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

[Goose4291]

I think you misunderstood him...or I did.

From what I understand he was agreeing that module tourism is stoopid.

Yep. That and as I've said earlier the silly idea that you can be a king admiral, fighting for the feds against the imps one minute and then for the imps against the feds the next with absolutely no comeback

 

[Rampant]

... because you.didnt ask.

And the answer is none.

Credit to you. [up]

(I asked in post #754 - you probably just missed it)

Cheerz...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yep. That and as I've said earlier the silly idea that you can be a king admiral, fighting for the feds against the imps one minute and then for the imps against the feds the next with absolutely no comeback

Damn skippy. Players should make the choice. Chose Imp, no Fed rank or Vette for you. This all you can eat buffet is bonkers.

 

[Rampant]

Yep. That and as I've said earlier the silly idea that you can be a king admiral, fighting for the feds against the imps one minute and then for the imps against the feds the next with absolutely no comeback

Yup - I couldn't agree more.

I really dislike that behaviour.

Actually, from observation, it allies closely to the type of player that shows up at a CG at a Fed location and wing-GSP players leaving the station, saying that they are "blockading a filthy Fed CG", and then next week same players re-locate to an Imp CG and GSP players leaving the station because they are "blockading the dirty Imps". I've witnessed players do this very thing, and justify with those very reasons, and frankly, it stinks to high heaven.

Why can't they just be honest that they are there to GSP, regardless of the background situation? Some players have no integrity. Usually witnessed in GSP players. Hardly a new or surprising observation, though.

Yo

Mark H

 

[Goose4291]

Damn skippy. Players should make the choice. Chose Imp, no Fed rank or Vette for you. This all you can eat buffet is bonkers.

I kind of think it depends how you were sold the game by marketing. I bought in at a time when we were talking about blazing our own trail and player agency having both benefits and consequences. Fostering these things makes you think about your decisions a good example is Morrowind. Join the legion? Expect natives to hate you and possibly not let you join their house faction, and more violent NPCs coming at you like a shark with knees, but on the other hand you get some of the best fighty kit in the game.

Yup - I couldn't agree more.

I really dislike that behaviour.

Actually, from observation, it allies closely to the type of player that shows up at a CG at a Fed location and wing-GSP players leaving the station, saying that they are "blockading a filthy Fed CG", and then next week same players re-locate to an Imp CG and GSP players leaving the station because they are "blockading the dirty Imps". I've witnessed players do this very thing, and justify with those very reasons, and frankly, it stinks to high heaven.

Why can't they just be honest that they are there to GSP, regardless of the background situation? Some players have no integrity. Usually witnessed in GSP players. Hardly a new or surprising observation, though.

Yo

Mark H

The problem with that is the shoe-horning everyone doing it into that ganker insult of the day.

Take the 13th Legion. Massively imperial, oodles of lore and rp going on, but blended with PvP. When they announce a blockade? "Youre all just gankers and griefers, dont lie!" Type posts.

The ones you're referring to.. do it for a very different reason.

They get salt from the moaning about the death of pixels.
They then claim it was done for (lets say to make it easy) RP.
They then get further salt from the moaning that theyre not doing it for RP

 

[Rampant]

...

The problem with that is the shoe-horning everyone doing it into that ganker insult of the day.

Take the 13th Legion. Massively imperial, oodles of lore and rp going on, but blended with PvP. When they announce a blockade? "Youre all just gankers and griefers, dont lie!" Type posts.

The ones you're referring to.. do it for a very different reason.

They get salt from the moaning about the death of pixels.
They then claim it was done for (lets say to make it easy) RP.
They then get further salt from the moaning that theyre not doing it for R

Personally, I've never done that shoe-horning to which you refer. The description I use is one of my own personal observation. Same players, same GSP tactics - targeting CMDRs *leaving* the station - which is outside the scope if being any form of blockade as already discussed - and then seeing the same CMDRs in another opposite location supposedly "blockading" (wrongly, again).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not gifting any salt by saying this because if you lay thine eyes upon the fields in which I grow my "salt" you will behold that they are barren. Instead, I'm commenting on the total lack of integrity displayed by those players.

As you described above, those players are only doing that for the "salt" (how I despise that "salt" term as much as I despise those that try deliberately to "mine" it.)

Are we still on topic?

 

[Goose4291]

Personally, I've never done that shoe-horning to which you refer. The description I use is one of my own personal observation. Same players, same GSP tactics

And thats fair enough. Maybe I wasnt being clear that i was talking about the forum norm rather than you as an individual

targeting CMDRs *leaving* the station - which is outside the scope if being any form of blockade as already discussed - and then seeing the same CMDRs in another opposite location supposedly "blockading" (wrongly, again).

I hate using real world analogies, but naval blockades, such as the U-Boat campaigns of both wars, involved hitting freighters travelling both ways (laden and unladen).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not gifting any salt by saying this because if you lay thine eyes upon the fields in which I grow my "salt" you will behold that they are barren. Instead, I'm commenting on the total lack of integrity displayed by those players.

As you described above, those players are only doing that for the "salt" (how I despise that "salt" term as much as I despise those that try deliberately to "mine" it.)

I didnt think that you were. I seldom see you sticking your nose into the rosary bead clutching type threads that yield results for them.

Are we still on topic?

I tend to find these threads never get past page one without going completely offtopic from the original point

 

[StiTch]

Your requests would require an alteration in the fundamental game structure, and this is why I mention an ulterior motive, or a hidden agenda.

We're an incredibly varied group of players that can overall say we have nothing more in common than competing with other human players...not the goddamn Illuminati.

For everyone's sake, drop the notion you don't have to believe anything you're told becoz conspiracy. It takes the tone of your posts down to the level of a toddler's.

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?

Not at all. For a start a suggestion is a suggestion - FD would be entirely more than welcome and capable of making tweaks that can make such a suggestion work. It's a concept, not a demand.

Secondly, from what I am taking away from Ziggy's suggestion at this stage, it would need little more than - on a basic concept level - "if player game mode is currently Open, they receive merits from x activity. If they are in y activity, merits are not awarded". I see no reason at all that requires a BGS split.

And finally, FD have been known to find workarounds to the "impossible". A while back we were told we would never be able to see station orientation from SC due to SC/instancing mechanics. Guess what I can see from SC now?

Are we still on topic?

Er...about half past Constantinople, Nigel.

I hate using real world analogies, but naval blockades, such as the U-Boat campaigns of both wars, involved hitting freighters travelling both ways (laden and unladen).

I find that at least a gazillion times more "immersive" than the traders doing runs with maximumorzed cargo and no defenses, and proceeding to complain about immershun when they get murdered

Said it before, I'll say it a gazillion (think I might be being liberal with that number) times...if I had a trade ship in an IRL ED, I'd have half my internals dedicated to armour, shields that'd make a cutter look bad and thrusters that'd let me drag race against iEagles.

Damn skippy. Players should make the choice. Chose Imp, no Fed rank or Vette for you. This all you can eat buffet is bonkers.

Minor/major faction repuation and its implications...one of the most drastically underdeveloped aspects of this game. So much potential in there begging to be used.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Said it before, I'll say it a gazillion (think I might be being liberal with that number) times...if I had a trade ship in an IRL ED, I'd have all my lower internals dedicated to armour and shields that'd make a cutter look bad.

IRL we can't opt out of direct PvP, only avoid it.

 

[StiTch]

IRL we can't opt out of direct PvP, only avoid it.

Please explain why my comment was relevant to PvP?

I would armour my ship regardless of whether I expect to meet common pirates or wayward PF members. That in-game we are not slightly threatened by even the highest skilled NPCs is not any PvP player's fault.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Please explain why my comment was relevant to PvP?

.... because IRL is PvP enabled, by definition, even if it does offer significant PvE opportunities.

I would armour my ship regardless of whether I expect to meet common pirates or wayward PF members.

Indeed, and you have the freedom to do so.

That in-game we are not slightly threatened by even the highest skilled NPCs is not any PvP player's fault.

Who is "we" in this context? I doubt very much that it is all players in all ship builds. Frontier do, however, have access to all game data and know how often players are destroyed by NPCs (and what ship builds were used on both sides). I expect that they balance the game determined challenge posed by NPCs accordingly.

We'll see if that situation changes, for the criminally inclined, after the introduction of ATR in the Q1 update.

 

[StiTch]

Who is "we" in this context? I doubt very much that it is all players in all ship builds. Frontier do, however, have access to all game data and know how often players are destroyed by NPCs (and what ship builds were used on both sides). I expect that they balance the game determined challenge posed by NPCs accordingly.

Am not going down this road again.

FD use your combat rank to determine interdicting ship strength. If combat Elite players cannot handle running from an interdiction from an Elite NPC, I would suggest game balance is not the problem.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Am not going down this road again.

FD use your combat rank to determine interdicting ship strength. If combat Elite players cannot handle running from an interdiction from an Elite NPC, I would suggest game balance is not the problem.

.... and, as mentioned a previous time down this road, any Elite Rank is a largely measure of time served and not skill as players will gradually approach Combat Elite even if they only destroy Harmless Sidewinders - apparently all kills now count towards Combat Rank, not just those within a few ranks of ones current rank.

That players in heavily Engineered combat ships with combat optimised loadouts experience less risk is completely unsurprising - as that's what the optimisations that the player chose were intended for.

 

[Rampant]

I hate using real world analogies, but naval blockades, such as the U-Boat campaigns of both wars, involved hitting freighters travelling both ways (laden and unladen).

Clearly a very bad analogy.
I don't have to tell you that those real ships were irreplaceable and in very limited supply. And that therefore the destruction of them either into or out of port was equally "meaningful" and possessing of purposeful effect. (I have studied the Battle of the Atlantic - as perhaps you have yourself?)
In direct contrast, the ships being targeted/destroyed *leaving* CG stations are immediately replaceable and therefore their destruction has zero effect on the CG and is absolutely and utterly "meaningless". Doing so has no purpose. In the game, at least.

The horse has bolted -> Quick, lock the barn door.

 

[Jockey79]

.... and, as mentioned a previous time down this road, any Elite Rank is a largely measure of time served and not skill as players will gradually approach Combat Elite even if they only destroy Harmless Sidewinders - apparently all kills now count towards Combat Rank, not just those within a few ranks of ones current rank.

This is true, I'm almost Elite rank and I only ever have turrets on my trade ships.
I've been known to take my trade ships in to CZ and Lo/Hi RES to earn credits "killing things" - but really I'm just sitting there letting my turrets work.

There is no skill involved at all in any of the ranks. Just mindless grind.

Heck folks can see this in my 1 on 1 videos with Ozram. I even messed up the re-buy screen, so the 2nd match was A LOT shorter than the first because I lost all my hand picked gear for what the station had to hand. Luckyly for me Ozram was okay chilling while I sorted my ship properly for the 3rd go - which I still lost by a large margin.
I mean really, there needs to be a counter on screen for "newbie errors" for me - and I've been here since Beta and am close to triple Elite with a smattering of CQC rank.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

.... and, as mentioned a previous time down this road, any Elite Rank is a largely measure of time served and not skill as players will gradually approach Combat Elite even if they only destroy Harmless Sidewinders - apparently all kills now count towards Combat Rank, not just those within a few ranks of ones current rank.

That players in heavily Engineered combat ships with combat optimised loadouts experience less risk is completely unsurprising - as that's what the optimisations that the player chose were intended for.

I fly a weaponless d rated aspx, and I am wanted 90% of the time, to avoid ANY npc all I need is submit to intrediction and boost in straight line, thats it, thats the challenge.

This assuming I am not winning the intrediction which is never. We dont need npcs in this game, they are useless and only used for farming.

 

[Jockey79]

We dont need npcs in this game, they are useless and only used for farming.

For you maybe (and even for me, as I use my trade ship to farm CZs and RES) - but not everyone has the same level of skill.
And for a game that is aimed at a wider audience than hardcore pew pew nuts, NPCs are designed to be for "average Joe" rather than PvP Algo

(Perhaps Frontier could add some feature where we can tick a box in our settings for harder NPCs?)

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Clearly a very bad analogy.
I don't have to tell you that those real ships were irreplaceable and in very limited supply. And that therefore the destruction of them either into or out of port was equally "meaningful" and possessing of purposeful effect. (I have studied the Battle of the Atlantic - as perhaps you have yourself?)
In direct contrast, the ships being targeted/destroyed *leaving* CG stations are immediately replaceable and therefore their destruction has zero effect on the CG and is absolutely and utterly "meaningless". Doing so has no purpose. In the game, at least.

The horse has bolted -> Quick, lock the barn door.

If they cant leave the station, they cant do the CG, mission accomplished.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I fly a weaponless d rated aspx, and I am wanted 90% of the time, to avoid ANY npc all I need is submit to intrediction and boost in straight line, thats it, thats the challenge.

This assuming I am not winning the intrediction which is never.

That's the experience of one particular player - the same cannot be assumed for all players.

We dont need npcs in this game, they are useless and only used for farming.

Other opinions, quite naturally, vary - for example, in Solo NPCs are the only ships that a player will ever encounter - the game would be rather empty without them (as would the vast majority of Open, of course).

 

[StiTch]

This is true, I'm almost Elite rank and I only ever have turrets on my trade ships.
I've been known to take my trade ships in to CZ and Lo/Hi RES to earn credits "killing things" - but really I'm just sitting there letting my turrets work.

There is no skill involved at all in any of the ranks. Just mindless grind.

Heck folks can see this in my 1 on 1 videos with Ozram. I even messed up the re-buy screen, so the 2nd match was A LOT shorter than the first because I lost all my hand picked gear for what the station had to hand. Luckyly for me Ozram was okay chilling while I sorted my ship properly for the 3rd go - which I still lost by a large margin.
I mean really, there needs to be a counter on screen for "newbie errors" for me - and I've been here since Beta and am close to triple Elite with a smattering of CQC rank.

*chuckles* it's nice to see modesty. Really though, sense has to be applied somewhere - I mean CoD doesn't code the AI to start shooting their guns backwards because the player has the reaction speeds of a tortoise in hibernation.

Ultimately it only highlights that the ranking system needs the change, not the lobotomisation of NPCs. I say this with zero disrespect towards you, but if you cannot do anything but turret shooty, you shouldn't be "Elite". I am surprised FD haven't reviewed the ranking system given the number of complaints from all sides; I wonder if they're holding onto the primitive original Elite system out of sheer stubbornness, or whether they actually perceive it to be engaging.