Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note

[Devari]

Which is exactly why people who assert "Private Groups" = "Open PvE" are incorrect.

It's not even remotely the same thing. All Private Groups does is take the responsibility from Frontier to ensure a consistent gaming experience and put it into the players hands- the Admins of the PG.

Which, shouldn't even be necessary- but as I stated previously, given the constraints of the current system it's all that's possible at present.

That's my point, players who are arguing for FD to enforce their PG's informal rules need to realize that FD doesn't have the time or resources to cater to their individual group's preferences. It's just not a reasonable expectation, especially given the long list of game bugs that requires far more urgent attention from the devs.

 

[Stigbob]

Which is exactly why people who assert "Private Groups" = "Open PvE" are incorrect.

It's not even remotely the same thing. All Private Groups does is take the responsibility from Frontier to ensure a consistent gaming experience and put it into the players hands- the Admins of the PG.

Which, shouldn't even be necessary- but as I stated previously, given the constraints of the current system it's all that's possible at present.

An open PVE mode would be open to all, even griefers/cheats who would find a way via ramming or whatever. PG's are superior as there's no appeal no automatic right of access and you can set whatever rules you feel like. Its also perma banning which is a huge advantage over anything FDEV could do.

 

[Sylveria]

An open PVE mode would be open to all, even griefers/cheats who would find a way via ramming or whatever. PG's are superior as there's no appeal no automatic right of access and you can set whatever rules you feel like. Its also perma banning which is a huge advantage over anything FDEV could do.

Again, except that it has a maximum player limit.

 

[Stigbob]

Again, except that it has a maximum player limit.

Increased by FDEV three times IIRC to 40,000 per subgroup, they also happily set up new versions of Mobius to answer demand. I wouldn't be surprised if it has more players than open, certainly seems so around Shinrarta/CG's.

 

[Devari]

Cheats don't have lists of do's and don't they just use whichever cheats they want at the time. As with cheats and griefing its the same people, no need to make any distinction.

My point, again, is that you can't block them if you don't know that they're cheating.

Due diligence lol, get real its a video game PG.

Yes, of course it's a video game,

Just kick the ones who cheat/grief and leave them kicked. The issue with salt about it is down to people not understanding the kicking process is what makes the PG better than open/taking video games too seriously which is also why the infiltrations/cheating happens in the first place.

Well, you could probably argue that the lack of engaging gameplay and balanced PVP activities is what drives much of the infiltration behavior. I view that as fundamentally different from cheating however, as one goes against the formal game rules and the other doesn't.

 

[bitstorm]

It also sets a problematic precedent that is a very slippery slope. If they take the risk out of players actions that goes against informal PG rules they are showing favoritism towards that group. What about Power Play activities? Should those actions also be reversed? That would be a massive mess for FD to sort out. FD does not and should not police player actions if they are playing within the formal game rules. Players who want to create a PG or other type of player group with its own informal rules should be entirely responsible for monitoring and enforcing those rules using the tools FD has provided (i.e., kicking or blocking those players).

Frontier have said it's done on a case by case basis.

So in all your examples perhaps they will or perhaps they won't, the criteria for making a decision depends on the specific circumstances. Which to me says it's not black/white that there is some nuance in it.

The group is a very large chunk of players doing a shared activity that negatively affects nobody, it's not some opposition gameplay as per your Power Play analogy.

I don't think your slippery slope analogy is applicable as the examples aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

[Sylveria]

Increased by FDEV three times IIRC to 40,000 per subgroup, they also happily set up new versions of Mobius to answer demand. I wouldn't be surprised if it has more players than open, certainly seems so around Shinrarta/CG's.

On that, we both seem to agree... yet it's been asserted time and time again that "PvP players outweigh PvE players".

Which has become the crux of the question as to why Open is "de facto PvP" to begin with... and why the "mode system" has always been argued over ad nauseum throughout the years.

PvP players seem to "need" PvE players... but it's not mutual.

 

[Stigbob]

Well, you could probably argue that the lack of engaging gameplay and balanced PVP activities is what drives much of the infiltration behavior. I view that as fundamentally different from cheating however, as one goes against the formal game rules and the other doesn't.

No its pure keyboard chewing frustrated salt from angry PK'ers, that's why Mobius the man himself gets regularly mobbed with impotent hate in any thread he posts in.

 

[Stigbob]

On that, we both seem to agree... yet it's been asserted time and time again that "PvP players outweigh PvE players".

Which has become the crux of the question as to why Open is "de facto PvP" to begin with... and why the "mode system" has always been argued over ad nauseum throughout the years.

PvP players seem to "need" PvE players... but it's not mutual.

Dang right we all hold the keys to our private kingdoms and should use them how we see fit.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Just popping in to kindly remind folks that if you toss a rock in the air you’ll hit a liar. Now, can we move on with just playing the game?

Thanks bunches hugs and kisses!

 

[Rampant]

That is exactly what players do in Power Play all the time when they join a group with the intention of working directly against that group's stated goals. It actually has a specific roleplaying purpose for many players being a "saboteur".

This is the crux of the post.

One is a player - the person - deciding to abuse the trust of their fellow players. *Prior* to entering the game.

This is distinct and different from the *in game character* who can be "roleplayed" as a fifth columnist - which - so we're so often instructed in this forum, does not mean the player is a bad person, or a liar IRL.

The 2 actions are distinct.

One in game - a roleplay as a bad guy.
One out of the game, which displays the trustworthiness of the person.

The entire point of this post is to highlight the difference between the two distinct actions and demonstrating irrefutably that one of these acts does, in fact, reflect on the person and not their in game character.

Whether you understand, or refuse to understand this is entirely irrelevant. It happens to be true.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

This is distinct and different from the *in game character* who can be "roleplayed" as a fifth columnist - which - so we're so often instructed in this forum, does not mean the player is a bad person, or a liar.

I should follow my own advice, but oh well here goes.

You’d probably be surprised what actual veteran PowerPlayers think of 5th columnists. Lots consider it responsible for a lot of the problems in PowerPlay and likely think of it a more grevious sin than attacking people in a non PvP PG.

But hey the limits of moral absolutism amirite?

 

[Devari]

This is the crux of the post.

One is a player - the person - deciding to abuse the trust of their fellow players. *Prior* to entering the game.

This is distinct and different from the *in game character* who can be "roleplayed" as a fifth columnist - which - so we're so often instructed in this forum, does not mean the player is a bad person, or a liar IRL.

The 2 actions are distinct.

One in game - a roleplay as a bad guy.
One out of the game, which displays the trustworthiness of the person.

The entire point of this post is to highlight the difference between the two distinct actions and demonstrating irrefutably that one of these acts does, in fact, reflect on the person and not their in game character.

Whether you understand, or refuse to understand this is entirely irrelevant. It happens to be true.

Why do you not understand that some players may choose to roleplay a character who decides to disrupt the DW2 expedition? That is just as legitimate as someone trying to disrupt a group who is engaging in Power Play activities.

 

[Myou]

Rampart just give up convincing those people. Heres a simple fact: They're not having reasons, but excuses. They cant be reasoned with. Nothing you do will stop them being awful people.
Millitary subterfuge, my character is a traitor etc all are excuses. Call them out for it and be done with it.


Hope with time they'll eat their rightly deserved bannhammer.

 

[Kaltern]

Any person who deliberately attempts to join a group such as Mobius with the sole intention of shooting at other players are taking this action as a human, not a role-playing character.

And as such is an idiot. (or childish, lacking in emotions - or possible has many negative emotional issues... Could be taking out their real life frustrations on other players in a game... the list goes on.)

They are not doing it for 'game related' reasons, no matter how they squirm or vomit excuses.

And those reading this can relate to the above - that isn't my problem. I'm just calling a spade a t**t.

 

[Saxon Kili]

I'm sure the people joining mobius in order to PVP dont care whether it's a 'fact' that they are untrustworthy or dishonest.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I should follow my own advice, but oh well here goes.

You’d probably be surprised what actual veteran PowerPlayers think of 5th columnists. Lots consider it responsible for a lot of the problems in PowerPlay and likely think of it a more grevious sin than attacking people in a non PvP PG.

But hey the limits of moral absolutism amirite?

My question is how did all of these explorers, the Cmdrs that is, ever find out about Fleetcom etc?
Isn't that entirely "out of game" too?
Doesn't that apply to PG and solo as well, in general?

How does a Cmdr choose a mode?
Sounds like more "having your cake and eating it too."

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Why do you not understand that some players may choose to roleplay a character who decides to disrupt the DW2 expedition? That is just as legitimate as someone trying to disrupt a group who is engaging in Power Play activities.

IF done in open you have a point. If done in a PvE only PG then not so much imo

 

[mojonaut]

You seem a little upset.

Would you like to talk about it?

That boy needs therapy

[video=youtube;qLrnkK2YEcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrnkK2YEcE[/video]

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Rampart just give up convincing those people. Heres a simple fact: They're not having reasons, but excuses. They cant be reasoned with. Nothing you do will stop them being awful people.
Millitary subterfuge, my character is a traitor etc all are excuses. Call them out for it and be done with it.


Hope with time they'll eat their rightly deserved bannhammer.

Reasonable questioning of the ideas being presented in this thread deserves a banhammer? What a sadly authoritarian outlook.