Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place
- Thread starter StiTch
- Start date
While I like your idea AA I'm going with this :-
[video=youtube;NzlG28B-R8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y[/video]
Profuse apologies, I'll try not to let it escape again.
..... except to add: If a ship carrying Power modules is destroyed and the last dock is controlled by a Power to which modules belong and the CMDR is no longer pledged to the Power in question then the Power modules could be removed from the ship (as the Power would not countenance issuing replacements for their modules to which the CMDR was no longer entitled).
I'd go further. On destruction, the rebuy doesn't allow you to rebuy modules that must be sourced from a Power other than your pledge. You need to have current authority to repurchase those modules.
Moving forward, no module shopping from any Power if you already possess modules from another Power. You need to cut *all* ties with former pledged Power to access the perks if the new Power.
It really should be this simple and restrictive.
Mark H
Would love to, but with my name on it - how long do you think it would take for some voices to derail it and have it moved here to be forgotten.
Turned out, making "The Wall of Information" upset a few folks - not that is bothers me, but it does mean no matter where I post on the forums, someone always starts up with how open is "better" and bla bla bla.
Even been told a few times to "Get back to Hotel California" - which makes me laugh. Who knew some GSPs were so sensitive
Yeah, these forums get a tad snappy, but I've realised ya only lose if you take it too seriously.
I hope that if you put it in suggestions with some reasoning it'll at least get a once over by the right people. And it's something that serious PP players would be interested in - I daresay a few PvP players would take a liking to it rather than seeing it as hacking at PvP. Again, I'd add my support in a heartbeart.
I'd do it myself, but I think I have a worse name than you
Hey, it's sort of a roundabout with the odd person flying off on their magic unicorn and into the enlightened skies!
*ahem*
Yeah, we're sorta diverging from the roundabout aspect, but instead of vitriol I'm having a nice couple of engagements. I quite like this thread. Cheers AA, couldn't have done it without you
xxxRegarding this part specifically: actually quite a nice alternative, and best of all simple as you say.
You don't need the latter part. If you die, you lose the modules, you cannot re-obtain. Perfect. A ship with several PSMs is at great risk of losing a lot of time if it dies. Remember you have just 60 module storage slots and it takes at least 3 weeks to get modules from another power again.
I'd like to see the rebuy situation be a little more diverse; I can't remember if it made it into the proposed C&P changes or not, but there's plenty of scope for increased/decreased rebuy based on "karma", as well as modifications on modules.
Make death great again!
Last edited:
They've written it on the side here..."Our Rob or Ross". Look at the way it's spelt...must have been thicker than a ticket tout's wad!
Deleted member 38366
D
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 itThey 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
Logical flaws in this clickbait/flamebait Post :
- Toxicity
...commonly (>95%) generated by Gankers/PvP Players (see actions in-game or the various Forums/Youtube etc. Or this Thread, being one of countless Threads all following the same toxic pattern)
...the PvE Community is basically "PH Neutral" compared to the toxic acid of the "PvP Community"
...it's so bad, even dedicated PvP Groups were forced to take harsh measures themselves against Gankers contaminating their ranks, violating their intended Code of Conduct and endangering their Reputation
Given the most toxic Design Decision(tm) to not have any C&P System in an MMO and later on let even massive bugs/exploits/balance issues run rampant for months instead of hotfixing them high priority, not surprising it attracted certain character traits over the years.
The rest is history, with Open Play losing active Players ever since, fragmenting the already limited Player population into countless Modes or Interest Groups.
- PvE effect on other Players
...common sense. Almost zero with the exception of the BGS - which is 100% working as intended. Hence, a total non-factor.
With that out of the way, here are the possible solutions to the actual Problem with regard to Toxicity :
- create dedicated Open/PvP Mode
-> implement potent, thoroughly tested and Exploit-proof/failsafe C&P System to enforce the "rules of the road" and tag risk & consequences onto violating those rules
-> effectively, restrict PvP to where it makes sense within the intended Game world of ELITE, while technically never prohibiting anything. Everything still goes - except it'll carry logical consequences.
-> Sole aim : have the Galaxy make sense and enforce natural limiters/deterrents to certain actions.
- create dedicated Open/PvE Mode
(alot of modern MMOs go a similar route right off the bat in order to offer the desired experience to their customers - from here on it's the customer's choice which to pick, none being the wiser; unlike Frontier, those do not seek to repeat easily avoidable old mistakes of early MMOs)
-> not much need to be said about it, the dedicated Co-Op Mode of the Game
All flavors served, all problems solved.
And if as a result all toxic Gankers would wander off to infect another Title and attempt to manipulate it in their interest with their typically loud vocal minority stance - one would call that "Mission accomplished".
Then, ELITE and its default Open Mode would have a chance to restore its broken trust and lost reputation as the formerly "Primary intended Mode" it used to be a long time ago.
Would it still work at this point, a solid 3 years too late? Can Frontier even pull it off if they tried, given their MMO (im)balancing track record?
I honestly don't know.
Last edited by a moderator:
"They couldn't even pick a name..."
Sorry Falcon, you're about 400 posts too late to the party.
It wasn't clickbait but parody. I have gotta say though, it's been good reading posts from those that took it seriously. Puts some things in perspective
Simple truth is I don't think anyone is getting the solution they ultimately want. FD will likely continue to try tout the same solution to all players, so I suspect it's more positive to make suggestions that can take place within the current architecture.
I like that idea. Plus you can't hold Admiral, King, or whatever if you are ranking in another. And with the losing rank the losing the ability to fly the ships of that faction.
I've got the exact theme for that right here.
[video=youtube;geVYIHOat5o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geVYIHOat5o[/video]
It's 100% logical. Should've been that way from the start. (Which is why it was always going be implemented that way, by me, for my own CMDR.)
Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth if FDev ever went down that logical avenue, though...
Yours Aye
Mark H
Goose4291
Banned
Yeah, I've been saying this for a long time. Its part of the problem with frontiers desire to please the easy mode instant gratification crowd.
Oh to be struggling to buy a class 1 gimballed pulse laser again and actually concerned about actually dying.
It's nothing to do with "easy gratification" at all.
You have people who use exploits, use external tools (trade tools for example) or abuse the login / logout to reset mission boards so they can min / max their CR per hour - then moan because they have loads of ships "A" rated and engineered to the hilt so all NPCs are steam rolled and now they have nothing to do.
That has nothing to do with with Frontier making a game that both hardcore players and casual players can enjoy together.
That has everything to do with each persons own play style.
If you're steam rolling so easily, then go Ironman.
Clear your save, play open only, stay away from external tools, stay away from known cash cows / exploits / tricks (and play properly) - and if you die, clear your save and start again.
Get back to me when you get the big 3 ships fully engineered and your balance back to the billions and tell me how easy / fast you did it.
Yes?
Closest I got was a new account that can earn money illegally only. Not quite on the level where I am concerned about fuel costs again, but I can't just assume I have the money for any given asset in the game.
It's disgustingly artificial though. Everywhere I go, any system state, any faction or government type, I take a single available piracy or assassination mission for 50k, surrounded by a myriad data deliveries for 200k to 500k, and cargo missions far more. What the...
I think you misunderstood him...or I did.
From what I understand he was agreeing that module tourism is stoopid.
Last edited:
In your previous post you suggested that I was taking things too seriously, but actually I wasn't. I was bringing substance to the discussion. The post you describe as codswallop is anything but. It is as succinct a description of how PP works, and described why PvP combat can never, in the current implementation of the networking model, do any good for the PP it is *supposed to support*. It was a good piece of writing, not codswallop, and I suspect that it was ignored - as have many of my own descriptions of the fundamental game coding factors that mean PvP combat cannot really work as some people really, really want it to - because it contained some fundamental truth that derails the fairly basic requests tabled by PvP combat enthusiasts.
I'm not against PvP combat. Far from it. It just isn't for me. anyway, onwards...
Yes I know exactly where this is going. You see, you already conceded above that the description at post #691 described the current PP construct, in the current P2P networking and 3 mode game architecture.
Analysis: What you desire is a change not only to PP, but those desired changes would also require a fundamental change in the P2P network structure *and* the mode structure for the requests you desire to bear any fruit.
Correct?
Your requests for change would bear no fruit if the network and mode model was not changed. The reasons for this are described in post #691.
Your requests would require an alteration in the fundamental game structure, and this is why I mention an ulterior motive, or a hidden agenda.
I *think* that some of the people pushing for the changes to be made *know* that those changes would make no difference to the PP background if they were simply isolated code changes, and also *know* that network changes would also be fundamentally required, on top of the simple change requests in order that the change requests make any logical sense.
Perhaps that isn't true, and the advocates for change don't realise that under the current model their requests would prove to be absolutely futile? I don't know, but I have in the past on other threads brought this analysis to the discussion and was ignored on several occasions. Not one response. So I still suspect a hidden agenda.
Quite simply - in the same vein as above - different "missions" for different modes would appear to be currently not possible. Therefore you require changes to the mode structure and P2P networking model. Is my analysis correct?
The thing being that the game hinges profoundly on a single BGS. Programming a fragmented BGS would appear to me to be an unacceptable change from FDFev. It would require double the storage capacity for a start. Then we have the implications of mode swapping for each player. It would not make logical sense. Am I getting this correct? Please get back to me with your thoughts...
Yours Aye
Mark H
Cool.
Although you still haven't indulged us with the PP modules you currently fly with. [up]
Yours Aye
Mark H
Goose4291
Banned
Oh, erm... I don't know now.
I thought I'd read it in context, but now you have me confused....
Goose where are you? we're confused!