No, it's not. My Private Group is entirely PVE only. Only my friends are in it, some that don't like Open mode, and we only do PVE in there. It's never been infiltrated, because I don't PUG like an idiot.
It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.
- Thread starter Chaparral
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kingziggy pvc_community
No, it's not. My Private Group is entirely PVE only. Only my friends are in it, some that don't like Open mode, and we only do PVE in there. It's never been infiltrated, because I don't PUG like an idiot.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Yet any member of your group can, if they choose to, damage another player.
Neither do they dictate mine.
So, isn't the most logical conclusion that different players have different ways of dealing with the parameters of the game and it's players. That neither method is superiour. The best method is the one that suits you best. It's useless to measure your own preferences against a method someone else is using.
If it works for you, all the best to you.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What's technically unachievable about the rules I mentioned?
We know that at the most basic level the game "knows" whether a ship is player or NPC (see the scanner).
We know that there was a bug recently where mass-lock on SuperCruise "broke" - but only when it was a player doing the mass-locking.
There's every reason to treat the game like a single-player game - as that's how it is still sold - there's no requirement to play multi-player in this game (and console players without premium platform access can only play in single player).
As I replied to you earlier, Frontier set the parameters associated with the challenge provided by the game. That they choose not to set them at a level corresponding to that posed by players conversant with PvP combat and ship builds is possibly quite telling.
My point is, it's about choice. The reason it's about choice is because there are a lot of choices to make. Take away those choices (by proxy of removing the player threat) and the game becomes much less of a challenge. A game without challenge should be a game without reward. Otherwise, is it even a game anymore?
I have absolutely no problem with people making whatever choice they want. You wanna fly without shields? Fine, I do too, I'm in a shieldless exploration sidewinder right now capable of 745m/s boost speed, almost in the core. My defence is my ship's low profile and ability to escape, depending on how well I pilot her. You wanna fly an exploration Anaconda without shields? You're free to do that too! But it's like I always say: if you choose to light your curtains on fire, you don't get to complain if your house burns down. My Sidewinder won't take much to kill, and if one day I am caught, and unable to escape, I'll know that I died as quickly as I did because of the choices I made. NOT because of a problem with the game.
All I'm seeing is a bunch of people asking FD to make their choices for them, while simultaneously complaining about not being able to play the game the way they want. I've never seen such a blatant lack of self-awareness and overt cognitive dissonance in action.
Last edited:
Do you know what's even more telling? How the NPCs have been gradually nerfed into the ground, repeatedly, over the years, until they're little more than furniture in the game. Come back to me with evidence that this all isn't anything more than more attempts to get this game closer to being completely risk-free, and maybe I'll consider giving you the time of day again. Until then, I'm done with your obfuscations. At the end of the day, it's still all about the choices you make, and the consequences therein. I've already said, bring on PVE-only open. But make sure it has some risk. Bring back the NPCs of old that would interdict you just for the sake of trying to kill you. They were fun. I miss those NPCs. The game is emptier without them.
"A game without challenge should be a game without reward" is a statement I very much disagree with. Rewards are not only determined by challenge. Plus, only linking challenge with risk taking is being to restrictive. It's a challenge to go to Beagle Point, it's a bigger challenge to go in a sidey. No other players are needed for a challenge, they can be, but they're not needed.
Effort and time spent should be rewarded as well. I feel that the exploration payout previous to 3.3 were spot on. It was a low challenge low earning occupation. The time you spent in the black had a low cr/h rating. What made exploration special is that even though you are running low risk, what you are putting at risk is greater than any other profession. After DWE2 I had 130 million in data to bring back tot he bubble. More importantly, I had 5 months of effort to bring back to the bubble. Even though the risk I ran was small, what I put on the line was massive. Of course, now they increased payments and you can make 400 mil in 5 days traveling 12 LY in the cherry picking hell that is forced FSS.
I remove the player threat because I am playing Elite Dangerous as an explorer, chilling out in the galaxy. For a challenge I'll fire up Civilisation on Deity level, or They Are Billions or something like that. If I want a relaxing evening past time, I'll go exploring in Elite Dangerous. I don't ask much recompense for the time and effort I spent doing it, my reward is my experience in the game.
edit: recompense? I meant compensation of course. :/
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier remains in control of the challenge posed by the game, as they have always been (barring the bugged Engineered NPCs of 2.1 which were soon remedied).
Indeed - and some players choose to play with other players; some players choose to minimise their risk through heavily Engineering their ship; some players choose to play alone because they don't find particular player/player interactions to be "fun".
I'm pretty confident that Frontier's game analytics would show that the PvE game that we currently have (in every instance devoid of other players, regardless of game mode) is not, as some contend, free of all risk.
Given that it would seem that only 43% of base-game owners also own Horizons, I expect that the challenge posed by NPCs won't be set at a level that leaves non-Horizons players in a position where the game is no longer "fun" to play.
Last edited:
There is NO challenge to jump-honk-scoop to get to beagle point. None. It takes TIME, sure, but not challenge. And why should time be rewarded? What if I'm afk? Should I be rewarded for the 'time' I spend afk?
And what about effort? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, he takes four hours, puts in lots of effort, but does a crap job, not cleaning up after himself, leaving patches that aren't cut and doesn't trim the edges, why should I pay him? If someone else takes 20 minutes, less effort, and does a perfect job, I'd rather pay them instead. I agree though, to an extent. Sure, we should reward 'effort' as encouragement to try again, for things like junior sports in order to keep kids motivated. But this isn't really a kid's game, is it. And anything more than a post-game trip to Maccas and you start to delve dangerously into 'participation trophy' territory.
Exploration is a lot better now, I love it. You know what would make it even better and make the reward feel like more of an achievement? Having something I need to survive. I'm in a Sidewinder almost 15kly away from the bubble. I haven't run out of fuel, I haven't had problems with high gravity, I haven't stumbled across any obstacles to my progress whatsoever. So far, it's all free money. There is no challenge here, not even in a Sidewinder. Am I being rewarded for my time? No. I have time to spare, why would I get rewarded for my spare time? That's ludicrous. No, it looks like I'm being rewarded for just pushing buttons at this stage. When I get home, there's a very good chance that I'll get to a station unimpeded, even in open. That, to me, is free money. Specifically, risk-free money. And sure, even if we include those other things, it's also time-free money (because I have time to spare, this isn't costing me any time that matters to me anyway) and it's effort-free money (because there is no effort. None).
No, I'm not buying it. And your answer further reinforces my theory that this drive for a PVE-only open mode is nothing more than a drive for risk-free PVE, a campaign that has been going on, and succeeding, ever since the game launched. The NPCs that used to make my return from exploration interesting? Gone. Everything is predictable now. EXCEPT other players. And here's the thing, everyone playing in open is doing so at greater risk than everyone else. Why should anyone NOT playing in open be allowed to have the same effect on the BGS without the same level of risk? It takes the same amount of time and effort for everyone, with the only difference being the level of risk involved. Can you justify that for me?
Can you honestly say that you don't just want risk-free PVE in this game? And can you justify why it should be risk free with something more substantive than "I disagree"?
Last edited:
First off, I think my argument went a little further than just: I disagree. Second, I'm not advocating for Open PvE, because of the practical issues I see with the implementation. Third, the work I do in real life has zero risk to it. I am at no time in danger. I'd still like to get paid.
When you start asking silly questions like "What if I'm afk? Should I be rewarded for the 'time' I spend afk?" I feel you have strayed out of wanting to discuss things like adults, but strayed into wanting to win the argument territory. If you would read what I write it's "Effort and time spent should be rewarded as well". Effort and time spent. So not just time spent, as you portrayed it. I also argued that this should be a rather low pay out. Those who take bigger risks should be rewarded more.
Your determination of not buying it, attributing arguments to me I did not make, and portraying my argument as merely "I disagree", linking it to kid's sports isn't healthy for this discussion. And I'll have you know that free time is the most valuable time you have at your disposal.
And with that, you can chalk this up as a won argument. Since I'm opting out.
Last edited:
OMG, Ziggy being... not crazy?!
Anyway, is there a way to subscribe to your newsletter?
Elite is a sandbox game, and one that promised an offline mode to boot (I stress this, as it'll become somewhat important later on). Now, sandbox games typically let players chose their level of challenge and engagement (not to mention offer various activities). As such, asking for a "risk-free PVE" is, effectively, missing the idea by a mile because you're asking the wrong question, and no one's really asking for that.
The game should offer different tiers of challenge for those interested. For example, there are RES sites and HazRES sites, nav-beacons and their compromised variants. There are unsafe anarchy systems and safe(er) systems. All of this should play a factor in how ED functions.
Then there is the fact that exploration (in the sense that ED seems to offer it) is very much a "chillout" activity. ED isn't a JOB, so comparisons to a real life job (and how well you do or do not do it) are moot. I don't personally find this sort of gameplay appealing, but I can UNDERSTAND the appeal, and I can also understand that people interested in that sort of gameplay loop probably aren't interested in the pew-pew side of ED. You seem... to either not get it, or not care? The explorers in this instance were blown up merely "for the lulz"; there was nothing to be gained except salt, which is at leat a little bit iffy.
Now, having been with ED from the start, I can see that there would be too many issues to implement a proper PvE mode; I keep saying that IF I had a magic want and could magically whisk such a mode into existence then I'd do it without batting an eye. But real life means development and man-hours and plugging in all those weird little troublesome spots where people could still grief each other (given the various mechanics that exist in the game), and that effectively kills any chance of a PvE mode happening. But those are technical reasons, not "OMG, you just want an easy mode" reasons.
And finally, there's the promise of an offline mode... we didn't get that, and instead got solo, but the reason this is somewhat important is because the vast majority of offline games offer the player a choice of difficulty right from the start... and no one really cares what difficulty other people play their offline games on (with the possible exception of the Dark Souls crowd but they are weird). You, on the other hand, seem to be a bit obsessed on how other people spend (or would like to spend) their free time in a video-game...
Last edited:
Because that can't be exploited at all, <facepalm>
If PvP combat is something that you *want to do*, then engaging in PvP combat is its own reward and the game doesn't have to push Cr at you for opting to play the way you want to anyway.
As an example, I quite enjoy driving around in my SRV when I'm out in the black, just looking for cool sights. I get no in game credits for this. But since it is something I enjoy, it is something I do anyway, regardless of the so called "viability".
Yours Aye
Mark H
First of all, Elite has traditionally been a certain kind of game. I want it to stay that kind of game. People are asking to dumb-down that certain kind of game. My 'obsession' is with trying to maintain the Elite I know as that certain kind of game. This is a very simplistic explanation of where I stand, but you should be able to understand just fine, and refrain from any further assumptions about me and my intentions in the future.
Secondly, you don't need to tell me what a sandbox is. I played the game that set the benchmark for sandboxes for over a decade, EVE Online. It's also set in a shared universe. The difference is, everything is entirely player-driven. The problem with Elite having a shared universe with segregated servers is you can do a bunch of things in solo, and if they have an affect on me, I can't stop you. What makes EVE the superior sandbox is that everything happens on one server. There is no instancing, there is no solo mode, it's all on one server. And I absolutely CAN stop you, by a variety of means, including but not limited to direct armed intervention, logistical disruption, market manipulation, resource control, and various others.
The thing is, I don't even have a problem with not being able to do that in Elite. I accept that it's a casual game that doesn't even hold a bar to EVE Online in most aspects as a sandbox. The real problem with Elite is it doesn't know what it is at all. Sandbox it most certainly is not. Can I build my own stations? No. Can I own my own planet and set up mining colonies? No. In a real sandbox, you can actually build a sandcastle.
And in a real sandbox, someone can come along and kick that castle over.
So if Elite is not a real sandbox, then "I can do what I want" is kinda redundant anyway. Isn't it?
No, of course it's not, because there's a lot you can do.
My explicit problem is what Elite was, compared to what it's become, compared to what people are demanding it become, and each new iteration, it gets dumber, the risk is lessened, and despite all this, everyone just keeps whining about something anyway. But I'll be honest, if there was a PVE-only mode with significantly more dangerous NPCs, I'd play in it. Players are few and far between anyway, and the last gank attempt on me was quite a while ago. Where is it the risk to me? Where's my 'tier of challenge'?
As for exploration being a 'chill out' activity, why? What makes it a 'chill out' activity specifically? Or have you just assumed that it is?
Why should you get rewards for 'chilling out'?
And dude, you need to go back and read my posts. I don't get 'that'? I'm not interested in PVP in this game. I am an explorer. That's what I enjoy. I would enjoy it more if it were ACTUALLY DANGEROUS! Players present a danger, and whilst I don't go looking for fights with them, every single expedition I go on in open that ends with an attempt by one to destroy me is exponentially more thrilling than every journey that ends without incident. But again, we're back to that other question: where is my tier of challenge? Why is it that I shouldn't get mine, and everyone else should get their easy mode? Their 'chill out', as it were?
You're right that games should have multiple tiers of challenge in some form, of course. My point here is, it shouldn't be up to the players what they are. The devs present the challenge, the player rises to it. If you want to make your own challenge, you make your own game.
Oh I get it, though. I get the appeal of getting things without earning them. It seems to be a very pervasive idea lately, and not just in this game. I also get the distaste for PVP in this game. As a very avid PVP'er in EVE Online myself, coming into Elite, the PVP felt.... dry. Oh I tried it. Did very well. My first fight was in a Viper III in the beta, against another Viper. I interdicted him and started shooting, and suddenly, he rammed me and I lost my shields. So I hit FA-off, boosted, and threw my Viper into a 'crazy ivan', making myself very hard to hit. I continued to boost away from the other Viper, the pilot of which decided to get smug, and declared, "Yeah, you better run punk!" as he continued to pursue me. Little did he know, there is a difference between running, and a tactical withdrawal. Just as my shield finished recharging, I got another smug message: "today's your lucky day. I've decided to let you go." Funny, I thought, because I haven't decided to let you go. I turned the Viper around with its shield back online, and went straight at him, a pair of medium cannons (not multis, cannons) and a pair of small beams blazing in a head on pass that took him from full shields to 0 health in less time than it takes to finish a cannon reload.
It was a good fight. A fair fight. There was something there I enjoyed, but ultimately, it seemed pointless. In EVE, I get loot. I get a killmail. If I'd lost, I'd get a lossmail. We'd be able to message each other with a private chat, and talk about the fight, have a laugh and say 'gf' or, if my opponent got salty, smack talk until he blocked me. None of that happened in Elite. And the sense that I had something to lose.... it was never there. Not like in EVE, where my cheapest frigates are 300-500mil a pop and literally every neutral in low-sec local is someone trying to kill me.
The PVP in Elite is stale, dry, and pointless to me. That doesn't mean I didn't learn how to do it, and keep up with whatever PVP cookie-cutter meta is popular this week. Because in learning how they do it, you learn how to counter it, by either fighting it, evading it, or even avoiding it altogether. But you know what really makes a sandbox a sandbox? It's not the sand quite so much as what you choose to do with it. Maybe I'll build a castle. Maybe I'll pick up a pile of it and throw it in your eyes. The point is, it's my CHOICE. And in a real sandbox, choice matters, and has consequences.
In your PVE-only open mode, the consequences of choice are irrelevant. You don't have to decide whether to choose speed or armour over jump range, because there is no threat that requires you to have speed or armour. You don't have to choose between shields or cargo, because there is no threat that requires shields. Your choice is always the same: max jump range, max cargo, etc etc. There is no real choice in a PVE-only open if there is no risk that results in consequences for a poor choice. Which is precisely why I'd be okay with a PVE-only Open mode IF, and only IF, the NPCs were at least as half as dangerous as players, with a massive increase to the difficulty of interdiction evasion, and the return of marauders and reavers that aren't interested in your cargo, only your blood.
Because Elite is meant to be a certain thing. If it is not that certain thing, it is not Elite. That's my obsession. Otherwise, I don't care how you choose to play. You do you. Burn your sandcastle down, see if I care. I've been with ED from the start, too. The real start was in 1984.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to win anything, I'm trying to have a conversation. I'm considering your points of view, and in considering them, I discover flaws with them, and express those flaws as counter-arguments. I'm more then welcome to having my mind changed on a range of issues.
Yes, I know there are a lot of risk free jobs. That's real life, where you get paid based on results, NOT how much time or effort it took you to achieve those results. Unless you're working in fast food as a casual, in which case, results are pretty much redundant. It's fast food, after all. You also get paid based on risk if you do work in a risky job, like the military.
Regardless of how valuable free time is, because it's a subjective thing, it's still free time. I spend a good portion of my free time out on a boat with a fishing rod, another good portion of it building plastic model kits of World War II fighters, tanks, and warships, and the rest of it playing video games. It's all, ultimately, wasted time, because that's all we have to do with free time, unless we choose to do something productive for society or our family or whatever. But make no mistake, playing video games? It's not productive. It doesn't achieve anything tangible and so it is, by definition, a waste of time. I realise the negative connotations of that phrase, but there's nothing wrong with wasting time. We all need to enjoy ourselves wasting a bit of time from time to time
And yes, 'effort and time spent' I covered. I admit some facetiousness but it had a point, I promise. I did ask a relevant question, a couple of them actually. Why should 'time spent' be rewarded? Why should 'effort spent' be rewarded? You know what I think? It's the results of the time and effort spent that should be rewarded, not the time and effort itself. I also think that in a game like this, a civilisation on the frontiers of deep space, risk should be an ever-present factor. I have yet to see you justify why it shouldn't be in this game, with its interstellar setting, and with most of its core flight model being centred on emulating the WWII fighter plane experience and all the combat inherent in that design philosophy. And then, of course, it's space! You know what I'd love to see? Random meteor storms causing serious damage or some other form of disruption. Radiation, plasma, CMEs, the occasional ship system malfunction as a result of poor maintenance or one of the above threats, all the dangers of space that this game just does not have, and probably should. Because why not? It's space. In short, why should you be immune to risk?
I'm not trying to win. My primary objective is to understand your point of view. If I'm misunderstanding it, clarify it. In understanding your point of view, I can analyse it critically, and determine if there are any flaws or not. I do this based on my understanding and experience of Elite, its history, and its pedigree, and believe it or not, I absolutely DO consider what other people might want from their experience. The flaw I'm consistently seeing here, and experiencing, is that there is absolutely no reason why PVE players cannot play in open and avoid PVP in its entirety IF they make the right choices. That is why I am stringently opposed to a PVE-only open mode in any form (I've said I'd welcome a high risk compromise, but it's been an attempt to get people thinking critically, perhaps a poorly conceived one) which would take development time, money, and resources to introduce to this game and achieve nothing that the players couldn't already get themselves by making the right choices.
Can you tell me I'm wrong on that point? Believe me, I'm open to it. I don't mind being wrong. Being wrong is how we learn.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The simplest reason why PvE players might choose not to play in Open is because it is a PvP enabled game mode - and avoiding PvP is not the same as playing PvE (as the former may contain PvP whereas the latter need not), especially if one wants to visit one of the more popular spots in the galaxy.
Of course PvE players can choose to play in Open, if they want - that's one of the choices - another choice could be to pick a game mode where PvP will not be encountered - it depends on the preference of the player making the choice, not on the preferences of other players.
Once again, obfuscating. Which part of what you just wrote refuted or even addressed the fact that "players can do PVE in open and avoid PVP altogether if they make the right choices"?
EDIT: Oh, and if your argument is, "they don't want to have to learn how to avoid it", that's irrelevant. We all do things we don't want to from time to time. No one wants to sit for hours outside a station scanning wakes for DWEs. Let's just remove them, shall we, since we don't want to do it? Doesn't work like that. The great thing is, the game still gives you a choice, and your choices matter.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
How does one guarantee not to be engaged in PvP, ever, in Open?
The argument is that they don't *need* to learn to avoid it in-game - as the game offers ways to avoid it in the choice of game mode from the launcher. There is no requirement for any player to engage in PvP in this game if they do not want to.
There are elements of the game that are mandatory, gathering materials / data for Engineering being one, and there is a specific element of the game that is entirely optional, i.e. other players.
Choices do indeed matter - and, from the outset, Frontier have offered players the choice of three game modes to play in and each player is free to choose which game mode they want to play in at the start of each game session.
The idea that PvP is something that players should be required to tolerate, even if they don't find it to be "fun" is an odd one - as, I'd expect, most people play games for their own enjoyment.
Last edited:
I would love a vanilla open.