Hm, we are talking about pvp here, not about NPCs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hm, we are talking about pvp here, not about NPCs.
In a way, I am talking about PvP. If NPCs acted like PvP players(including variations of player PvP builds), then even the softest of carebear PvErs would be a bit more welcome to actual players attacking them.
You know, because NPCs use similar builds/ships/tactics? Whoa that's genius right? But nah, that makes too much sense.
If I'm not mistaken, high rank NPCs now use much more reasonable builds now. Did some wing assassin missions the other day, the target FDLs had 5 shield boosters and their shields were around 2000MJ, and they had around 1500 hull under than shield.
Doing wing assassin missions in a medium alone is a little more challenging now.
Can we use any other examples that isn't wing missions? Because that's all I hear. What about your non-mission NPC in anarchy space or low sec space?
Captains and spec ops wings in CZ?
Came here to say this, cheesy line but:
Be the change you seek.
A while back when suicide ramming outside station entrances in a low health ship to get them bounties and destroyed by station was the big thing I spent a good 15 minutes blocking the Imperial eagle that was doing it. I either got in the way whilst travelling slow or gave him the "under 100m/s bump" sending him to the re-buy screen. Didn't save them all but definitely prevented him getting his hit in a few times.
He ended up getting so frustrated he was swearing at me in chat, I wished him a nice day and he disappeared after one final boost into me. Not sure if he changed instances or quit for a while but I didn't see him at the CG the rest of the evening.
The reason these players exist in Elite is because they exist everywhere. There's no way of removing them without breaking other things. The only way to limit their impact is to make it frustrating for them, encouraging them to go elsewhere for their kicks.
Also this thread is a bit silly imho. OP is put off a game because of the actions of a small minority of the playerbase against a third party? Sure it's never fun to learn that you share a common interest with someone that is nasty but that's no reason to abandon said interest. Get any large enough group of people and there will be some [male chickens], I'm wondering how you function as a human if you quit when anyone around you is nasty.
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
You wrote something like this a long time ago, OP. I don't know if it's your photo or the way you write, but I recall it.
Anyways, you were wrong then and you're still wrong.
Anyways, you were wrong then and you're still wrong.
So what is your point?
That you deliberately watched another player behave in a bad manner and did nothing to prevent it? And you have obviously done this before, and then you expect things to change on its own? how is that going to work?
So what should be done then? Where is the suggestions? What is the solution? I have my own ideas and thoughts on this, but I do not see any from you. Just a generic, everything is terrible, and no one is doing anything about it. And then you bashes that Elite have different modes, this have been from the beginning, which you where part of, so solo, private group and open, and you are free to choose and play in any of those without restrictions, this is part of core the game design. Nothing have changed here.
What outcome did you expect this to have? I seriously doubt that you are that naive to think that FDev would read this and and go, oh crap, we messed up and better fix this... Or is this just to clear your own guilt for watching that new player get killed by that griefer? If that is the case, you are no better than the griefer...
It is not even griefing, because there are modes to choose from - no one is forced to play in open. If you play there, you agree with it to that there are no rules and you have to deal with nearly all kind of crap. Well, ongoing harassment against a specific person by hate reasons is forbidden by most terms of service and a bannable offense in most online games, but even how this is handled is purely up to game masters. In the end, if you chose "open", you agree, that things can be rough there and that you will ahve to deal with toxic players. So is there really a need to do something against it?- I don't think so, not if someone is deliberately and freely joining "open", when he would have other choices.
People still play in Open post-Engineers? What?
Last edited:
Of course. Why wouldn't they?
The massive de-leveling of the playing field between casual players and tryhards comes to mind. I'd never let a new player play in Open, engineered gank ships on top of the massive array of bugs would be enough to put off anyone that doesn't love the genre.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
That's odd; I'm a casual player who plays (almost) exclusively in Open and I have not experienced any of this massive de-leveling of the playing field.
I encourage new players to try everything out for themselves, rather than try to impose a myopic view of the modes upon them.
Well, this is the old debate about balance - what would be relevant, if pvp would be fair - but in practice it is not fair at all outside of arena like exceptions. Fair rules are for sport, in practical combat situation one side is always outnumbered. There is simply no fairness in open pvp whatsoever. So the whole balance debate is somewhat futile.
Just think about one of the rules of Sun Tzu's "the art of war" - goes lke "don't start a fight, if you haven't won it already" - this implies, that you have the advantage and the initiative - nothing in this basic rule for combat is any fair. Fairness would make it risky - that would not be "have already won". Having the advantage, initiative and eventually even surprise on your side makes it "won already" - well, most likely.
edit: I see that even as a rule for life in a whole - life isn't fair and people are neither equal nor do they have the same rights. This is an illusion. In practice one has to go for having the advantage and the inititative and eventually push others out of the way. There is most of the time no second chance in life as well - this is as well an illusion, which we got from school - but life isn't like school, you have to do it right first time around or you won't have a fun time on earth. So in a way, Sun Tzu's rule applies as well there.
Mission design in games is following that rule in a way as well - their appeal is that most of the missions do not really have a challenge in them, otherwise people won't do them that often. What makes them enjoying these missions is the "having already won" aspect. It is not likely that they won't make it, and so these missions have their appeal - this is by design and follows basically as well the Sun Tzu rule.
Just think about one of the rules of Sun Tzu's "the art of war" - goes lke "don't start a fight, if you haven't won it already" - this implies, that you have the advantage and the initiative - nothing in this basic rule for combat is any fair. Fairness would make it risky - that would not be "have already won". Having the advantage, initiative and eventually even surprise on your side makes it "won already" - well, most likely.
edit: I see that even as a rule for life in a whole - life isn't fair and people are neither equal nor do they have the same rights. This is an illusion. In practice one has to go for having the advantage and the inititative and eventually push others out of the way. There is most of the time no second chance in life as well - this is as well an illusion, which we got from school - but life isn't like school, you have to do it right first time around or you won't have a fun time on earth. So in a way, Sun Tzu's rule applies as well there.
Mission design in games is following that rule in a way as well - their appeal is that most of the missions do not really have a challenge in them, otherwise people won't do them that often. What makes them enjoying these missions is the "having already won" aspect. It is not likely that they won't make it, and so these missions have their appeal - this is by design and follows basically as well the Sun Tzu rule.
Last edited:
Fair scenarios are an entirely different matter from balanced mechanisms.
Deleted member 115407
D
That's why I dislike the word "fair". Or rather the liberal use of it.
"Fairness" is such a subjectively mutable concept, and often changes meaning on the whim of the speaker.