Perhaps the latter. My proposal is mostly to heavily steer certain kind of behauviour to systems where that kind of stuff would reasonably be expected.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier's approach is more optional than that - if one wants to mine in a RES then there are POIs available - if not then one can drop in to the rings at any point, possibly very far from any POI.
While those who would like to force combat on all players may not like it, Frontier seems to understand that not all players who play this game are particularly interested in combat when engaged in particular non-combat activities.
No need for god like ATR and so on just hit certain players in pocketbook very hardly if they ever find themselves in rebuy screen.
Not while wanted though. Ships are nigh on indestructible if you don't want to be blown up.Eventually every player sees rebuy screenAnd thats where trap shuts its jaws tightly....
There is that catch, what you owe to bank is not tied to cops wanting you. It would be on the books untill you pay it. Basically every time you get from some anarchy backwater to civilised space there will sword of damocles over your head.
.
Last edited:
Yeah I would definitely play in Open if I could disable PvP
Really though, if the only accepted way of bringing players together is to have game ending bounties on players, I'm going to have to go back on what I said about open only BGS.
What actually is needed here is 2 servers with complete separation- everyone affecting the same galaxy isn't going to work. We have a PvP enabled galaxy, which is effectively your open only option and a PvE galaxy which has no combat allowed against other players (players are visible but there's no contact, you just clip straigh through). Changes in one (aside from FDev driven narrative) should have no impact on the other - solo can still exist and only impact the PvE galaxy.
This seems to be the only way of maintaining open as players want it whilst giving other players the risk free multiplayer they want.
I wouldn't want to suggest a timescale for when any changes could come about though.
What? Ganker who ganks somebody does not ask if victim has enough for rebuy. It is about git gud loser. So bankcruptcy and nice new sidey should be okay, have enough rainy day fund to pay what you owe
Thats what is wrong anyways, people want basically free hand in destroying others without ANY consequences for themselves, everything is just victims fault. Not flying in proper mode, not flying some meta, not flying good enough, yadda yadda just pay up and don't get salty. When someone offers model that would bring consequences, and consequences being pretty much in-game world believable then starts real saltines. "Game ending" Just earn up credits and get your gankwagon back
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - even if I don't agree with all of their decisions.
Nope.
You did not really understand what I said, did you.
It's a game. The rules are simple. Build and fly a ship that can survive the environment. Make a mistake and you might end up at the rebuy screen.
Other players, some of whom might be hostile, are just part of the environment in Open. If you find that too difficult for some reason, you can choose an easier mode.
I don't think you're following me.What? Ganker who ganks somebody does not ask if victim has enough for rebuy. It is about git gud loser. So bankcruptcy and nice new sidey should be okay, have enough rainy day fund to pay what you owe
Thats what is wrong anyways, people want basically free hand in destroying others without ANY consequences for themselves, everything is just victims fault. Not flying in proper mode, not flying some meta, not flying good enough, yadda yadda just pay up and don't get salty. When someone offers model that would bring consequences, and consequences being pretty much in-game world believable then starts real saltines. "Game ending" Just earn up credits and get your gankwagon back
Some people want to play the game you describe. They want to attack and be attacked at will, with your only defence being your piloting skills and ship building knowledge. From a personal point of view, it's very unlikely I'd attack you anyway because personally I need a reason to do so that works for me and you minding your own business zipping about dropping off your cargo or whatever it is you're doing isn't going to do it.
What I object to is the addition of a punishment so high it deters people from attacking me in the first place, this turning the game into a sterile, boring near solo experience (in my opinion). That's not to say that I disagree with consequences being much harsher in high security systems and sys sec desperately need beefing up.
What I'm saying is that if there is to be a change, we need separation between PvP and PvE groups. You and me, we're not wanting to play the same game, whilst playing the same game. What we have now is the best compromise and anything else needs us to have dedicated arenas for what we want to do. Make open PvE is the opposite suggestion to getting rid of solo and PG; implement either one and one us leaves the game.
I'm fine with being a target when I'm wanted, but if I defend myself against a player bounty hunter (ok, admittedly I'm stretching the bounds of reality now), where's the fun for me if any subsequent rebuy bankrupts me?
Personally what I want is believable in game world. And sadly in that there is no space for psycho murderer roleplayers flying without punishment in say Federation capital system. My system would not completely prevent that kind of gameplay, it would heavily steer that towards places where it is approbriate. If you want people attacking you, set course to nearest inhabited anarchy. Those would be places where you would find that kind of action.
And yes punishments role IS to deter unwanted actions. If it does not it is not effective.
And it would be in line with previous titles. Chances of you getting pirated by NPC pirates in say FFE were heavily dependent on system type you flew in.
On that point we can agree. At very least, consequences for violent crimes within sight of Mars High should be immediately and overwhelming, if we care about the lore of the game.
But here's the problem, it's all very well saying that, but unless you're willing to nail your soul to the game, maintaining an anarchy faction in the face of everything in the game is pure futility. You haven't seen grind until you've tried propping one of those up. The other thing is, why would you go to one, apart from clearing a bounty?
Set some bgs stuff, like very lucrative trade opportunities. Like weapons in, cheap drugs out...High profits but high risks too.
And by high profits I mean something in scale of current day drug business.
Something that has been asked for by players who enjoy criminal aspects of the game for years now. It does keep coming back to this doesn't it?
Give players a good reason to go (and keep) to anarchies, but put big signs on them saying they're dangerous along with making high security areas a nightmare for criminals and stuff starts making a bit more sense.
I'm not holding my breath though.