It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[Sweet&Dandy]

This is the question that won’t go away! Having read similarly posed questions over the years, it is not an easy one to answer because whatever you say won’t appease everyone.

My own opinion in that PvP and ganking are two separate issues that unfortunately can’t / won’t be separated by Frontier. With that in mind you run the risk of being blown up by an engineered ship in seconds whilst you fly in your unengineered ship filled with cargo or exploration data, hoping to avoid confrontation.

That’s the reality... but there are simple ways of dealing it.

If private groups aren’t big enough for you then you either fly solo or in open. Solo removes the social aspect of the game which isn’t ideal, but you’ve decided you don’t want a private group, so what to do?

Personally I play open and make sure I am always flying a ship that can get out of a sticky situation. You can’t fly unshielded and you need to upgrade your thrusters and distributor. Aim straight for the psycho and boost away.

That will almost always work for me in one on one situations.

I get why people don’t like being blown up when PvP is not consensual, but people in the real world don’t like to be mugged or attacked on the street either, yet it happens.

Short version... fly in open or don’t, but if you do always have an escape plan. You don’t need to die!

 

[Chaparral]

What's your point? Again, though, no one is being punished for trying to be social.

Yep. They are. They don't call it Distant Ganks 2 for nothing.

A progress reset is a game "punishment".

Your response to the argument that the progress reset is OK is that players wanting to be social accept the progress reset cost as part of the transaction.

My point is not that a player pushing the progress reset button for another player is bad.

My point is that FDEV reserves this penalty solely within the context of social interaction.

This game partitons all threats except those where people attempt game related activities (not just typing in chat or talking on discord) in the least restricted instancing setting.

If this game partitioned instancing as nearly every other mmo does, this conversation wouldn't be necessary.

FDEV is punishing basic human biology with this structure. It is unecessary. PVP and ganking can occur without the reset button.

 

[BinakAlgo]

Would never work. How many open players logging in to instances only to find all no pvp flags on

I guess that there are going to be as many as all the players that want an Open PvE. PvP players could enjoy the "hunt" of looking for other PvP players who would give them a challenging fight, or poor new players who are going to get more than they bargained for.

Of course, some safeguards could be made, like if you pledge to a power you become vulnerable to all the other powers who are marked (or would be marked) as enemies and become a valid target to the players who have pledged to them no matter your no-PvP flag, this could be also true for minor faction allegiance. But those are the details that should be worked on.

 

[voidwalker]

Yep. They are. They don't call it Distant Ganks 2 for nothing.

A progress reset is a game "punishment".

Your response to the argument that the progress reset is OK is that players wanting to be social accept the progress reset cost as part of the transaction.

My point is not that a player pushing the progress reset button for another player is bad.

My point is that FDEV reserves this penalty solely within the context of social interaction.

This game partictions all threats except those where people attempt game related activities (not just typing in chat or talking on discord) in the least restricted instancing setting.

If this game partitioned instancing as nearly every other mmo does, this conversation wouldn't be necessary.

FDEV is punishing basic human biology with this structure. It is unecessary. PVP and ganking can occur without the reset button.

You call it 'punishment', a reasonable person calls it 'consequence'.

A player wouldn't be able to push the reset button for another player if the latter didn't make it so easy to do so. And 'reset button'? So people are being forced into whole new accounts because they lose a ship? You really need to ease up on the hyperbole.

And no, FDEV doesn't reserve this penalty for 'social interaction', they reserve it for losing a ship. That can happen in a myriad of ways, whether you're socialising or not. To call it a punishment for socialising is to 1. misuse the word 'punishment' in its entirety, and 2. dismiss the fact that this is as much a consequence of losing a ship in solo, group, or open, whether you're flying with friends, randoms, or completely alone.

This conversation isn't necessary, because it's the result of the personal problems of a few people with no concept of personal responsibility, not a problem with the game. And Elite isn't 'every other MMO'. Once again, if I wanted 'every other MMO', I'd play 'every other MMO'. You don't make original games with original ideas by copying what other games do. Instancing is terrible, lots of people hate it, and as a result, they play things like this and EVE Online instead, with EVE Online having almost no instancing, and this game having a fair bit more but still very little compared to other games that instance almost everything.

Oh, and I love this little tidbit: "FDEV is punishing basic human biology with this structure." Again, no, they're not. A punishment is a punitive measure issued by people. Consequences are the results of choices you make. If you choose to fly in open, and fly defenceless, whether you're being social or not, there's a chance a player will kill you. As for that 'human biology' part, there are many aspects of human nature. Socialising is certainly one of them, but so is conflict. You're advocating for denying us that part of our human nature, but no one is advocating for denying you the part that you like. There is nothing stopping you from socialising with other players in open. Nothing at all. It's easy to mitigate the risk of players wanting to blow you up, but instead of learning how, you'd prefer to remove the risk entirely by implementing an instanced hugbox where there is no risk at all. And you're doing it using fallacious hyperbole and irrelevant value judgement.

 

[babelfisch]

That's quite the assumption. How do you know he's motivated by anger? Why are you attributing emotional motivation to words on a screen?

Because demanding that FDEV removes PG and Solo is completely irrational. It's so irrational that it breaks the boundaries of common sense. Emotions are one of the main reasons for irrationality and it's more likely that his emotions are driven by anger than love.

 

[voidwalker]

Because demanding that FDEV removes PG and Solo is completely irrational. It's so irrational that it breaks the boundaries of common sense. Emotions are one of the main reasons for irrationality and it's more likely that his emotions are driven by anger than love.

1. I don't remember seeing a demand. A demand is a very specific thing. What I saw was an opinionated statement of desire, what he thinks the game 'should' do. What I didn't see was anger, just someone's opinion, just as you offered your opinion of what you deem to be common sense. As a matter of fact, I agree with your opinion. The game needs PG and solo. But the personal judgement you just made of someone you don't know anything about is not the way you convince him of that. It is, in fact, how you end up getting people to double down. And it is, in fact, an emotional response in and of itself.

2. What do you mean 'emotions driven by anger rather than love'? Those are not mutually exclusive, as one can both love the game and be angry with it not meeting personal expectations. This is the very thing that drives critique of art in the first place, love and anger combined, just watch Angry Joe on YouTube. Many people would call that 'passion'. And you are still making an assumption based on an arbitrary opinion-based probability check. There are plenty of rational reasons why the game should be open-only. EVE Online is 'open only' for the sake of making the game entirely player driven. The biggest difference between EVE and Elite is server functionality - everything on EVE happens on one big server, while most of Elite is P2P, which is why latter needs private and solo, and the only reason. The simple fact of the matter is, if you're able to have an effect on the galaxy that, in turn, has an effect on the other players within the galaxy, doing it in solo robs them of a range of methods they could use to try to stop you. Not all methods, but definitely all the direct ones, everything from direct diplomacy, to direct armed conflict. This is a rational basis for having open only, and it's the rational basis on which EVE Online's single-sharded universe functions as it has for over a decade, resulting in not just an incredibly successful and long-lived game, but a game that's featured in the New York Museum of Modern Art, and a wide range of academic studies on socioeconomic policy using EVE Online's player-driven economy as a model. It is the single most dynamic player-driven gaming experience, bar none, as a result of that single server, and no game with segregated servers and instancing can ever hope to reach that level.

But not every game has to reach that level, and I'm fine with Elite's server options. It's a more casual experience anyway. But if you want to convince people that it doesn't need to be like EVE, the way you do it is with rational argumentation yourself, because the way you made that value judgement of someone's emotional statement was, in itself, a demonstration of emotional motivation. Emotional, irrational arguments have a tendency to be peppered with assumption, and usually serve no purpose as a counter point. In short, "you're angry" is not an argument, rational or otherwise, against "solo and private should be removed".

He made an assertion. People don't make assertions without some kind of justification. Maybe, instead of being judgemental about him, the person, enquire as to why he thinks the way he does about this game, garner and understanding of his position, consider its merits, and then, if you still disagree, offer a counterpoint. Of course, if you have no counterpoint, then your disagreement is without justification and becomes subject only to cognitive dissonance. There are, of course, great counterpoints. The greatest is simply that the game runs on P2P infrastructure and some people have connectivity issues, which makes it necessary whether we want it or not.

 

[babelfisch]

1. I don't remember seeing a demand. A demand is a very specific thing. What I saw was an opinionated statement of desire, what he thinks the game 'should' do. What I didn't see was anger, just someone's opinion, just as you offered your opinion of what you deem to be common sense. As a matter of fact, I agree with your opinion. The game needs PG and solo. But the personal judgement you just made of someone you don't know anything about is not the way you convince him of that. It is, in fact, how you end up getting people to double down. And it is, in fact, an emotional response in and of itself.

2. What do you mean 'emotions driven by anger rather than love'? Those are not mutually exclusive, as one can both love the game and be angry with it not meeting personal expectations. This is the very thing that drives critique of art in the first place, love and anger combined, just watch Angry Joe on YouTube. And you are still making an assumption based on an arbitrary opinion-based probability check. There are plenty of rational reasons why the game should be open-only. EVE Online is 'open only' for the sake of making the game entirely player driven. The biggest difference between EVE and Elite is server functionality - everything on EVE happens on one big server, while most of Elite is P2P, which is why latter needs private and solo, and the only reason. The simple fact of the matter is, if you're able to have an effect on the galaxy that, in turn, has an effect on the other players within the galaxy, doing it in solo robs them of a range of methods they could use to try to stop you. Not all methods, but definitely all the direct ones, everything from direct diplomacy, to direct armed conflict. This is a rational basis for having open only, and it's the rational basis on which EVE Online's single-sharded universe functions as it has for over a decade, resulting in not just an incredibly successful and long-lived game, but a game that's featured in the New York Museum of Modern Art, and a wide range of academic studies on socioeconomic policy using EVE Online's player-driven economy as a model. It is the single most dynamic player-driven gaming experience, bar none, as a result of that single server, and no game with segregated servers and instancing can ever hope to reach that level.

But not every game has to reach that level, and I'm fine with Elite's server options. It's a more casual experience anyway. But if you want to convince people that it doesn't need to be like EVE, the way you do it is with rational argumentation yourself, because the way you made that value judgement of someone's emotional statement was, in itself, a demonstration of emotional motivation. Emotional, irrational arguments have a tendency to be peppered with assumption, and usually serve no purpose as a counter point. In short, "you're angry" is not an argument, rational or otherwise, against "solo and private should be removed".

He made an assertion. People don't make assertions without some kind of justification. Maybe, instead of being judgemental about him, the person, enquire as to why he thinks the way he does about this game, garner and understanding of his position, consider its merits, and then, if you still disagree, offer a counterpoint. Of course, if you have no counterpoint, then your disagreement is without justification and becomes subject only to cognitive dissonance. There are, of course, great counterpoints. The greatest is simply that the game runs on P2P infrastructure and some people have connectivity issues, which makes it necessary whether we want it or not.

That's way too much text for someone missing the smiley at the end of my post.

 

[voidwalker]

That's way too much text for someone missing the smiley at the end of my post.

Your ignorance is not a refutation of anything I've said. If reading is too hard for you, then I suggest that you don't have a place getting involved in argument or debate of any kind.

 

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

My thoughts.

Open should have a disclaimer that you MUST agree to before entering:
You agree that you may be killed at any time by any one for any reason.
You agree that you will not log off or deliberately disrupt your connection whilst in combat.
Breaking these rules will result in a permanent ban from OPEN.

However new rules must be in place to level the playing field.
Killing another cmdr in secure systems will result in you put on a kill list at any station , a hit squad sent to kill you who never stop until you are dead also rebuy revoked for a time period which doubles for each murder.

But you may kill whoever you want when you want in unsecured space.

A fair compromise where everyone knows the rules and given a fair chance.

 

[babelfisch]

Your ignorance is not a refutation of anything I've said. If reading is too hard for you, then I suggest that you don't have a place getting involved in argument or debate of any kind.

You are calling me ignorant based on what? May I direct you to your own statement above?

 

[mossfoot]

Remember folks, belligerence wins arguments! If you can keep telling everyone they're wrong and/or ignorant until they go away, YOU WIN!

≈≈≈≈≈★
The More You Know...

 

[voidwalker]

You are calling me ignorant based on what? May I direct you to your own statement above?

Okay, let's say "that was too long" was not "I didn't read it". Ignorance and dismissiveness go hand-in-hand. Your dismissal of my post as 'too long' is still not a contention of anything I wrote, and your snippy comment about how it's 'too long' remains an unproductive and irrelevant comment that demonstrates your lack of tolerance and/or ability for mature discussion if it in any way criticises your ideas or methods in said discussion. This isn't my first rodeo, mate.

 

[voidwalker]

Remember folks, belligerence wins arguments! If you can keep telling everyone they're wrong and/or ignorant until they go away, YOU WIN!

I like discussion. I too used to be of the opinion that private and solo should be removed entirely. It was rational, mature discussion with rational, mature adults that changed my mind. What you just wrote is another example of petulant snippiness that does not make for such discussion. Do you have any contentions with what I've said? Any arguments against my points that we can discuss as adults? I would welcome that. I'm open to being wrong. I don't want you to go away unless you're satisfied with your participation in one way or another, and decide you're going to move on. I'm not trying to get rid of you, or anyone else. It might feel that way if you don't like being disagreed with, but if it's just a lack of counterpoint that you have, then what you just wrote is not going to divert attention away from the fact that you have no counterpoint.

So if you DO have one, or a few, or many, let's see them. Let's have an actual discussion. Let's see actual points, rather than childish meandering around them.

 

[sollisb]

Frontier are not going to change. The player approach has to change.

Its quite obvious that 'Open' is a free for all.

If you don't want that, play in PG or Solo.

Its really that simple. I have not been PKd in years!

 

[babelfisch]

Okay, let's say "that was too long" was not "I didn't read it". Ignorance and dismissiveness go hand-in-hand. Your dismissal of my post as 'too long' is still not a contention of anything I wrote, and your snippy comment about how it's 'too long' remains an unproductive and irrelevant comment that demonstrates your lack of tolerance and/or ability for mature discussion if it in any way criticises your ideas or methods in said discussion. This isn't my first rodeo, mate.

So you are calling me intolerant, immature and and ignorant now? Because I made a post that wasn't entirely serious (indicated by a smiley)? May I again redirect you to your own posts? I'd say assuming that someone is angry isn't as bad as throwing random insults at someone.

 

[intelfx]

With death comes consequences, and that's the way it should be.

Yeah. With death comes consequences. Even more so: death is death.

To that end, I propose an entirely new game mechanic and urge Frontier Developments to implement it ASAP. I believe this novel mechanic will bring an entirely new level of challenge to Elite Dangerous gameplay and at the same time rid its playerbase of any and all undesirables once and for all.

The mechanic reads as follows: any in-game death is to instantly and irrevocably destroy all player's possessions and deactivate the player's account. Then, a new provision is to be added to ED ToS, prohibiting players to acquire more than one account per lifetime (enforced via real-world ID verification of new and existing accounts).

 

[mossfoot]

I like discussion. I too used to be of the opinion that private and solo should be removed entirely. It was rational, mature discussion with rational, mature adults that changed my mind. What you just wrote is another example of petulant snippiness that does not make for such discussion. Do you have any contentions with what I've said? Any arguments against my points that we can discuss as adults? I would welcome that. I'm open to being wrong. I don't want you to go away unless you're satisfied with your participation in one way or another, and decide you're going to move on. I'm not trying to get rid of you, or anyone else. It might feel that way if you don't like being disagreed with, but if it's just a lack of counterpoint that you have, then what you just wrote is not going to divert attention away from the fact that you have no counterpoint.

So if you DO have one, or a few, or many, let's see them. Let's have an actual discussion. Let's see actual points, rather than childish meandering around them.

Dude, there's no point. There's never a point. For years now I have gotten sucked into arguments on forums and Facebook and other places. I've written essays defending my position with carefully thought out arguments and there's JUST. NO. POINT.

Why? Because one way or another it goes in a circle, over and over, until someone leaves, and the other person feels like a winner.

If I was to go back to our last post, for example, where you talk about the "dangers" of deep space, trying to refute my point... I could point out that it was pretty damn clear I was talking about the dangers I'd LIKE to see whereas you're arguing the lack of dangers that currently exist. Yet you're still talking as if it's refuting my point, even though you're not commenting on what I said at all.

But then you'd simply move on to the next point, and the next and the next, and eventually things will come full circle and the next thing you know we're talking about the dangers of space and lack of them again.

Spoiler alert, I'll tell you how it ends. I don't change your mind, you don't change my mind, we both end up wasting time and possibly frustrated. Even when you win these kind of things you lose.

So I snarked, yes, to make a point.

Honestly, as much as you believe you're having an honest discussion and are welcoming other viewpoints, I really doubt you're going to feel that way when you look back on this thread when it hits 90 pages or whatever. There will be newcomers to take up the cause on one side or another, people bowing out because they've had enough, and some people will think they've won while others will just go away annoyed, and some might just forget about this thread (or do what I'm about to do, hit unsubscribe).

I think a number of people keep going at it because they're afraid if they don't, the Devs might listen and the (gasp!) WRONG PEOPLE will get paid attention to during the next development cycle. Or that public opinion might be swayed unless they guard the gates.

(Quite frankly we all overestimate how much value our posts have, I suspect)

I keep getting sucked into these things, make my points as eloquently as I can, feel a twinge of joy when I get repped by someone, and then dread returning to the thread for... THE REBUTTAL... (dun dun duuuuunnnn...)

It's just not healthy, nothing is accomplished, and nobody's mind is ever changed. And the wheel keeps on turning.

If you're getting a kick out of all this then kudos, but I've hit my limit. I just hope I've learned my lesson this time.

(I'm sure I haven't, though...)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Open should have a disclaimer that you MUST agree to before entering:

There's a mouseover text in the launcher explaining that one may encounter other players in Open.

You agree that you may be killed at any time by any one for any reason.

Like it, or not, this is a possibility in Open.

You agree that you will not log off or deliberately disrupt your connection whilst in combat.

Like it, or not, menu exit is, from what Frontier has said, allowable at any time whereas deliberate connection disruption is not.

 

[voidwalker]

Dude, there's no point. There's never a point.

Wrong. There's always a point. Dialectic is about compromise. You have to be willing to COMPROMISE what you want, otherwise no one else will ever be willing to compromise what they want, and then there is certainly no point. Everything that happens in the world, politically, happens because of two things: war and violence, or compromise. They are the only way to get things done.

And I'll thank you not to make assumptions about my mind. The difference between you and me is I'm actually capable of changing my mind, and making allowances. I've done it before, and I'm sure I'll do it again. Don't project your stubbornness onto me.

It's funny how you say 'there's no point' and then you say 'I snark to make a point'. Interesting thought process there. The problem is, snark never makes a point. It just makes you look like a child with no point.

Here, I'll make a point, so you can understand what one looks like.

I'd be willing to concede on PVP rebuys if a flagging system was introduced. If you're flagged for PVP, and you get killed by a player, either a substantially discounted rebuy, or maybe even none at all. How does that sound to you? And see, I've made a point, and I've opened it to discussion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's a terrible idea, and maybe you can tell me why. Or, maybe, if you think about it, you might weigh the pros with the cons, and come to accept that it might be a good compromise.

 

[voidwalker]

So you are calling me intolerant, immature and and ignorant now? Because I made a post that wasn't entirely serious (indicated by a smiley)? May I again redirect you to your own posts? I'd say assuming that someone is angry isn't as bad as throwing random insults at someone.

You're conflating insult for observation. I know what I wrote. Apparently, you don't.

If there has been a misunderstanding, make it obvious from the outset. A smiley could indicate smugness, and in the context of your post, that's what it came across as. I asked you a short, simple question initially, which you could have responded to with, 'I was just messing around, dw about it'. Instead, you chose to reinforce the post I was questioning. If it was a miscommunication, then it was the result of you assuming I would get your meaning based on a 'smiley'. Even if I wasn't autistic, that would be quite an assumption to make given how text has little to no 'tone of voice' most of the time.

At this point though, it's quite clear you have the 'it's just a prank, bro' ball in you're court, and you're going to run with it. You do you. My critique still stands, either way.