy others to claim a 400 Cr. PvE bounty.

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.

With regard to the three game modes, single shared galaxy state and mode mobility - the early discussions would seem to be exactly what has been developed and released.

Frontier can only ensure that PvE piracy exists - as they cannot guarantee players as targets for other players.

 

[StiTch]

Why should players change their play-style to deal with them? Those that choose not to engage in PvP aren't likely to want to do so.

I didn't say that at all. I said that the planned punishments were poorly conceived.

however knowing players, if it applied to *any* bounty then there would be those who would destroy others to claim a 400 Cr. PvE bounty.

What's wrong with that? The player is wanted. They are a dirty criminal.

You don't get to handpick who consequence applies to.

Frontier can only ensure that PvE piracy exists - as they cannot guarantee players as targets for other players.

Also not what I said. I asked where the engaging piracy is.

This could be one hell of a debate if we keep responding to points the other person didn't make

 

[Robert Maynard]

I didn't say that at all. I said that the planned punishments were poorly conceived.

I thought you had when you said "rather make a loud noise about punishing dem nasty griefors than actually thinking it through" - apologies.

I expect that the ATR will be more than capable of dealing with the more prolific CMDRs who engage in "murder" - from what Sandro has said about their ships, equipment and munitions, anyway.

Also not what I said. I asked where the engaging piracy is.

This could be one hell of a debate if we keep responding to points the other person didn't make

Apologies, again, I assumed that "engaging" involved PvP. If it doesn't, could you define "engaging" in this context, please? (bearing in mind that the engagement is two sided)

 

[StiTch]

I expect that the expected ATR will be more than capable of dealing with the more prolific CMDRs who engage in "murder" - from what Sandro has said about their ships, equipment and munitions, anyway.

Perhaps deal with the incompetent murderers yes. That said, incompetent murderers have proven themselves perfectly capable of CLing and the like themselves. Asking for a way to curb players CLing/running into PG is supposed to address exactly that kind of behaviour; it's about consequence for all.

Apologies, again, I assumed that "engaging" involved PvP. If it doesn't, could you define "engaging" in this context, please? (bearing in mind that the engagement is two sided)

You apparently know the design forums better than I, but at least we both associate PvP with "engaging" by nature...

To refer in brief to one of the original threads by Sandy:
-Pirates should be intimately aware of trade routes. Yeah, right lol. They should be intimately aware of the nearest CG or agriculture system.
-'This knowledge extends into knowing how to trade on stolen goods through fences, or get cargo histories "wiped"'. Quoted directly, don't need to say any more.
-Pirates should be skilled in technical combat. Which turned out to be "pirates should be skilled at aiming a hatch breaker that doesn't even require shields down".
-The ability to wage non-lethal combat and effective psychological warfare...oh look, PvP was part of the design discussion for piracy That boiled down to "put up with insults from target", or "have a nice discussion with them because the only people that give up cargo do it out of pity".

There's more to refer to, but it's a nice highlight of how badly awry piracy and criminal gameplay went. With how dull and unrewarding criminal gameplay is, I am not surprised mindless murder looks engaging in comparison.

 

[Phosphora]

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).

Today I'll be:

1) Expecting the Spanish Inquisition
2) Walking into Mordor
3) Giving a talk about Fight Club
4) Going surfing with Charlie
5) Manipulating the BGS from Solo.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Perhaps deal with the incompetent murderers yes. That said, incompetent murderers have proven themselves perfectly capable of CLing and the like themselves. Asking for a way to curb players CLing/running into PG is supposed to address exactly that kind of behaviour; it's about consequence for all.

I'd expect that Frontier could, if they so chose, disable menu exit for players subject to the attentions of the ATR (or include a warning that leaving the game at this point will result in a rebuy) - similarly for any "lost connections" in the same circumstances - that's up to them.

Whether Frontier would consider mode restricting players with particular types of bounties is another matter - particularly with the existence of the block list and the fact that Frontier cannot force players to play the game.

You apparently know the design forums better than I, but at least we both associate PvP with "engaging" by nature...

To refer in brief to one of the original threads by Sandy:
-Pirates should be intimately aware of trade routes. Yeah, right lol. They should be intimately aware of the nearest CG or agriculture system.
-'This knowledge extends into knowing how to trade on stolen goods through fences, or get cargo histories "wiped"'. Quoted directly, don't need to say any more.
-Pirates should be skilled in technical combat. Which turned out to be "pirates should be skilled at aiming a hatch breaker that doesn't even require shields down".
-The ability to wage non-lethal combat and effective psychological warfare...oh look, PvP was part of the design discussion for piracy That boiled down to "put up with insults from target", or "have a nice discussion with them because the only people that give up cargo do it out of pity".

There's more to refer to, but it's a nice highlight of how badly awry piracy and criminal gameplay went. With how dull and unrewarding criminal gameplay is, I am not surprised mindless murder looks engaging in comparison.

I don't, actually, although I happily acknowledge that some do.

 

[StiTch]

Today I'll be:

1) Expecting the Spanish Inquisition
2) Walking into Mordor
3) Giving a talk about Fight Club
4) Going surfing with Charlie
5) Manipulating the BGS from Solo.

Cheers, Phos.

Spoiler

Have a beautiful time!

I'd expect that Frontier could, if they so chose, disable menu exit for players subject to the attentions of the ATR (or include a warning that leaving the game at this point will result in a rebuy) - similarly for any "lost connections" in the same circumstances - that's up to them.

Whether Frontier would consider mode restricting players with particular types of bounties is another matter - particularly with the existence of the block list and the fact that Frontier cannot force players to play the game.

It'd be a plaster fix, and like applying one plaster to a man that got caught in an industrial blender. Again, you cannot handpick who consequence applies to. That said I would be interested in a system that prevents all criminals from logging out when in danger, even Solo/PG - but I don't think that FD want to visit that. They've made it clear that regardless of the finer details players should be able to escape in a legitimate way for "real life" reasons.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It'd be a plaster fix, and like applying one plaster to a man that got caught in an industrial blender.

Opinions vary on that.

Again, you cannot handpick who consequence applies to.

Who Frontier choose to apply specific consequences to would very much seem to be their choice - as we will probably see as and when a karma system is introduced. Although, on reflection, there'd be no need to treat those players differently - other to ensure that ATR were already in their instance on logging back in that is.

That said I would be interested in a system that prevents all criminals from logging out when in danger, even Solo/PG - but I don't think that FD want to visit that. They've made it clear that regardless of the finer details players should be able to escape in a legitimate way for "real life" reasons.

Indeed:

Hello Commanders!

To clarify: the official stance on exiting the game via the menu, at any point, is that it is legitimate. I suspect at some point we may increase the "in danger" countdown, but for now you just have to wait fifteen seconds.

However, we can't speak for how other Commanders view such actions.

For the record, when we talk about "combat logging" at Frontier, we mean the act of ungracefully exiting the game (either by ALT-F4 type procedures or by cutting the network traffic).

 

[StiTch]

Who Frontier choose to apply specific consequences to would very much seem to be their choice

You were doing so well until this comment! Almost an entire debate with you, and not one moment of complete sop.

"let's not argue this bit because...well FD calls the shots". If that were relevant, there would be no point you being here.

Consequence must apply to everyone. It's that simple. In many ways consequence is the conceptual core of the game itself.

Indeed

Am not sure the point you're making because we both just agreed on this anyway, though I find the implementation of menu logging badly thought out. You're supposed to argue with what's in front of you, not generate your own points of contention...

 

[Knot2clever]

Banning PVP would also resolve all the issues.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

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.

Right, do we care about heart surgeons when making political desicions?

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?

Well yeah, Cling and griefing should be punished but naming and shaming doesn't work. You can roast me if you want, I couldn't care less

 

[Robert Maynard]

You were doing so well until this comment! Almost an entire debate with you, and not one moment of complete sop.

"let's not argue this bit because...well FD calls the shots". If that were relevant, there would be no point you being here.

Consequence must apply to everyone. It's that simple. In many ways consequence is the conceptual core of the game itself.

You missed the obvious reference to the expected karma system which will, if implemented as Sandro has discussed, look for trends in player behaviour and deal with those behaviours that Frontier have deemed detrimental to the health of the game - one of which is combat logging.

It is obvious that no player can choose who Frontier apply consequences to - although we will no doubt have our own preferred lists of player behaviours that, if we were in control of it, would be dealt with accordingly.

Frontier have indicated that some player actions against NPCs are not considered to be quite the same as those same player actions against other players - as NPCs don't pay for the game (and are merely constructs controlled by the game for players to experience).

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Remembering that none of this is being promised, I would say this about the players interacting with players versus players interacting with NPCs:

* In general, only players are members of the Pilot's Federation, which would be the organisation dealing with a karma rating.

* NPCs don't support the game's development. They don't (as far as I can tell) enjoy or hate the game mechanics. This system is not about them. It's not even focused on verisimilitude. It's about dealing with humans in a shared game space and creating an environment which supports as many of them as possible as well as we can.

Whilst we could apply a karma system to NPC interactions it would require more data tracking and serve no useful purpose as far as I can make out.

The only "beefing up" of crime I can think of at the moment is more teeth to authority vessels to cope with heavily engineered ships (authority vessels are always meant to be a threat, so I'd like to see them visiting the Engineers).

Am not sure the point you're making because we both just agreed on this anyway, though I find the implementation of menu logging badly thought out. You're supposed to argue with what's in front of you, not generate your own points of contention...

Merely reposting Frontier's rather unambiguous statement on their stance with regard to "They've made it clear that regardless of the finer details players should be able to escape in a legitimate way for "real life" reasons." - for those not aware (as we are not the only readers of this thread).

 

[StiTch]

Well yeah, Cling and griefing should be punished but naming and shaming doesn't work. You can roast me if you want, I couldn't care less

Spoiler

You missed the obvious reference to the expected karma system...

No, I got it, but I was struggling to see your overall point...and reinforcing the utter importance of consequence.

...for those not aware (as we are not the only readers of this thread).

I don't think many people are taking the thread seriously, given its nature asking for an entire playstyle to be removed </3

Banning PVP would also resolve all the issues.

So clever. Much burned. Wow

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't think many people are taking the thread seriously, given its nature asking for an entire playstyle to be removed </3

An entire play-style? More like nearly the whole game in multi-player.

 

[StiTch]

An entire play-style? More like nearly the whole game in multi-player - and all of the game in Solo.

I did in fact consider that in the title, but didn't think it rolled off the tongue easily enough

Also, I reminded myself this game isn't a proper multiplayer game anyway...

That said I am pretty sure some solo traders wouldn't notice if you removed all NPCs from their game...*chuckles*

 

[Robert Maynard]

I did in fact consider that in the title, but didn't think it rolled off the tongue easily enough

Also, I reminded myself this game isn't a proper multiplayer game anyway...

That said I am pretty sure some solo traders wouldn't notice if you removed all NPCs from their game...*chuckles*

Indeed it would not have.

If "proper" means that players have no option but to play with / against other players then no, it's not.

Some, maybe.

 

[StiTch]

If "proper" means that players have no option but to play with / against other players then no, it's not.

No, I mean that there is bordering on zero multiplayer content. ED plays as a solo game that happens alongside the odd other player. You can form a wing, but do what with it? You can hunt down the same targets you do in solo and kill 'em faster, you can...nope, that's about it. Multicrew is the only actual multiplayer combat mechanic, and most people I've spoken to see it as strongly lacking; and again - what are you going to do with it? Where are the wing missions, the need for trade escorts, the wing only combat scenarios?

ED doesn't have the raw content to be a PvE multiplayer game, and PG/solo prevents players making content of the game itself (blazing one's own trail, as it might be known to you good sir). That all players are forcibly tied into the BGS is both something of a grand joke. A really ironic, sick joke.

 

[Han Zulu]

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. )

Interesting. I'd say griefing or any non-agreed PvP is an interference with the experience of the Game.

 

[StiTch]

Interesting. I'd say griefing or any non-agreed PvP is an interference with the experience of the Game.

On that note, so does mission running. By running crime missions for instance you can send a station into lockdown, interfering with many many other players' evening.

So if you have ever run a mission, traded, or done anything that affects the BGS, you should be banned.

Glad we cleared that up