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

issen't the game called elite DANGEROUS? those npc's are defo not the dangerous in elite

The game is indeed called Dangerous which I believe (whilst not having a direct quote to hand...) Big Dave OBE said refers to the Pilots’ Federation licensing rank, at which point a pilot is considered ‘elite’ as it were... which would have little to do with the perceived risks or absent risks of the galaxy, instead reflecting a pilot’s time served and the value of the contracts they’ll be offered.

And this CMDR gets enough danger from NPCs currently, so most of the time I see no reason to season my gameplay by being emergent content for combat focussed players, unless I want to be. The beauties of mode selection, eh?
 
there will also be more friendly cmdrs for a defense who will always outnumber the bad guys from what i have seen in system chat (old borann as example) this would only end into glorious space battles organic pvp , remember high waking is always an option
 
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.
How much data does a typical miner/trader have anyway, though? Certainly explorers can lose a lot that way, but for a trader or miner the loss of cargo is much more cost than the rebuy itself.

Agreed that since anyone half-way competent with a half-decent build can escape a griefer, pirates (with the much harder job) will only be able to steal any cargo at all from people who feel sorry for them.

On this bit specifically "Winging up for protection against Pirates is emergent gameplay", this is why I say there's no distinction between a "griefer" and a "pirate" in terms of game mechanics. If I'm flying escort for a trader, and they get attacked by a pirate, and I intervene ... well, to continue the robbery, the pirate has to kill me (a clean player) aka "griefing". Same if we come back later for revenge on the pirate - they have a bounty, we don't, any questions?

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.
Piracy was an utterly terrible playstyle in FE2/FFE because the most you could scoop up from any ship was 1t - by the time you'd got that one, the realism of Newtonian Physics had meant all the rest had drifted well out of scanner range and you were never going to find them.

It was manageable in the original Elite but since - at least in the original BBC Tape version - peaceful traders to rob were extremely rare, it was more a case of doing a bit of salvage with your bounty hunting. Still good fun, and I do disagree with the whole "mark cargo as stolen" bit in this version as a result.

Obviously NPC pirates - as in the previous three games - need to continue pointlessly attacking players to get the traditional gameplay to work. But we need to accept that they're being complete fools in doing so and not expect it to work for players.

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.
Really? Because I remember a lot of threads where people who do attempt to add some RP / Gameplay / in-game justification for blowing people up getting accused of just coming up with excuses for it. And a lot of threads where people say that they'd just self-destruct to deny cargo to "proper Pirates" so that they aren't incentivised to continue trying.

And that's entirely fair, I think. If someone is shooting at me, I don't care what their backstory is or how many pages of self-justification they have: I'm not going to stop to read the comms panel anyway when I could be concentrating on dodging and escaping. (I'm perfectly happy for people to shoot at me for no "better" reason than they want to see the explosion ... equally, I'm not going to actually give them that explosion just because they have a justification I approve of for it)

The number of players who in practice are quite happy for pirates to disable and rob them but aren't also happy for killers to shoot at them is basically zero, in terms of the size of the player base.

I'm not a Pirate btw, I just like people who RP and try and give an experience to the other side.
Oh, I quite like the people who attempt to RP pirates too. I've occasionally gone back to get some cargo so that the second time they interdict I've actually got a few tonnes of Beer or whatever to drop for them. Doesn't change that it's basically unusable gameplay-wise, and doesn't change that in terms of both identifiable game mechanics and forum chatter there's no hard line between "piracy" and "griefing".

(Seriously, go and give it a try - fit some hatchbreakers, get those missile and railguns primed to disable drives, go hunting players in Open. See how many combat log on you, or call "griefer", or otherwise give some sign that they don't think PvP [1] piracy is valid gameplay...)

[1] A quick check through forum threads will also reveal at least some people don't think it's fun when the NPCs do it either, of course. But still.
 
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?

It is, but not for the reason you think it is.
It could have been a solo offline game and the name would still serve the game
c'mon solo mode is not that dangerous after a bit of practise it is easy enough not to rebuy in any case pve pvp
 
makes more sense to have then only available in PVE, after all the PVPers want PVP not PVE, thats their whole argument usually, PVE is boring so we have to grief noobs in Deciat.

Oh I do like this cheeky idea lol. Two modes, one PvE only, the other PvP only. Locked into one or the other on character creation. No PvE activities allowed in PvP Open, just as there would be no PvP in PvE Open. Both with the full 1:1 galaxy, and their own version of the BGS (not shared). I suspect I know which one would succeed.....
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
there will also be more friendly cmdrs for a defense who will always outnumber the bad guys from what i have seen in system chat (old borann as example) this would only end into glorious space battles organic pvp , remember high waking is always an option
Which assumes that those disinterested in PvP are in any way interested in "glorious space battles organic pvp" - I expect that many of them are not and would not find playing as the "herd" for the "shepherds" and "wolves" to fight over to be "fun".

Fun for one group does not guarantee fun for another, noting that there are those who go out of their way to extract all of the fun in an encounter with their preferred target type and hoard it for themself.
 
Oh I do like this cheeky idea lol. Two modes, one PvE only, the other PvP only. Locked into one or the other on character creation. No PvE activities allowed in PvP Open, just as there would be no PvP in PvE Open. Both with the full 1:1 galaxy, and their own version of the BGS (not shared). I suspect I know which one would succeed.....
It's an interestingly audacious idea, but I fear the thread is now circling the black hole faster and faster and will soon disappear forever into the event horizon of the usual argument. I'm ready with the Déjà-Vu award.
 
2 opens would devide the playerbase even more then it allready is, look i'm not a gonker i like the pve stuff and the properbility of getting attacked at random is part of the dangerous imo you can always escape if something comes up
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
2 opens would devide the playerbase even more then it allready is, look i'm not a gonker i like the pve stuff and the properbility of getting attacked at random is part of the dangerous imo you can always escape if something comes up
Citation required on the "always escape" part. From memory it requires playing in a different way in the first place in terms of compromising ones ship build from its intended role to accommodate mitigation to attack by other players.
 
c'mon solo mode is not that dangerous

As I said, the dangerous in the name of the game does not refer to the in-game danger
But to the rank Dangerous.
The rank that unlocks the last engineer, the rank that accordingly to the lore opens the gates to the Elite Federation of Pilots
It's been said that in terms of combat prowess there is no difference between Dangerous and Elite ranks.
Only a matter of time served, Elite rank being a matter of perseverance and not a matter of skill.
And if you check ingame skill progression, you'll notice that's exactly how it is/works.

Someone already tried to clear up this for you, but i guess you missed it.

Now, back to the open debate - avoiding Open is not a matter of avoiding dangers.
It's matter of avoiding other people, more specifically their shenanigans.

And yes, i do think a Coop mode (pve only) would be really nice to the game - but i dont think it will ever happen.
Although for that to happen it would be as easy for FD as implementing a damage control method - which already exists in the game mechanics (smart rounds for example)
 
you guys are making it sound like there is a ganker in every system trying to get to you , outside the few hotspots there are in game i have hardly (4000+hrs) met a hostile cmdr
 
you guys are making it sound like there is a ganker in every system trying to get to you , outside the few hotspots there are in game i have hardly (4000+hrs) met a hostile cmdr

It’s not always about gankers; I’ll even hide from my own squadron in Solo when I’m feeling antisocial. Some people just don’t want to be instanced with other people who may or may not pose a nebulous risk to them.
 
On this bit specifically "Winging up for protection against Pirates is emergent gameplay", this is why I say there's no distinction between a "griefer" and a "pirate" in terms of game mechanics. If I'm flying escort for a trader, and they get attacked by a pirate, and I intervene ... well, to continue the robbery, the pirate has to kill me (a clean player) aka "griefing". Same if we come back later for revenge on the pirate - they have a bounty, we don't, any questions?
In my head it works coz neither side are griefers. Pirates are outlaws, they live without protection from the law so consequences can be lethal. They then have to either rob quickly or disable the wing or choose their targets more carefully, there will always be people willing to run the blockade solo just for the hell of it.
Really? Because I remember a lot of threads where people who do attempt to add some RP / Gameplay / in-game justification for blowing people up getting accused of just coming up with excuses for it. And a lot of threads where people say that they'd just self-destruct to deny cargo to "proper Pirates" so that they aren't incentivised to continue trying.
Thats a shame about the self-destruct, I hope its just words said in anger and not what most people would actually do. There has to be give and take in an MMO, just not OP one sided consequence free.
I've occasionally gone back to get some cargo so that the second time they interdict I've actually got a few tonnes of Beer or whatever to drop for them.
See, this is what I mean, I do think theres more people like this, maybe not that specific example exactly, but who never say anything coz they aint angry than there is the ones who object to NPC interdictions. The YT videos I love are the ones where people do mad things just for the fun of it.
(Seriously, go and give it a try - fit some hatchbreakers, get those missile and railguns primed to disable drives, go hunting players in Open. See how many combat log on you, or call "griefer", or otherwise give some sign that they don't think PvP [1] piracy is valid gameplay...)
Its the only way to test it to be fair, its a good challenge. I will seriously think about it and how to approach it and where. No promises, I cant even pirate NPCS atm, the only modules i can snipe successfully are the FSD and PP usually.
 
In theory this change should make an entirely happy playerbase as the two disparate groups would finally be able to play exactly as they wish.

Even if it it could be argued that these are disparate groups (and I don't think it can be as I suspect the overlap is significant) separating them would not begin to imply that everyone would be happy.

My complaints about the non-PvP (which ill use in preference to PvE as I personally consider PvP to be a subset of PvE) components of balance are at least as significant as my complaints about the PvP aspects. Likewise, there is little in the way of consensus among PvPers about what makes for good PvP.

In theory everyone should like this.

Only if one didn't think about that theory very long.

In practice there are control-freaks who want everyone to pay the same as them.

Those who wish to enforce an artificial PvP/PvE dichotomy not the least among them!

I guess we'll see how easy it is to pin someone into a corner so they can't leave soon enough

Insert excerpt from "C-NOTE plays Counter-Strike" here

After all, as a PvP player you would, understandably, wish to meet other PvP players in-game, surely?

As a player I wish to meet a broad spectrum of other players. Since I'm not opposed to PvP encounters, I do not wish to exclude the potential for them. However, as I'm not actively seeking out such encounters the overwhelming majority of the time I'm playing the game, I do not wish every encounter to be hostile, nor do I wish to present the appearance that I have selected the actual Open mode (the PvP one, in your setup) because I'm looking for a fight.

I think this probably describes most players in Open...those who would lose something from this segregation because they are on a spectrum between the two extremes and aren't served well by either.
 
Back
Top Bottom