Game loses something by not forcing Open play
- Thread starter Archaegeo
- Start date
- Status
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Mandatory visual tags have been used in RL for reasons of discrimination - do you really think that it would be acceptable to add them to the game for similar reasons?
does that mean almost all ironman players will be in solo for fear of being picked on? :/
i wouldn't have a problem with an "open player only" tag, i'd wear the badge with pride
To be honest, the PvE side gets carried away just as much as the other side and throwing the G word around here is getting really irritating
I have no problem with PvP, as long as I am not forced to always be subjected to it. For that reason I'm staying far away from ArcheAge, even though the concept fascinated me. I do get in some occasional consesual fights in STO, even though most of the time the more skilled Klingons turn my ship into mincemeat, and we are civil about it.But let's face it, different people have different tolerance levels towards being confrontational with other human players. And for the time being Elite offers a choice to scale the level of involvement you want with other players quite nicely. Your choice is not to grace open with your presence, and that's okay. Others play in open because they like the danger a human opponent can pose. Which is also okay, and actually a nice thing that we have a choice.
I think both sides are right for wanting the game they have been dreaming of, and sniping at each other from both sides of a giant concrete wall that is understanding the other is the only thing these threads boil down to. We could have more becoming discussions if the "cheater" and "griefer" ammo would be checked out at the door before posting about network architecture and general population spread along the modes of play.
Yes, sometimes it does feel like the posts about cheat mode are begging for being turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it. I really hope not, because I want the open players to have fun, even if it will be without me. Honestly, if one commander slot is all we get, that will be for playing with my friends, not randoms. But be as it may, I understand their need for a different style of play then what PvE offers. I just don't get it why some try to prove that the option of a non adversarial game mode that is interconnected with the open world will result in abuse and lessens their experience.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Ironman players do not exist in the "normal" game modes - they are only ever instance matched with other Ironman players.
To be honest, the PvE side gets carried away just as much as the other side and throwing the G word around here is getting really irritating
I completely agree with you there is far too much emotion injected into these debates sometimes when a level head could solve the problem far better.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Here is a perfect example why E: D's current open PvP concept is doomed to fail in the long run.
Everquest (in this case Everquest 2) offers PvE and PvP servers. Now look at the relation between PvE and PvP servers (8:1 !!) and how many PvP servers got closed down due to low population.
The overwhelming majority doesn't want to play griefer candy and put up with other psychopaths, they want an enjoyable gaming experience without the danger of getting ganked and other stuff.
The only solution to rescue E: D's inevitable fail is to introduce an open PvE-mode with only consented PvP (duells, arenas or special systems/areas/warzones) and probably but not necessarely an open PvP-mode.
Forcing 8x more players into private groups and solo mode is same as treating those players like 2nd or 3rd class customers, extremely disrespectful from FD. A private group is NOT a replacement for an open PvE mode since a limited group for a 400 billion system universe is outright . PvE players have the same right to get an enjoyable game than the psychopaths.
Edit: Adding original links where i took the data
EQ2 wiki: http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/PvP
EQ2 Server Status: https://www.soe.com/status#eq2
Everquest (in this case Everquest 2) offers PvE and PvP servers. Now look at the relation between PvE and PvP servers (8:1 !!) and how many PvP servers got closed down due to low population.
The overwhelming majority doesn't want to play griefer candy and put up with other psychopaths, they want an enjoyable gaming experience without the danger of getting ganked and other stuff.
The only solution to rescue E: D's inevitable fail is to introduce an open PvE-mode with only consented PvP (duells, arenas or special systems/areas/warzones) and probably but not necessarely an open PvP-mode.
Forcing 8x more players into private groups and solo mode is same as treating those players like 2nd or 3rd class customers, extremely disrespectful from FD. A private group is NOT a replacement for an open PvE mode since a limited group for a 400 billion system universe is outright . PvE players have the same right to get an enjoyable game than the psychopaths.
Edit: Adding original links where i took the data
EQ2 wiki: http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/PvP
EQ2 Server Status: https://www.soe.com/status#eq2
Last edited:
There's no problem to solve - there is only a perception of a problem with no proof....
As long as people discuss this in 65 page threads over and over there is a problem, if you agree with it or not.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
All the threads prove is that there *may* be a problem as there are differing opinions on whether there is a problem (or not).
It proves some people think there is a problem and some people think there isn't.
It also proves some people really like arguing too!
By rights, both the PvP and PvE crowds are worried over some similar things - but it is the solution that is the problem here.
Both sides worry that some horrible player(s) will build up a massive Uber gank fleet of ships, then wreak havoc on the open server with the uber amazing gear ship(s).
The only solution that has been suggested to prevent this is by the PvP side of things and they say lock open play.
Now this falls short for 2 main reasons;
1) 400 Billion star systems - you can hide in open just as well as you can by going solo (so people say, I've not tried).
2) Prevents honest players (from both sides) moving back and forward as they see fit between solo / group and open.
So the only solution offered, is not actually a solution to anything and no one has really come up with any better ideas because no one is looking for any (I'm just as guilty here) - we are all so busy arguing over the bad idea, we are not trying to think of a good idea to fix the possible abuse of how the game works.
It also proves some people really like arguing too!
*Comes awake with a snort, drool dribbling down his chin.* Huh? What? *Goes back to sleep*.
The only real solution for me is that, if everyone is to be in one open world with no option to switch to solo, there would need to be a real consequence to piracy and murder along the lines of maybe, for example, higher insurance when wanted or locked out of trading in non anarchy systems or permanently red on players scanners etc etc but whatever the consequence it would have to make players stop and think about that career path not just think ah what the heck it won't hurt me lets ruin someone's day.
.
At the moment everything seems stacked in favour of the pirate...attacks without scanning because he/she just doesn't care and only has low fines/bounties for killing. The target on the other hand has to scan the aggressor, wait for confirmation and then is allowed to defend him/herself...I know that having to scan a hostile first may not be intended but either way the pirate has the upperhand and probably the least risk...he isn't carrying 100k credits of cargo so why would he think twice about losing an Eagle or Viper?
.
Without adequate risks and consequences pvp can easily just become a ganking/griefing mode which I think neither side want and certainly wouldn't result in a stronger game or community instead it could well kill it
If you don`t like to be killed by a commander. Play solo. If you want to have the risk and the rush of playing against or with a maybe "superior" opponent/friend go for open play. But of course it hurts to loose it all against a human opponent, especially when they do it for fun or "grief". It gets personal for some The bigger the pride the longer the fall I myself don`t like to loose "progression" against a human opponent which does it to "grief"
, but hey i`l take the chance for the "kick". Now the game is more stable so I play open. I like the "risk" of it.
I think the biggest problem for some is that they can loose progression in the game if other commanders kill them. By loosing credits it will take longer to get that Python or Anaconda. But all in all the reward will feel bigger and more rewarding when you know you are playing in a universe where you can meet other commanders and get "whooped".
The bigger the pride the longer the fall I myself don`t like to loose "progression" against a human opponent which does it to "grief" , but hey i`l take the chance for the "kick". Now the game is more stable so I play open. I like the "risk" of it.
I think the biggest problem for some is that they can loose progression in the game if other commanders kill them. By loosing credits it will take longer to get that Python or Anaconda. But all in all the reward will feel bigger and more rewarding when you know you are playing in a universe where you can meet other commanders and get "whooped"
.
ED is not Everquest. Its also not Quake, COD, or Eve.
Its the spiritual successor to Elite and Frontier, both of which were massively successful single player games.
If FD had gone ahead and created ED as a single player only game, i would have bet my left Jameson that it would also have been a massively successful game.
However, they couldn't resist/avoid adding MP, so we have what we have. They don't want to lose either the PvPers or the PvEers, so we ended up with the open/group/solo system.
Whether this will be successful remains to be seen in the long run.
We have seen a few different solutions presented in this thread, but there are a couple of things we can be certain about them:
1) They will not be implemented. FD are highly unlikely to change direction at this late stage.
2) If they were to implement a changed system that didn't cater to both sides, imagine the Jameson that would hit the fan. For example, getting rid of open or making it so that people couldn't switch between modes. It would start another round of people demanding their money back. I think they have had enough of that with the offline saga.
So, for better for for worse, i think the system we have will remain, barring minor tweaks.
As for a better solution. I don't really have one. However, has the point about EQ mentioned PvP and non-PvP servers, that might work. If there were two modes, all in the same universe, just PvP and non-PvP instances. I wouldn't even mind it being locked. All the PvPers can live happily in their PvP only instances, and the PvEers in their PvE only instances.
Surely then both sides will be happy. And if, as some PvPers are claiming, that PvE will fail and PvP will survive, well, this way, the proof would be in the pudding. The PvE instances would be empty, and the PvP instances full. I'd bet my right Jameson on after a few years the reverse being true
I think they are on about putting some "huge" (I think that was the word used) fine or something on people for "murder".
Also, I think players should have displayed ranks, with the current rep system it should be easy to see if someone is a miner / trader / pirate / bounty hunter or explorer (could be based of the highest rep rank, as for the combat the the most player kills are bounty collections = bounty hunter, if not = pirate).
The scanner could be colour coded;
Explorers could be blue
Traders/ Miners could be yellow
Wanted people could be red
Law enforcement for the system green
So at least, at a glance you'd have a rough idea what's going on around you.
- Status