Page 17 of 17 First 13151617
Results 241 to 254 of 254

Thread: Open PVE Shadow Banned Server - Could it Work?

  1. #241
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    Bugged Engineered loadouts - and, when Engineering commodities were required, a predilection for them that caused more frequent NPC interdictions.

    Resetting NPC difficulty nearly 18 months after release was always going to be a controversial proposition. Plus the fact that not every player has access to Engineers....
    Frontier made two mistakes. One was committing an untested change to live; creating the machine gun plasma (the beta before it the NPCs were about bang on and I was so happy they just g nailed it so well).

    Live dropped and destroyed literally all the work done by so many to get to a solid outcome.

    Second was being arrogant and insolent about their pet project (engineering) and refusing to tone it down when it was abundantly apparent they had over cooked the outcomes. This created the inevitable backlash.

    Frontier deciding that was the hill to take and refuse to be more responsible about has created massive disparity to this day. The very people maligned (PVP) were some of the first to say it was broken and tone it the hell down.

    On the contrary, Sandy was adamant about the power creep being fine, and commodities being a requirement for a very long time; we could not store them, expected hording and programmed AI to go after them.

    There was a cognizant attempt to engineer (lol) an outcome and they simply refused to accept it was taken too far. And they didnt even bother to make sure 1.x and 2.x were in different instances for crying out loud.

    And for what? They ended up having to rebuild it anyway. And removed the commodities. NPCs went from the otherwise great scaled threat to only slightly less stupid than when they started. That whole saga really broke my trust to be honest.

    And at no point did Frontier ever say "we broke trust, we got it wrong, we are sorry, here is what we are doing to do" just more of the "not working as intended" non-answer and some credit refunds to keep the punters happy.

    So I dont take anything they do at face value now. Theres no ownership of anything they do? So why would I. Why would anyone?

    Guess what guardian blueprints need. You guessed it, commodities. At least they have been a bit more responsible and ensured they were accessible from markets.

    That said, whilst Frontier has left a lot of things very late, change is still inevitable in any game. As it should be. This should be normal. Regardless of how late. I welcome change, even if I dont always agree with it, because there can be no improvement without it.

    I could just do without the extremes, and the tendency to take the hill over it. You know? It just hasn't been constructive. Maybe this has been taken on board. Who knows.

  2. #242
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    Like I said earlier. There is no solution frontier will apply when binary statements like this exist. I get that this is tongue in cheek, but is it?
    It was most certainly tongue in cheek and far from serious, the proposition is as ridiculous in a unilateral sense as the post I was responding to.

    There was no balance point to the statement I was responding to.

    Personally, while I would like a Open PvE enforced by FD I can live with out it and have never expected FD to implement such a thing. However, it would be nice if they could address some of the Private Group limits and management issues though.

  3. #243
    Meh, shadow banning to me seems like a chicken way to handle punishing bad players. They breached contract in some way to be designated for banning, why would you want to waste any resources on continuing to allow them to play? Unless they want some kind of tiered system instead of a time-out type of system.

    Either way, open is already pve unless you go out of your way to make it not. If you avoid the 10 or so popular systems out of the billions, you'll never see another human player all day long every day.

    The only thing i have to suggest for shadow banning is that anyone shadow banned, should not be able to impact the BGS. All of their activity should be directed to /dev/null while they are shadow banned.

  4. #244
    Originally Posted by Darth Ender View Post (Source)
    Meh, shadow banning to me seems like a chicken way to handle punishing bad players. They breached contract in some way to be designated for banning, why would you want to waste any resources on continuing to allow them to play? Unless they want some kind of tiered system instead of a time-out type of system.
    In all likelihood, there is not much resources required to support shadow banning. Why not implement a total ban? It can become legally messy is why.

    Shadow banned players already do not influence the BGS but that was not what this thread was about really - it was about arguing the case of a purely Open PvE mode enforced by FD - the original premise was inherently flawed but some of the follow on suggestions could potentially be capitalised on by FD.

  5. #245
    Originally Posted by rlsg View Post (Source)
    It was most certainly tongue in cheek and far from serious, the proposition is as ridiculous in a unilateral sense as the post I was responding to.

    There was no balance point to the statement I was responding to.

    Personally, while I would like a Open PvE enforced by FD I can live with out it and have never expected FD to implement such a thing. However, it would be nice if they could address some of the Private Group limits and management issues though.
    Concur completely. FD decided free for all was fine, and due to product description and ToS basically stating that hunting players is fine, they have limited avenues because at no point is a reason even required.

    This is why banning people outright is problematic, if you have implicitly permitted action. The law should exist as a framework, but it isnt designed to stop all possible conflict.

    Frontier can only enforce that which breaks EULA; shooting people, in open, doesnt. I think ultimately that's why they never really fleshed out reason or stucture; there was a presumption, perhaps naively, that none was required.

    Arguably, crime being better defined with an actual career path and some gentle steering of outcomes might have lead to a better experience? We will never know as the well is poisoned and Frontier is unlikely to ever redress this now.

    The outcome was inevitable given there is no such structure. And any attempts to improve this structure (eg defining PP and PVP in relation) has just been shouted down. So much for wanting structure or purpose, then.

    Open is solo or PG most of the time, regardless. Space is big. Frontier I guess just assumed rare and meaningful, without actually baking that outcome into mechanics.

    That said, yes better management for PG has been a long requested feature. And a good one. Frontier just do not seem interested in it, however. Possibly because they know what the response will be.

    Lots of proverbial ache because how dare Frontier change anything.

  6. #246
    As I recall from reading somewhere... Shadow Banned players have no effect on the BGS, and is essentially a Solo server... except we call them servers and they're not. The Elite servers have very little with player-to-player interactions, and more to do with tracking BGS, Exploration Discoveries, and supplying Missions.

    Really the two places I see that things went awry:

    1. No Offline Mode
    2. No PvE Mode

    And #2 is really the big one - more than a lack of an Offline mode. The population of and number of populated Mobius groups alone are testament to the number of players who do not desire to be someone else's content.

  7. #247
    Originally Posted by IndigoWyrd View Post (Source)
    As I recall from reading somewhere... Shadow Banned players have no effect on the BGS, and is essentially a Solo server... except we call them servers and they're not. The Elite servers have very little with player-to-player interactions, and more to do with tracking BGS, Exploration Discoveries, and supplying Missions.

    Really the two places I see that things went awry:

    1. No Offline Mode
    2. No PvE Mode

    And #2 is really the big one - more than a lack of an Offline mode. The population of and number of populated Mobius groups alone are testament to the number of players who do not desire to be someone else's content.
    Actually mobius is an example of multiplayer where an action is possible but not permitted. People ostensible accept an agreement to that effect. That is, a full damage and interaction model where hostile action is frowned upon and those usurping are ejected.

    That's fine, because those are the terms and people are expected to accept before joining. Frontier has a different set of terms whereby the same action is not cause for automatic ejection. Even if people believe it should be.

    People endlessly use mobius as an example, but this is ignoring that such a thing cannot happen officially, because the developer cannot simply mandate you do not shoot other commanders or you are banned.

    Frontier has to rewrite the EULA to expressly forbid illegal action and then programatically ensure the game cannot allow it. Sandy has explained, previously, how much of a game of whack a mole that is.

    Gentlemans rules are not sufficient. It would require administration sanction, EULA changes and removal of most every aspect of the game people within that group engage in.

    People assume PVE only would be like mobius. Except it isn't. Mobius is basically open, with absolute rule. That's fine? But that is what it is. It's full damage model with people doing what the group says they must do.

    The reality is, most of the remaining complaint (that has zero compromise as a starting point) is residual anger from there being no offline mode. So thank you for at least being honest.

    PVE only is a change to EULA and a massive revision of code to remove damage sources and various inter-commander action. This has been the case in every other game I have ever seen. Most have decided an open model is simply to difficult to manage. Frontier obviously did not think the same thing.

  8. #248
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    Concur completely. FD decided free for all was fine, and due to product description and ToS basically stating that hunting players is fine, they have limited avenues because at no point is a reason even required.
    Actually this is untrue in essence - FD opted for a system of C&P that should regulate behaviours if everyone actually agreed to abide by the same core principles. Unfortunately, some treat ED as primarily an opportunity to engage in PvP which is something it was never designed for.

    The EULA/ToS prohibits behaviours that could be construed as harassment of ANY form, that includes griefing and to a degree overly targeted ganking. FD updated the C&P system in 3.0 to help mitigate some of the more extreme behaviours that they reasonably (but perhaps naively) expected people to not engage in - Habitual Ganking and/or Seal Clubbing. Their reasoning for adopting that route seems to be verisimilitude. The player reporting system can be used for the rest.

    As for reasons to engage in PvP - there are legitimate and unarguable ones such as Bounty Hunting and proper Piracy. While random (or near random) murder (for no apparent reason) is not expressly prevented or prohibited, the C&P changes in 3.0 seem to be primarily targeted at regulating such behaviours whether the targets be NPC or PC. Further more, such behaviours could be deemed reportable (if a player considers it griefing) and sanctionable by shadow banning (if FD deem the report - or reports - merits such action). If people are after random competitive PvP, then there is CQC for that.

  9. #249
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    Actually mobius is an example of multiplayer where an action is possible but not permitted. People ostensible accept an agreement to that effect. That is, a full damage and interaction model where hostile action is frowned upon and those usurping are ejected.
    Actually, by joining Mobius you agree to abide by the group's play book (no-PvP) - deliberately and purposefully breeching a PG's play book can be also actionable by FD under the provisions of their EULA/ToS.

  10. #250
    So you wanna replace the shadow group with an open PvE group? Sure, if you keep all the hackers and exploiters with you, I'm fine with it. Just commit a game-crime and get shadow banned. Hint: You will only encounter "shadow" players

  11. #251
    Originally Posted by rlsg View Post (Source)
    Actually, by joining Mobius you agree to abide by the group's play book (no-PvP) - deliberately and purposefully breeching a PG's play book can be also actionable by FD under the provisions of their EULA/ToS.
    There is a statement by FD long ago claiming that violating a PG's ruleset can not be punished and that the group leader is responsible for all moderation. After all, rules in PG is not supported in the first place. Meaning that the worst thing that can happen is a ban from the according PG and that's it.

  12. #252
    Originally Posted by rlsg View Post (Source)
    Actually, by joining Mobius you agree to abide by the group's play book (no-PvP) - deliberately and purposefully breeching a PG's play book can be also actionable by FD under the provisions of their EULA/ToS.
    Nope. Breaching a PG's in-house rules goes no further than the PG's owner for action.

  13. #253
    Originally Posted by Kari Kerenski View Post (Source)
    Nope. Breaching a PG's in-house rules goes no further than the PG's owner for action.
    According to FD thats right, until you try a second time after being banned from said PG by changing player name/use a different account or other "fraudulent" means. That warrants a permanend shadowban according to the devs.


    Btw: its hillarious how most "players that use PvP as an excuse to see the pretty explosions without any risk to themselves" misjudge why most players in mobius PG are in there. Its not to avoid "risk". Its because you can play a game there thats bereft of players that dont know how to interact with others in a way thats fun to both. Personally i would be fine if PvP would be allowed there but only if both players agree to it. a.k.a: if the inderdicted player doesent submit you have to abort the interdiction and certainly not attack him once its thru. I know that that is probably not enforceable (seen by the fact that Mobius even banned CZ PvP because i was used by some [insert derogatery term] players to gank players in mobius), but a player can dream.

  14. #254
    Originally Posted by Crimson Kaim View Post (Source)
    There is a statement by FD long ago claiming that violating a PG's ruleset can not be punished and that the group leader is responsible for all moderation. After all, rules in PG is not supported in the first place. Meaning that the worst thing that can happen is a ban from the according PG and that's it.
    Originally Posted by Kari Kerenski View Post (Source)
    Nope. Breaching a PG's in-house rules goes no further than the PG's owner for action.
    Only partly right... note I said "deliberately and purposefully" referring mainly to those whose sole intent is to disrupt the private group...

    Originally Posted by Loetmichel View Post (Source)
    According to FD thats right, until you try a second time after being banned from said PG by changing player name/use a different account or other "fraudulent" means. That warrants a permanend shadowban according to the devs.
    This is what I was getting at... not so sure about the permanent shadow ban part though.

    There has been at least one attempt by a group of people to deliberately infiltrate and disrupt the Mobius group, I gather FD looked rather dimly on those that perpetrated that blatant breach of the EULA/ToS.