Create two versions of Open: One each for PvP (Enabled) & PvE (PvP Disabled)

Rat Catcher

Rat Catcher
Dragsham said:
Different playstyles should be respected and not flamed or trolled cos their ideas don't fit the meta remit.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what the proposal to segregate the playstyles is to support.
After all, as a PvP player you would, understandably, wish to meet other PvP players in-game, surely?

Or are you saying that as a PvP player you need PvE players to be your target and would be unable to play 'your way' if these 'soft' targets were removed from your targetting sights?
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Vetinari said:
Any collision above a certain speed means no damage for the target and 1000% for the attacker.
Click to expand...
If they were able to tell the difference between "target" and "attacker" in a ram with better than 50% reliability, we wouldn't need to have speed limits around stations in the first place.

Vetinari said:
PVP & PVE on one server including proper Pirates
Click to expand...
Given that "proper Pirates" (including, on occasion, the NPC version) are basically indistinguishable from at least some "griefers" in both in-game action and out-of-game discussion, that's clearly not going to happen.

If someone is hauling 600t of core gems in a T-9, and a player pirate interdicts, disables their drives, hatchbreaks them for the lot and then leaves ... are they really going to complain less that rather than a 10 million rebuy they're only facing a 2 million repair bill on top of that? Exactly how much damage the attacker does and whether you still have a ship at the end of it is not the important point.

(The problem really is that piracy doesn't work in Elite. In the previous three games that didn't matter because the NPCs didn't need realistic motivations to attack you - and in fact acted much closer to the "griefer" archetype - now in Elite Dangerous where players are at least theoretically encouraged to be pirates, it's clearer that it's unworkable)
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
Nice idea as it is, its too late really. As Tyrell put it (before being ganked):

The facts of life: To make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Click to expand...

If this was done at the start, it would have potential because players would have gravitated and established ways of playing. As it is now, I'm not sure if it would have the same impact.
 

Vetinari

V
Ian Doncaster said:
Exactly how much damage the attacker does and whether you still have a ship at the end of it is not the important point.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. Data remains if hull remains, even at 1%. And a pirate trying not to destroy you has much more work to do than a griefer trying to destroy you, which allows more time for escape if thats what you choose. Winging up for protection against Pirates is emergent gameplay, well it would be for me anyway.

You cant take Piracy out of the game, its been a valid playstyle since 1984, you could take PVP Piracy out of the game but the proper RP ones do add a lot of flavour to the universe. Or add that NPC ships will drop X tons of Cargo on destruction but humans dont.

NPCs that are going to blow you up always warn you first.

Griefers add nothing they only subtract and end up spoiling the game for everyone else by abusing the system until the system locks down for everybody.

I cant recall which thread it was but the main issue people had with griefers is the non-communications and no gameplay, they'd mind dying a lotless if there was some RP or gameplay in it.

I'm not a Pirate btw, I just like people who RP and try and give an experience to the other side.
 

Rat Catcher

Rat Catcher
H4iry 0range said:
get rid of private groups only open or solo , this way people can unite
Click to expand...
Or get rid of open and only have PG & Solo - "this way people can unite"?
(amazing how a solution to segregate two disticntly different playstyles is disliked by 'some')

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to put your case why segregating PvP & PvE should not happen?
 

H4iry 0range

H4iry 0range
Rat Catcher said:
Or get rid of open and only have PG & Solo - "this way people can unite"?
(amazing how a solution to segregate two disticntly different playstyles is disliked by 'some')

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to put your case why segregating PvP & PvE should not happen?
Click to expand...
how on earth will u ever meet new peeps in a private mmo ?
 

H4iry 0range

H4iry 0range
pve mode only is not needed at all imo , if you eradicate private groups there will be allot more like minded people in that location where you are doing that thing you like
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
H4iry 0range said:
pve mode only is not needed at all imo , if you eradicate private groups there will be allot more like minded people in that location where you are doing that thing you like
Click to expand...
Frontier saw the need for Private Groups before they published the game design at the start of the Kickstarter, over eight years ago. The ability to play cooperatively among selected individuals means that one does not need to play among players of all play-style preferences to play in a multi-player game mode.

Where there are a lot of like minded people in that location they will attract those who want to attack them - defeating the purpose of playing cooperatively. Unless the only form of cooperative play that some accept is groups of players fighting each other?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
H4iry 0range said:
missions for player factions should be disabled in solo in this case
Click to expand...
Once a player group has a Faction inserted into the game it is treated in the same way as NPC factions - the player group has no control over it nor who becomes allied with it.

Noting that not all player groups who have had a faction inserted in the game are interested in PvP in a game where PvP is optional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom