Except the other guy and I were specifically talking about player interaction.
Of course other reasons exist.
Common instanced locations
- Thread starter Basilisk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- social interaction
Of course other reasons exist.
You can't really make open appealing to people not interested in it from the start; they're not playing the game for a social experience at all or, if they are, it's only with a few select friends in private mode.
The ultimate problem with any game that has a PvPvE angle to it is that it attracts players who derive enjoyment through taking it from others. Souls games are a great representation of this, where dedicated PvP arenas remain barren, most invaders preferring to pounce on the unprepared. Nothing makes this type of player more infuriated than their potential targets simply choosing not to play with them, thereby robbing them of their enjoyment just as much as they rob it from others.
The final point being that you can't make people like something they've got no interest in from the start. So long as the mere threat of a gank or other unwanted PvP/anti-social behavior exists, people who play only solo will stick to only solo. Even if this threat did not exist at all, you'd still have a large chunk of people sticking to solo simply because they don't care for social interaction and just don't want to be bothered while playing.
Exposure things like this don't work. These aren't kids refusing to eat their vegetables because they look gross; it's adults making a conscious decision to play how they want(or at least I'd hope so.)
The ultimate problem with any game that has a PvPvE angle to it is that it attracts players who derive enjoyment through taking it from others. Souls games are a great representation of this, where dedicated PvP arenas remain barren, most invaders preferring to pounce on the unprepared. Nothing makes this type of player more infuriated than their potential targets simply choosing not to play with them, thereby robbing them of their enjoyment just as much as they rob it from others.
The final point being that you can't make people like something they've got no interest in from the start. So long as the mere threat of a gank or other unwanted PvP/anti-social behavior exists, people who play only solo will stick to only solo. Even if this threat did not exist at all, you'd still have a large chunk of people sticking to solo simply because they don't care for social interaction and just don't want to be bothered while playing.
Exposure things like this don't work. These aren't kids refusing to eat their vegetables because they look gross; it's adults making a conscious decision to play how they want(or at least I'd hope so.)
This is where instanced PvE would be nice. People could play cooperatively without needing to fly in one mode or another basically ever, and not need to rely entirely on a squadron for that content.
Ah, but do you mean the full player interaction you can have in Mobius, or the very limited kind of "interaction" available in Open?
Mobius is by definition not full interaction.Ah, but do you mean the full player interaction you can have in Mobius, or the very limited kind of "interaction" available in Open?
Full is all of it, the good and the bad. You can only get the good in Mobius, but I can get that in Open with my buddies and our squadron’s allies. I can also go play blockade runner at the CG, which is against the rules in that group because nobody can play the aggressor.
People are of course free to play in Mobius, but the idea that that’s the more “complete” version of the game when it’s removing certain interactions and certain build considerations as necessary is objectively untrue.
I won't question what "objectively" means, but I know that all the best conversations, poking around and ad-hoc grouping which have made memorable game experiences for me have been in Mobius. In Open it's just fight or flight all the time - only one kind of interaction. OK, that's fun sometimes, but full social interaction it isn't.
This is why I think we need those common instances. Some people see the thrill of the hunt as stress/unfun and avoid it. If they want to skip that part of the game, they have that option. But at the same time, the game doesn't really do enough (at least in my opinion) to give people shared "local goals", like a dungeon (fantasy RPG term but it's what's commonly used). CGs are fine, but instanced missions would be a pretty big boost to community building if I had to guess.
They're not unharmed though are they? Their ship is "hot", so are the modules. And also SWAT or whatever they're called are meant to show up when they misbehave.
The problem is the punishments are way too light. A hot ship should cost hundreds of millions or billions to clean up or get rid of. Imprisonment shouldn't mean you get let out of the detention centre instantly. You should have to stay in for a few weeks, or until notoriety goes to zero, or similar. Or make the most valuable impounded ship be permanently confiscated.
How does Star Citizen handle ganking?
Throwing an idea out there as a possible solution, and that is to leave the concourses as they are but have a pilot's lounge type area that is accessible by the elevator, which also happens to switch instances. This area would not have any external windows so as to circumvent pad clogging issues, it could be a good area where people can meet up and join wings etc., which would then act as a market to instance everyone together when heading back to the concourse/hangar. This could also be a thing for Fleet Carriers.
Big deal. Gankers can use exactly the same "make money fast" super earners as the rest of us. That's what I mean by "unharmed" - unlike a normal person in the real world, we can't shrug off the loss of a million pounds, or transfer our consciousness to a legally new person if we get into trouble, or guarantee that our every business venture will gain 100-1 returns in a day and therefore recover from any finite loss in a short space of time.
Which is again retrospective - they can't stop someone being destroyed by an attacker.
Right. If that happens I'll laugh at the consequences from the safety of Solo until Frontier finally get around to turning it off again.
Obvious consequence one:
- a significant return of Sidewinder station-ramming: that trade Cutter is now hot for a few hundred million credits or more, and the careless owner needs to leave their PC running overnight so they can get out of the detention centre. Meanwhile the Sidewinder owner risks nothing.
Obvious consequence two:
- actual ganking continues with disposable alts. Buy it a Python 2 premium ARX, any time the account gets too hot, reset it, give it a wing mission from your real account / a friend to get it some starter credits, summon the ARX ship, switch the weapons back to frags, even unengineered it still has plenty of firepower to take down an unshielded trader. (Even without ARX, a pair of shared high-end wing missions gets you 100MCr, which is enough for an A-rated Chieftain - more than enough to take down weak targets, and anything it can't kill would be high-waking away from a fully engineered murderboat too)
Obvious consequence three:
- because we're declaring that "legal = absolutely fine", blowing up explorers in uninhabited systems, at Guardian sites, at the latest mystery event, etc. remains completely unpunished. I don't recall anyone whose opinion on the various attacks on Distant Worlds 2 was "the players attacking them in the Pallaeni system before they set off deserved harsh punishment, but the Distant Ganks 2 attacks were entirely fine because that was an Anarchy system"
Obvious consequence four:
- if AX combat eventually returns, no-one dares do it in Open, because the consequences of someone not having turned crime reporting off are so high that you'd never want to risk it. Even larger Private Groups could have trouble.
The problem is that "legal = valid" and "illegal = invalid" don't match player complaints about other player's behaviour in so many cases that any attempt to use the PvE crime system to regulate inter-player behaviour is doomed to failure.
If what you want is "gankers should be banned / banned from Open" then just ask Frontier for that. They won't, but at least you'll be asking for something which would do what you actually wanted, and which - through the intervention of an actual person to make the judgement on the ban - wouldn't be subject to the tens of loopholes in the in-game rules.
No need to ban them - just take their ships away
If they have to re-engineer ships for every gank, and gather mats to do same, the attraction of "ship go boom" will soon pall.
If they have to re-engineer ships for every gank, and gather mats to do same, the attraction of "ship go boom" will soon pall.
