The issue isn't PvP - try and get the blinkers off. I've no problem with PvP itself just the silliness of the excuse for it - a few rogue cmdrs going around shooting up some folk doesn't decide system policy for a population of millions. Just be honest with yourselves about it and at least considerate that not everyone speaks english or can easily use a keyboard (VR players for example)
Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.
- Thread starter CMDR Generic EventHandler
- Start date
The issue isn't PvP - try and get the blinkers off. I've no problem with PvP itself just the silliness of the excuse for it - a few rogue cmdrs going around shooting up some folk doesn't decide system policy for a population of millions. Just be honest with yourselves about it and at least considerate that not everyone speaks english or can easily use a keyboard (VR players for example)
Here we go again with the low grade insults. Works both ways SewerRat.
Your point about PvP seems to be correct. It's too broad a term and then misinterpreted as well. The one person, arguing from their interpretation of the term conflicts with another using a different interpretation and so it goes on.
Do I need to add a low grade insult to the post as well? I don't want to be non-conformist. Oh, heck yes I do!
Pretty much this, since it placates PvE and PvP reasonably.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
IF the BGS was / is working correctly this could be really cool.... ie, a decent BGS would now have Lave falling into famine, there should be civil war, disease and loads of passenger missions with people clamouring to get out of the system, with food, meds and personal weapons fetching a premium.
but i am digressing now so lets get back to slinging mud at each other about PvE/PvP (
)
Yeah, pretty much like the silliness of a handful of commanders using the BGS to get their minor faction into power and expanding into the next system inhabited by millions
Oooh see what I did there
You're 100% right, ofc. They have no way to enforce such a fallacious proclamation.
If they wish to role play this, in their own instance in a corner of OPEN space.. then.. well, just have to humor it and leave them to it if that's how ED is enjoyed.
I guess to you and I it seems a bit of a strange endeavor, but, ED is game for everyone.. so...
I'm not one to say they cannot do it if they want to...
They contribute as much to the overarching ED community as anybody. As apex predators, they have to train and practice hard, and delve deeply into all aspects of the PvE game in order to fund their extra curricular escapades, as well as engineer their killing machines. In general, your PvPers are more deeply entrenched in the inner workings of the game than anybody who isn't a PvPer, or at least getting prepared to be one. The only people who disagree are uniformed
The people who really want a mode where their ship is invulnerable at the flip of a switch and want to see Gankers perma banned from the game are going to lobby for this mode no matter what happens in the game at present. They aren't going to be happy until all threat has been removed and they can play without having to worry about anything.
No one is asking for invulnerable ships, they will still be as fragile as ever to the environment, the NPC's etc... Yes I do think that PVP 'gankers' as you put it being perma banned should they try to cause too much grief in a PVE mode would be a reasonable measure, as it goes against the intent of the mode... There is still a real threat, from NPC's, and there is still plenty to worry about, we would just not need to worry about other commanders engaging in unwanted PVP... That is all... Hmmm so I must be uninformed... yeah right...
Agreed
So you are equating PVPers with Griefers then? Given that your reply quotes and is in direct response to Rustled Jimmys' post I quoted above yours... I personally do not think all PVP players are griefers, just a small subset of PVP players would fit that category I think...
Indeed that is the actual point, that you could play with ANYONE, in a Player v Environment play style.
I fail to follow your reasoning, CMDR. Fdev handily supplied PG mode just so like minded people could play together in this manner; that was the whole point of of PG in the first place. If you want to talk about "shouldn't have to" I think Fdev "shouldn't have to" create a new separate mode because some of you are now too good for the modes that were originally supplied for you in the first place
Also, think of our friend Mobius: he's eating this crap up with a spoon. If it weren't for his group providing a sanctuary for all you guys he'd be just another nobody. As it stands he gets to be like a cult figure for a big demographic, and I'm sure that suits him just like the cat's pajamas.
troll bait much??? Often it seems lately... Oh wait on one hand you are saying us PVE players are too good for the current mode and in the next breath you are calling Mobius group a Sanctuary... You might want to see a doctor about that, sounds to me (in my highly unqualified opinion) like it could be a mental health condition?? Why do you think that the Mobius group has grown such... (if you want to talk demographics lets look and see... 77140 forum members - now to learn about the Mobius groups, one must have either read here on the forums or heard about it through word of mouth... Otherwise how would you know to look for it, current membership is around the 33,500 mark... so if it was forum members, that is damn near 50%... but we know it is not all forum members, perhaps we can reduce it by half (as a guesstimate) so 20 - 25 percent of the forum membership could easily be members of the Mobius group with an equal number of additional members from word of mouth or people who just happen to read the forums but not be members of it...
Interesting....
I don't know the details but changing a limit should be doable. It was impossible to fix the 10000 post limit on the forum, if I recal correctly.
Another advantage is that group admins can ban whom ever they like.
For FD to ban someone from an open mode, the need to break the EULA.
How many have been banned from open, so far?
The group limits - at least as far as I am aware during the last Mobius split, where mentioned by frontier as being something hard coded in the back end (not their code but the amazon code) that could not be readily changed... hence the solution was to split the group... Further to that, players could be considered breaking the EULA if they entered a PVE only mode and tried to deliberately engage in PVE... A simple change to the existing EULA could reflect that, or a simple addemdum that the player agrees to the first time they enter that mode (after a fresh install of the game or an update release) via the game client. Both pretty easy to do...
It could be a semi automated system to and still be part of the BGS... Just as CG's are not fully automated but are also part of the BGS... Or are you just going to dismiss that??? The back ground simulation does not have to be completely automatic for it to still be a background simulation... It could well be that 'predefined limits' get set and then that triggers some human interaction to set the state for that aspect of the BGS to continue... A simulation does not need to be completely automated... To suggest it does is factually incorrect... If you doubt this, look at real flight simulators... Yes they respond to human feedback (for the flight mechanics) but they also have human intervention (such as simulating different and escalating emergency situations that the assessor determines)
Indeed, I am with you for feeling that you are part of a minor faction, I am part of an NPC minor faction and have a home system and enjoy manipulating the BGS to expand the minor faction I am part of into nearby systems... I do not however own the minor faction, I do not own the various systems, but I call them home
Can you direct me to information / quote where people say that increasing the group cap is already planned? And can those that go around shooting people because they are bored and acting like psychopaths please understand that the damage they inflict to those who just wanted to do their own thing and got 'blowed up gud' comes with the consequence of said 'victim' not wanting to play with the bored psychopaths at all any more...
For your first sentence Exactly and your last sentence, Exactly
Another day, but same old song.
I'll leave that here:
I'll leave that here:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that the cap is in place due to the timeout related issues that caused havoc with attempts to approve / remove players at an awkward time, I'd suggest that membership control of large Private Groups might be better handled in a web-based application via a browser rather than using the game client - which could also allow multiple Private Group admin to share the load rather than placing the whole load on the player who created the Private Group.
.... some optional "auto-kick" rules for Private Groups wouldn't go amiss either - with no Frontier managed penalties required.
It's not a simulation if you input the final outcome. The BGS will continue working with that outcome, but the outcome itself did not originate from inputting values within the BGS.
So yes, CGs are not part of the BGS. Their outcome is forced into it nevertheless and it adapts accordingly. Their requests also affect the BGS due to the activity within the system which would be the case either way if that activity happened. To be precise in the latter, the CG does not affect the BGS, but it coerces the actions for those effects.
Last edited:
That is correct, but that is not what he said.
but it is not inputting the final outcome is it... it is setting the state as per the players input... just manually instead of automatically
Used existing game mechanics in a consistent and intended manner? Sure - what's the relevance to making up excuses for some PvP that's a totally different topic.
I'm hardly being passive-aggressive, just saying that regardless of how ridiculous something may sound to some, that if others are enjoying it then fair game.
No different to me saying, hey I think what you're doing is odd, almost impossible to uphold.. and you saying, hey Vorx your endorsement of a PvE group is equally just as preposterously moronic. To some it may be. I have argued and given what i feel are quite strong pro's for an OPEN PvE group mode.. The only time I have told a PvP player they're wrong is when they perform unethical exploitation of game mechanics to garner risk free unnecessary ganks to people that like PvP and people that do not like PvP equally. (PvP being confrontation). Someone well up for a fight is going to be equally as raged by a non-counterable exploited station mechanic gank as any other person..
Occupying a system and claiming it as your own, is fine, if that's what you want to do. ED game mechanics do not support it, but, if one wishes to do so, then they can do what they can.
The required dev time argument has been the only remotely sensible one thus far, so I'll give you that. However, it was already said that Friend or Foe weapon mods exist already, so it shouldn't be difficult to extend that to all weapons when it comes to player-to-player interactions (without the shield recharge, obviously). As for collisions, there's already code used at stations which aims to "pick" who collided with whom (to issue fines for speeding), so using that bit of code to prevent player-to-player damage also shouldn't be an issue.
Sure, it still needs dev time. But far far less than you may think. The code that can be reused is likely already in the game.
No one's feeling guilty for playing in Mobius. No clue why you're using such terminology, unless you're trying to project your own ideas.
Last edited:
Erm, using the game mechanics in a consistent and intended manner by defending your minor faction from hostile takeover
edit,
As far as I'm concerned that is meaningful interaction (and it's quite rare, more rare than I'd like)
end edit.
I know you will never see it, but I like leading horses to water - PvP is a valid part of the game, I could iterate the word part but I feel it would make absolutely no difference to your outlook
Last edited:
The point is that the mentioned "setting the state"is done selectively instead of reactively and thus it is not an adjustment of the simulation. It has nothing to do with "oh, players have hauled enough materials for a station in X system, we should get on that", but rather a timed contract for something to happen, completely detached from the actions in game in every way except keeping count. You can have a faction be Bust and build a station under the current system, the BGS doesn't even matter for the outcome.
What are you talking about. FD confirmed PvPers are a minority. But that's also a bit of the point.
Imagine if open, by default, permitted no PvP, and everyone told those interested in it to join a PvP-centric group.
It would suck, wouldn't it? But it would also be a lot easier to organize than Mobius - just because there are fewer PvPers. Basically, as it is now, a few PvPers, unless they get their fill by somehow running into other PvPers, can make a lot of PvE players experience a lot worse. It doesn't really work the other way.
Last edited:
Fair enough, I read it as a little sarcastic but if your intention was not then I rescind my comment
If you watch the very first Thargoid encounter video from yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slbWLXIpCv8
You’ll notice that the NPC pirate Anaconda jumps in and opens fire on the disabled and powered down player Corvette, but when the player’s ship comes back online he has no damage to his ship whatsoever. SO, the code to disable weapon fire damage is already in the game, this video shows it in action.
Last edited: