I would posit the opposite - a sudden influx of players sporting simple exploits to make non-consensual PvP'ers cry and leaving open play in fits of purest RAEG.
An investigation into Frontier's actions on Combat Logging
- Thread starter ryan_m
- Start date
I would posit the opposite - a sudden influx of players sporting simple exploits to make non-consensual PvP'ers cry and leaving open play in fits of purest RAEG.
Nope, its not mine. Its a David interpretationI am just playing in a game by FDev rules. You got a link and videos. If you still looking a deep in a place where is no deep, then you will be just disappointed.
Go and have a good evening, i will stay here for awhile
Oh! You want a David Quote?
I'll give you a David Quote...
[video=youtube;n7tGV7VVlhE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7tGV7VVlhE[/video]
Which is why I do not have a problem with a good implementation of both crime and punishment aswell. Of course people will still cry their eyes out as they do but maybe some of the forum people will finaly quit whining.
Now what is and isn't proper crime and punishment is completly pointless to discuss atleast on these forums as they want your hand cut off for non-consensual murder and maybe a finger for piracy because there hasn't been a proper crime and punishment system for a while. Few in that discussion seem to know how to keep it level headed and not jump straight into the bat crazy part of the pool.
Yes, yes and Yes. Exactly! 100 % true. That´s what I also say (well, since 2.5 years?)!
I love social interaction in this game. But I hate being shot down for teh lulz. So I avoid open - end of story.
It's not taking sides, it's an observation of the events.
I am entitled to an opinion just like anyone else here, I am not employed by Frontier.
Why would your opinion of the company be shaped by the comments of an employee who is a) describing legitimate gameplay (regardless of your personal feelings about it) and b) explicitly stated that he was commmenting in a personal capacity? I work for HMRC, do you form your opinion of the UK tax authority based on my comments on here about the SRV scanner and npc avatars? Grow up.
Erika wants, not me. Talk to her/him (i do not know, sorry).
I provided a two links and its not a big deal to read them.
Is FD was designed as PvE game? Hm It was designed as a game where both NPC and players are sharing one universe and can interact each other. You can even call other player as a part of Environment, so playing PvE will be in one very moment also playing PvP.
Its not a strict PvP game as Battlefield - yes - its the Arena/CQC.
As David wrote, you can cooperate with other people, make wings. Then if you have a griefer, then you can cooperate with your friends against him. Or you can just do not care of him, play alone, or just do high wake.
David confirmed that in video what you provided.
Last edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-4xHtCP1Yo
The Youtube video depicts players getting interdicted by other players, the Vulture is even an actual acount in-game.
So yea, he's either lying or referring to the fact that the game wasn't sold PURELY as a PvP game which seems to be the case in the way he referes to CQC, as in being the only striaght up PvP mode.
If you pay me 5 rep, I'll escort you through these muddy waters.Stop forcing your forum PvP on me.
As a reminder, what you quoted is of my personal opinion on the matter of PVP.
I assume you're referring to the Learn to play bit. It's more than "veiled derisive language of anti-social players". "Learn to play" is a legitimate issue that has begun to be a problem in this decades games being released. Elite Dangerous is especially prone to this issue, simply due to the vertical nature of its rather steep learning curve. I've seen more people post questions about how X does Y and how does Z interact with A B and C. Granted, these are looking from a top-down perspective. New commanders have to spend a fair lot of time before they're good to go with PVP.
If a player refuses to learn how the game functions, and learns the hard way by jumping right into the game without any, or in the least, minimal knowledge and is blown up by a random commander in open... honestly, what can the company do? It's clear that the player doesn't want to do tutorials or read up on the forums for some quick tips and tricks. We're not going to force them to do tutorials before being able to play.
Simply put: What you might find easy and generic, might be the most difficult thing the other person has to overcome for a day, a week, or even a month before getting into the swing of it.
I am sorry but I believe you are missing the point here. This game is not like many others as it actively encourages you to do many activities not related to combat. I have lots of ships and not a single gun. If you are focussed on mining for example, you can not do that and defend yourself against someone who is only focussed on combat. If you are interdicted by a player your only choice is to run and post engineers, that is not always an option either. So, in effect, a miner, trader or explorer often has zero chance against a determined combat player.
For me, although I do not understand the arguments of many of the PvP crowd with the exception of good old GF, I can only agree with them when they say that all the PvE arguments are invalid because we have solo and group mode.
Additionally, I hope you won´t object if I say that while I agree that you are entitled to your own opinion, as a manager of the community, I too am surprised you feel in a position to side with one side it so clearly.
As a reminder, what you quoted is of my personal opinion on the matter of PVP.
I assume you're referring to the Learn to play bit. It's more than "veiled derisive language of anti-social players". "Learn to play" is a legitimate issue that has begun to be a problem in this decades games being released. Elite Dangerous is especially prone to this issue, simply due to the vertical nature of its rather steep learning curve. I've seen more people post questions about how X does Y and how does Z interact with A B and C. Granted, these are looking from a top-down perspective. New commanders have to spend a fair lot of time before they're good to go with PVP.
If a player refuses to learn how the game functions, and learns the hard way by jumping right into the game without any, or in the least, minimal knowledge and is blown up by a random commander in open... honestly, what can the company do? It's clear that the player doesn't want to do tutorials or read up on the forums for some quick tips and tricks. We're not going to force them to do tutorials before being able to play.
Simply put: What you might find easy and generic, might be the most difficult thing the other person has to overcome for a day, a week, or even a month before getting into the swing of it.
I was also (and primarily) referring to the description of complaints made by a hypothetical player who is dissatisfied with something as "crying".
To players who aren't interested in PvP, learning to play isn't synonymous learning to PvP. To them, learning to play means learning to find good trade routes, fight NPCs, mine efficiently, smuggle without getting scanned and so forth.
I didn't think we were talking about new players. But I guess they're always relevant in this topic since they're the players most at risk of being put off entirely. I don't believe that doing the tutorials and reading some quick tips and tricks is enough to reasonably expect a new player to survive gankers. High waking may be the answer for players in ships which can tank the damage output of an engineered FDL for 15 seconds, but those ships are a long way off for new players. Once FSD-disabling weapons are ingame, "just high wake" won't even be an answer for players in midgame ships.
As for what the company can do; I think it's obvious. Crime and punishment is a fiendishly complex problem to solve. But an open PvE mode would be comparatively easy to implement. It would satisfy the complaints of players who just want to enjoy Elite's PvE content, and introduce no complaints from other players that aren't already made about solo and groups. Mobius isn't an answer either, since the average player who doesn't visit the game's forums will just see private group as a "play with your mates" option.
I think it's worth noting that I'm not speaking from the point of view of somebody who doesn't value PvP games. I've played competitively (back when I could take scrimming at 2am; but that's being in an odd time zone for you). I can even see the value of genuine PvP in Elite. But at the moment "PvP" is mainly a euphemism for senseless ganking and griefing.
Sorry for the wall of text. I can't really TL;DR it aside from asking you to just read the first line to clarify what I meant about derisive language and ignore the rest.
For me solution seems really obvious. If (as Kyokushin says) we have community of 30 000 being scared to death by acts of 100 people, you do not organise self defence lessons for 30000 people. You eliminate the 100. Job done
Maybe FD should create 4th mode in addition to open/solo/private, call it dangerous or ironman, then the really good PvP guys could meet there with worthy opponents, not trying to chase poor schmucks like me, which I understand can be frustrating
Maybe FD should create 4th mode in addition to open/solo/private, call it dangerous or ironman, then the really good PvP guys could meet there with worthy opponents, not trying to chase poor schmucks like me, which I understand can be frustrating
Last edited:
Perhaps you could implement a new crime and punishmentsystem limited within the sphere of influence of a power or minor faction. Or maybe within the provisional Colonia systems. If someone is unhappy with the changes they can allways leave.
Last edited:
being annoyed
Last edited:
For me solution seems really obvious. If (as Kyokushin says) we have community of 30 000 being scared to death by acts of 100 people, you do not organise self defence lessons for 30000 people. You eliminate the 100. Job done
Maybe FD should create 4th mode in addition to open/solo/private, call it dangerous or ironman, then the really good PvP guys could meet there with worthy opponents, not trying to chase poor schmucks like me, which I understand can be frustrating
FD just need to separate Open mode from others.
I do not mind if they create another Open mode, without a carebear access. No switch from other modes.
I agree, lets these 30 000 of people will try to eliminate these 100, by in-game mechanics. It should not be hard, even if they will throw unarmed Haules to them like a rocks.
30 000 of unarmed haulers will be heavy at all.
If they do not want to play with them, who is forcing them? These 100? David? Its only their choice.
Then not play in annoying Mode. Switch to Mobius. Problem solved.
Last edited:
Because this particular employee has a title of community manager. It is my opinion that much like a referee, that position can not be seen to take sides without undermining the position.
Of course if my understanding of what a community managers responsibilities are is wrong then I apologise.
Last edited:
As a reminder, what you quoted is of my personal opinion on the matter of PVP.
I assume you're referring to the Learn to play bit. It's more than "veiled derisive language of anti-social players". "Learn to play" is a legitimate issue that has begun to be a problem in this decades games being released. Elite Dangerous is especially prone to this issue, simply due to the vertical nature of its rather steep learning curve. I've seen more people post questions about how X does Y and how does Z interact with A B and C. Granted, these are looking from a top-down perspective. New commanders have to spend a fair lot of time before they're good to go with PVP.
If a player refuses to learn how the game functions, and learns the hard way by jumping right into the game without any, or in the least, minimal knowledge and is blown up by a random commander in open... honestly, what can the company do? It's clear that the player doesn't want to do tutorials or read up on the forums for some quick tips and tricks. We're not going to force them to do tutorials before being able to play.
Simply put: What you might find easy and generic, might be the most difficult thing the other person has to overcome for a day, a week, or even a month before getting into the swing of it.
Wow. Did I just read a FDev employee say "git gud"??
Brett C
Frontier
I don't recall putting 'git gud' in there though... [arrrr]
Really? Allow me to add a couple of alternative clauses to the end of that first part, and we'll see how it reads.
If a player refuses to learn how the game functions, and learns the hard way by jumping right into the game without any, or in the least, minimal knowledge and is blown up by a random commander in open immediately after leaving the default starting station for the first time...
If a player refuses to learn how the game functions, and learns the hard way by jumping right into the game without any, or in the least, minimal knowledge and is blown up by a random commander in open in a lawless system that's crawling with pirates...
Do you see the difference? Context. What is acceptable or not, how the C&P system should react, should be based upon location not mode. That the fallacy of "Open should mean unrestrained and consequence-free PVP" has become so entrenched that even FD staff are parroting it (albeit in an unofficial capacity) is very disappointing.
Last edited: