True.... but with the SC mechanic in place now instead of the old "Torus jump drive", being in a Corporate State is virtually no different from an Anarchy. Cops don't arrive in time to help you.
Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.
- Thread starter CMDR Generic EventHandler
- Start date
True.... but with the SC mechanic in place now instead of the old "Torus jump drive", being in a Corporate State is virtually no different from an Anarchy. Cops don't arrive in time to help you.
That is required, irrespective of the PvE mode request.
Or a working block function.
It needs be improved in ways other than the one-dimensional police response, it needs to improve tangible punishment for offenders.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, I'd support a block in terms of communication but instancing wise that seems overboard.
- - - Updated - - -
I really don't think a completely pure PvE mode is in the vision of the game, it breaks immersion in a way more than most things as old as the saying goes.
Block works exactly as defined by FD - it blocks communication but not instancing. What it actually does (or should do
) if there are choices as to who to instance you with (in busy systems) blocked people appear lower down the list .. in a non-busy star system you're instanced with the blocked person regardless. That to me is working as intended.A pure PvE mode (OP thread btw, not C&P) is perfectly reasonable idea, has nothing to do with "immersion" as a PvP-player making a beeline for that hollow square is just as immersion breaking (
) ,but PvE-mode is not something Frontier are currently going to implement or consider as per previous posts by them.C'est la vie.
You could have done that more simply by just not coming in here and telling us all that you were ignoring it.
It's the new "me me me" trend of modern people ... just add him to ignore and the problem goes away
Last edited:
Oh sweet sweet irony
"just add him to ignore and the problem goes away"
See the problem is that it only works on facebook and twitter when someones challenging your safe-space with pesky reasoning, evidence, and all that nonsence.
Unfortunately it doesnt apply to real life situations, that's why it's practically impossible to take these threads seriously anymore
Last edited:
Hogwash.
You and I both know Fdev can't live with only pvp players, you are just too few. Which is why you and your few have the agenda of trying to force people not interested in pvp, to force people that want a open pve mode to rather play by your vision.
We don't need to ostracize anyone, you all can do that yourselves.
I challenge FDEV to make an open pve, hell I would even be okay if it was on different servers so the moaning about affecting the BGS would be shut up, and let it run in competition to the open pvp we presently have.
Let them take metrics then and see where the money and true population lies and then let them give accordingly.
Pirate Galaxy.
I think that's what it was called. I got some good memories, lots of bad ones... in hindsight it wasn't' that great of a game... but it did do the whole PvP in a mostly PvE environment right.
It wouldn't take much to implement it here so we can get the best of all of it.
The concept was a simple PvE/PvP toggle with certain "Free-Fire" zones.
You had relative safety in PvE, but it gave an incentive to play in PvP - with a catch. If you toggled PvP on you were stuck in that until some other player killed you.
Otherwise the only dangers were the "Free-Fire" zones where it treated it as a PvP area, but you knew that going into it usually.
That should be relative easy to put in, make it so you can't damage PvE ships with the toggle. Maybe prevent interdictions as well?
As for the incentive? How about remove the rebuy cost to encourage players to do PvP - with no rebuy I would wager lots more would want to try it. That leaves the only loss being cargo at worst.
The "Free-Fire" zones should be areas like Combat Zones, where pledging a side of a conflict meant you accept another player could pledge the other and face you.
If that was in, I would think most of the issues would go away. The major consequence of PvP and griefing in general being that rebuy being taken away would ease it and those that don't want to bother could just lurk around in PvE mode.
I think that's what it was called. I got some good memories, lots of bad ones... in hindsight it wasn't' that great of a game... but it did do the whole PvP in a mostly PvE environment right.
It wouldn't take much to implement it here so we can get the best of all of it.
The concept was a simple PvE/PvP toggle with certain "Free-Fire" zones.
You had relative safety in PvE, but it gave an incentive to play in PvP - with a catch. If you toggled PvP on you were stuck in that until some other player killed you.
Otherwise the only dangers were the "Free-Fire" zones where it treated it as a PvP area, but you knew that going into it usually.
That should be relative easy to put in, make it so you can't damage PvE ships with the toggle. Maybe prevent interdictions as well?
As for the incentive? How about remove the rebuy cost to encourage players to do PvP - with no rebuy I would wager lots more would want to try it. That leaves the only loss being cargo at worst.
The "Free-Fire" zones should be areas like Combat Zones, where pledging a side of a conflict meant you accept another player could pledge the other and face you.
If that was in, I would think most of the issues would go away. The major consequence of PvP and griefing in general being that rebuy being taken away would ease it and those that don't want to bother could just lurk around in PvE mode.
You mean;
1) PVE solitary confinement. No chance to mix with other friendly players whilst playing the game. Tell you what, why don't all the PvP'er make their own private group and go there? That would solve the issue just as easily, ah but you won't because you won't be able to interact with other vict---oops players. So effectively you want to punish players who only want to PVE by refusing them the opportunity to meet and interact with other players of a similar disposition.
2) The exact same issue, where do you find friends in game who want to lay like you do if you never have the opportunity to make friends in game to start with?
You may pretend you are offering solution but al you are doing is being a MassiveD.
This is a space MMO, but you want to restrict players who want to PVE to just space with no MMO aspect.
You wouldn't be required to play in open PvE. Open PvP would still be there for all the players who find that environment more immersive.
Join mobius, or be lazzy and complain on the forums, whichever really, both equally valid, i guess
Exactly and they could even doing something different with npc and weapons etc all balanced towards pvp rather than the usual attempt to balance pvp n pve at the same time since that never works out great.
Last edited:
Or we could just consider that majority agrees that it's perfect as is, and do non of the above, hnmmm
The problem with that has come up several times and fdev even had to step in not to mention the big doosie which is how groups have limited room thus the need for a true open pve mode.
What are you talking about , OPEN mode has similar limits, thats why you see 10 ships near the alien derelict and not 7000 or whatever.
Also if you actually played open u'd know how bad instancing is in open, we were hunting griefers few nights ago in CG , and spend hours reloging before we even got matched with any in SC, lol
Last edited:
A pure PvE mode (OP thread btw, not C&P) is perfectly reasonable idea, has nothing to do with "immersion" as a PvP-player making a beeline for that hollow square is just as immersion breaking (
C'est la vie.
First of all, not every PvP player beelines for another player. Second of all, it makes perfect sense for a pilots' federation pilot to go specifically after another one if it is intended by the aggressor due to profit difference or challenge difference. It's that it isn't checked properly by crime and punishment that's leaving a bad taste in most people's mouth when they are targeted, which is reasonable.