I am sure it would be easy to code, if noob fires on another player he will get vulnerable himself to this player. Not much room to exploit.
Last edited:
It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.
- Thread starter Chaparral
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kingziggy pvc_community
I am sure it would be easy to code, if noob fires on another player he will get vulnerable himself to this player. Not much room to exploit.
Open PvE would make for a less believable universe than it already is with its ridiculously bad in-system security, free money, etc. It’s ridiculously easy to do whatever you want once you’ve learned how. It’s a what would you call it, a progress mill with close to no way to go backwards.
Those things are important to me, and if we get more changes that make things less believable by making in game life have fewer consequences, then I guess we lose one more player. The masses that will join to enjoy what’s basically multiplayer Universe Simulator can then enjoy themselves looking at stars and planets and endlessly requesting new things to discover.
For the record, I’ve never killed another player intentionally and I prefer cooperative play over competitive.
Those things are important to me, and if we get more changes that make things less believable by making in game life have fewer consequences, then I guess we lose one more player. The masses that will join to enjoy what’s basically multiplayer Universe Simulator can then enjoy themselves looking at stars and planets and endlessly requesting new things to discover.
For the record, I’ve never killed another player intentionally and I prefer cooperative play over competitive.
No one would force you to play in that mode. You could stay in the current open mode.
Why get in the way of other people having what they want?
Why do so many people think they can have everything they want?
Well I didn't say I agree with that
I mean the logic behind not having salvageable cargo upon destruction is sound to me -- it's to incentivize actual pirating, and not just shooting and looting. Disable ships, loot with limpets, force to hand cargo over, etc... Let's face it, if cargo was dropped upon destruction, that simply wouldn't happen. People would go for the easiest most straight forward route. Blow it up and pick up the pieces. Only roleplayers would bother with anything else.
It's a game, after all.
But, yeah, exploration data should be hackable in portions via recon limpets just like cargo hatch limpets can eject some cargo. Make the two equitable, I say.
I bet that would bring a WHOLE different twist to Distant Ganks too
[also, NPCs should have hackable data based on where they're found in the bubble, further to the edge and in certain types of ships, the more likely you're finding an NPC "explorer" that you can pirate for data, but this wouldn't get you any system naming rights, just a flat cash reward, like finding data caches in deep space]
Last edited:
Spot on. What DWE2 basically revealed is that many explorers have difficulty when faced for the first time with something that may vaguely be construed as a challenge. And that the first response is to ask for the challenge to be removed, or if that wont happen, at least the consequences of failing.
Exploration should be much, much much more dangerous.
I agree with this statement... but more in the environment sense - black holes should be FAR more dangerous, for example. And, though the ship has long since sailed, I always felt that getting to a system that's never been visited before should present a challange in and of itself.
But that's a whole other topic...
What kind of danger? It's not exactly the natives or the environment that are causing issues for the explorers here. It's a bunch of hoodlums following them out. Even back when exploration required people to head out into the unknown, that kind of behaviour towards explorers was frowned upon.
I don't remember reading about local London gangs setting off to harass Scott or Shackleton on their journeys.
S
Last edited:
You just make the (mean spirited, I might add) case for open only.
Backers wanted death to be meaningful and something to be avoided instead of what we usually have in MMOs -- a short delay and a respawn with no loss.
So no, OP.
Backers wanted death to be meaningful and something to be avoided instead of what we usually have in MMOs -- a short delay and a respawn with no loss.
So no, OP.
Because I think it's a stupid idea and I like this game enough to say that when I think it is stupid idea then I will do so. Sure nobody is going to force me to play in that mode. So I will have to miss out on meeting with my player faction members because they choose to play in that mode and I don't? So if I am to enjoy time with them (people from my time zone are relatively rare compared to northern hemisphere types) I need to choose this Open-PVE rubbish, or do I *force* them to pick Open?
I am only one person and as you will well know, I have little to no say as to what and how this game's direction goes. I'm only along for the ride. And when that ride is no longer in a direction I want to go, I will get off. And for people like you, the loss of someone like me is no consequence.
This game currently allows a group to infiltrate another, and cause various kinds of excitement and/or drama.
In other words OP, Frontier is right, and you, are not.
Deep space Exploration is one of safest activities in the game in any mode on a daily basis, yet it also carries the most risk when it comes to loss, and the longer you are out there, the greater the risk becomes. I would say then, that if the long-term risk were to be reduced, then the daily risk would need to be increased.
I am not so sure that Explorers would actually back such a thing, to be honest. They talk about wanting Environmental hazards, but most of them would be putting in support tickets if they got *ganked* by an electrical storm 3 months (or even days, to be honest) into an Expedition.
The real problem, OP, is the loss of data, which is actually a direct loss of time. No other activity in the game has the kind of potential time loss that deep space Exploration does, which makes consequences (read: better experiences) problematic. Frontier needs to solve this problem in a way that involves consequence that isn't completely demoralizing.
They have two good options - the upcoming Carriers providing an Explorer and/or Expedition with a place to sell data and a save point, or the various black box retrieval ideas.
Either one will solve the problem.
Riôt
In other words OP, Frontier is right, and you, are not.
Deep space Exploration is one of safest activities in the game in any mode on a daily basis, yet it also carries the most risk when it comes to loss, and the longer you are out there, the greater the risk becomes. I would say then, that if the long-term risk were to be reduced, then the daily risk would need to be increased.
I am not so sure that Explorers would actually back such a thing, to be honest. They talk about wanting Environmental hazards, but most of them would be putting in support tickets if they got *ganked* by an electrical storm 3 months (or even days, to be honest) into an Expedition.
The real problem, OP, is the loss of data, which is actually a direct loss of time. No other activity in the game has the kind of potential time loss that deep space Exploration does, which makes consequences (read: better experiences) problematic. Frontier needs to solve this problem in a way that involves consequence that isn't completely demoralizing.
They have two good options - the upcoming Carriers providing an Explorer and/or Expedition with a place to sell data and a save point, or the various black box retrieval ideas.
Either one will solve the problem.
Riôt
I wonder when >1G worlds will become illegal.
What kind of danger? It's not exactly the natives or the environment that are causing issues for the explorers here. It's a bunch of hoodlums following them out. Even back when exploration required people to head out into the unknown, that kind of behaviour towards explorers was frowned upon.
I don't remember reading about local London gangs setting off to harass Scott or Shackleton on their journeys.
Everything should be more dangerous, and that includes the risk of combat (which is a central aspect of Elite). Beyond that poor hull integrity should have far more consequences, face-planting a star should be catastrophic, a black hole should fill you with dread, terribly advanced and sometimes hostile aliens should be occasionally encountered. The idea that you can casually stroll around the galaxy in a sidey with 0% integrity with also zero risk at any given moment is absurd. Going to Beagle Point should be a monumental achievement. It is not.
I agree that the pvp danger is superficial. Then again, so is DWE itself. But at least there is some danger now.
Last edited:
Because striving for what you want is part of the human condition?
Well, in a sense they already have been nerfed. FD have boosted the thrusters magically when near planets to make handling high-G planets easier. In a surprising turn of events, all the immersion-lords have absolutely zero problems with that. Who would have thought!
Last edited:
Well there's multiple points here.
If you believe your mates would prefer a pve only mode, why not join them? Surely its playing with them that makes the game fun?
As for you leaving the game, that's certainly not something I am encouraging.
But to paraphrase your own words, you cannot force people to enjoy pvp. But we could give them the option to opt out of it, and still be part of our community.
The question wasn't, "why do people want things?", which is why you've failed to answer my question. I was directly addressing the levels of entitlement that lead people to believe that they can have whatever they want, even if whatever they want conflicts with what someone else wants.
You asked why would someone try to stop you from having what you want. The answer is simple. If what you want results in taking away what I want, I'm going to try to stop you. Simple, really.
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
Very good post. The galaxy, once you get used to it, is made of safety foam. There is nothing dangerous about it outside of human opponents.
There seems to be a number of players not looking for danger.
I didn't address it for two reasons.
Firstly, because it was simply rude and unnecessary.
Secondly because it applies to both sides of the argument, and thus doesn't go anywhere useful.