Griefers make open impossible, and how easy the solution is.

[A C Ender]

Your point is noted and discarded as utterly irrelevant to the problem being discussed.


The simple fact of the matter is that there is zero benefit nor reward for participating in non-consensual PVP.

Any mention of consent in this game is silly, as the entire game is built around everyone affecting a galaxy wether they like it or not.

If you don't agree please have a look at this thread for a discussion around it:

Open Gun-ports = open for pvp : Pilots federations rule of the duel

So spread this around if you agree, to make it an unofficial rule. OPENED GUN-PORTS = Consent for combat CLOSED GUN-PORTS = I don’t want to play your game. So spread this around if you agree, to make it an unofficial rule. If a player Opens their Gun-ports it means they are a consenting to...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Solo only galaxy would solve all the problems.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What are you suggesting? Perhaps some kind of revocation of permits based on criminal activity?
Maybe with increased durations for frequent/repeat offenders?

Well, it's a little opposed to Elite Lore, since it would make sense.

I don't think high sec systems would appreciate their trade being disrupted. On the other hand, it would need morivators for players going into anarchies. Low prices on goods gained in a ... questionable manner, or something like that.

edit: thinking about it some more, there could be some hand crafted market opportunities in various places at times in anarchies. The GalNet could report on shady business going on in X. Those who are of a griefing disposition could still go to these hotspots to get their freak on, creating a hotspot just like a CG would.

Point being that unsafe systems become unsafe systems, but you can strike it rich, safe systems would be safe systems, but wouldn't have these gold rushes.

 

[Deleted member 251664]

Solo only galaxy would solve all the problems.

Griefers make open impossible, and how easy the solution is.

Welcome to Elite: Hello Kitty Online Pathetic. So edgy. Very tough guy. This has been billed as a single player game with optional PVP and "online enabled content" since day one. You are in the wrong neighborhood if you think that people not enjoying wasting their time on meaningless and purely...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Can I have on of you at home? Are you available in the shops?

Sorry baby, only numero uno of yours truly

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Nice pre-edit, I enjoyed that

If they can clone a sheep ...

 

[Misty_Dark]

[...]

This is so much wrongs here. Lets start with the I do not like gankers. but your suggested measures are basically against the TOS that you agreed too, and you are basiclly doing what you accuse the other players of doing, pushing their gameplay onto you, now you are trying to push your wanted gameplay onto them!

I have a hard time believing that every single time you have tried open, someone have killed you. I have done hundreds of hours in Open, including visiting founders worlds, engineers, and I have been killed ONE time by a ganker, and got interdicted twice... Now there might be a few differences between where and how you and I play, I do not have my home base in founders world or in the same systems as engineers, ie any of the hotspots for gankers to be lurking around. My friend found a nice system in the bubble, that sold the ships and modules we mostly needed when we started out, so that became our system. We know that many players travel through our home system, as we can see in the station log over visits.


Then there are SEVERAL options available in the game for you to use to define how you want to play.
* Game modes: Solo, Private Group and Open

Your choice, and there are Mobious where many like minded players can be found, ie, I want to play and see other players, without having to pew-pew at eachother.
Choosing game mode for the appropriate activity is give choice... doo you think gankers do all their engineering, collecting mats etc, in their gank ships in Open? No, they chose Solo/PG to do these sorts of things, so they do not risk to run into a fight they cannot win! I have followed the ganker who killed me.. I sent a friend request and he accepted, and he was very mich confused and upset that I did NOT spew alot of garbage in their direction.... but it allowed me to follow the movements, and game mode... and only time I spotted the ganker in open, it was in a hotspot for killing other players, all other times, the ganker was in solo!


* Blocking, you find a player doing something you do not like, for example, killing you, block them and you are very unlikely to encounter them again. This is your main tool to opt out of other players idea of what this game is about. But it is not an option for you to tell other players how to play!

* Play style and a general be ready approach. What was you doing when getting killed, what ship did you fly etc, this is not about you being a bad player, it is about awareness about your surroundings and what you can do to protect yourself more. Do you care about seeing any hollow squares on the radar? Do follow what the hollow radars symbols are doing? ie, are they moving to get behind you? etc, IF you do not bother or know about this, then just blazing your way to the destination the shortest route on suppercruise assist and "watching netflix" is recipe for disaster when playing in open. So being aware about your surroundings allows you to be more prepared and also avoid some situations. For example, if I fly in open to a hot spot, I take the LONG route to the destionation, as most of the gankers sit in the middle between the star and destionation to catch you when fly past them. if I fly in a big circle to arrive at the destination from the other direction, there is no time for them to be able to get behind me and interdict me.... and I do not loose that much time doing this!
Stations, do you speed near a station or not? playing in solo, the risk of speeding is mostly non existent. ie, you get a reckles flying fine for bumbing into things, and you are very unlikely to destroy another ship. Add players into the mix, and now I can suicide into your speedinig ship with a weak sidewinder... I go kaboom, you get "rewarded" for killing me, as you survived the crash, so it must have been your fault or something, so the station sets out to punish you for killing me... unfair yes, but the rules are the same for everyone, solution is siimply, do not speed, what now happens is that I kill myself, and station just logs that you where not speeding, so you did nothing wrong and are free to go unharmed.




So use the EXISTING tools of the game to play the game how you like, and exclude those players that have a negative influence on your experience. But you also need to consider your own playstyle, as NPC's are predictable, players are not. and if you want to play with other players, you most likely have to adapt to this.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

It's honestly one area where I probably wouldn't mind seeing the AI cheat, but the trouble then is that as you ramp up the challenge it just acts as encouragement for players to test themselves against the unstoppable system security. I've seen MMOs with invulnerable NPC guards in cities, where players in ridiculous builds would challenge them to see how long they could hold out tanking their onslaught.

I already do that.

With Haz RESs, compromised nav beacons and high intensity CZs all being completable easily the only PvE combat challenge I have is measuring how long I can last against the constant stream of system security.

I've taken out pirate Anacondas while carrying 794t of cargo in my Cutter and I've also taken out NPC bounty hunters in a ship that was stock with the addition of unengineered weapons and HRPs. I've also completed wing assassination missions in a multipurpose Clipper. The only thing that stops me hanging around when ATR turn up is that the bounty would bankrupt me when my ship eventually got destroyed.

Although last night did bring about some fun. I got a political assassination mission where the target was a deadly Anaconda surrounded by 10 security ships (in my Clipper- 400 mj shield, 3000 hull). The end result was never in doubt though- I could have easily taken out a second Anaconda.

So some players take up PvP for the unpredictability of what other players will do in a combat situation. Some are then waiting in the game for someone to give them a decent challenge in combat and no-one turns up for a while. Then a hollow square turns up in the system...

I'm not saying that the situation is right, but having something in the game that caters to combat oriented players when NPCs get boring would certainly not hurt, even though it won't fix everything. Still, like a PvE mode, nothing is happening on that front so I don't see the situation changing.

 

[Brrokk]

...
I'm not saying that the situation is right, but having something in the game that caters to combat oriented players when NPCs get boring would certainly not hurt, even though it won't fix everything. Still, like a PvE mode, nothing is happening on that front so I don't see the situation changing.

I think FD intend Thargoids to be what you're suggesting. I know that doesn't work for everyone; some really want human opponents. But Thargoids are pretty tough.

 

[Han_Zen]

everybody knows solo players play solo:

https://cdn-static.dagospia.com/img/patch/12-2018/masturbazione-1095180.gif

When the alternative is to play with a bunch of forty and fifty year old guys, some may consider that option.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I think FD intend Thargoids to be what you're suggesting. I know that doesn't work for everyone; some really want human opponents. But Thargoids are pretty tough.

A fair point, although I imagine the AX players would be quick to highlight the lack of reward for the level of risk in that area as well. I do hope that they try pushing that storyline again and do another big bubble invasion though.

 

[A C Ender]

I think FD intend Thargoids to be what you're suggesting. I know that doesn't work for everyone; some really want human opponents. But Thargoids are pretty tough.

Some may also not be against the Thargoid cause... And think that the humans really deserve what they're getting for going into Thargoid territory!

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

and the ability to block peopke

Blocking only solves the problem of repeated griefing and lets a player decide not to meet by the same player again.

I can only see one solution that could possibly appease both sides of this argument: Opt-out PvP and opt-out instancing with PvE players. Switching PvP off would render your ship immune to player weapon and collision damage (and collision damage from anything occurring in some short time-frame after a player-player collision). Switching PvE instancing off would mean you are not instanced with anyone that has PvP turned off. This would result in players not wanting to engage in PvP at all to fly in an open galaxy. At the same time, players that would not want to see such weirdness as weapons being ineffective would not have to see that either - effectively not being different for those players than if the PvE people just switched to solo, you simply not meet them.

The above would hopefully be acceptable to people that do not like being shot out of the sky randomly, but not really change anything for people who opt-out from being instanced with such players.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Blocking only solves the problem of repeated griefing and lets a player decide not to meet by the same player again.

I can only see one solution that could possibly appease both sides of this argument: Opt-out PvP and opt-out instancing with PvE players. Switching PvP off would render your ship immune to player weapon and collision damage (and collision damage from anything occurring in some short time-frame after a player-player collision). Switching PvE instancing off would mean you are not instanced with anyone that has PvP turned off. This would result in players not wanting to engage in PvP at all to fly in an open galaxy. At the same time, players that would not want to see such weirdness as weapons being ineffective would not have to see that either - effectively not being different for those players than if the PvE people just switched to solo, you simply not meet them.

The above would hopefully be acceptable to people that do not like being shot out of the sky randomly, but not really change anything for people who opt-out from being instanced with such players.

Actually we have the solution already. If you want to be in open, play in open. Random player encounters means random player interaction. Full stop. Stop trying have the former without the latter. If you don’t want random player interaction that’s fine, there’s solo and pg, where you can control who you encounter.

plus you already have the advantage of being able to influence open from solo/pg.

 

[A C Ender]

Blocking only solves the problem of repeated griefing and lets a player decide not to meet by the same player again.

I can only see one solution that could possibly appease both sides of this argument: Opt-out PvP and opt-out instancing with PvE players. Switching PvP off would render your ship immune to player weapon and collision damage (and collision damage from anything occurring in some short time-frame after a player-player collision). Switching PvE instancing off would mean you are not instanced with anyone that has PvP turned off. This would result in players not wanting to engage in PvP at all to fly in an open galaxy. At the same time, players that would not want to see such weirdness as weapons being ineffective would not have to see that either - effectively not being different for those players than if the PvE people just switched to solo, you simply not meet them.

The above would hopefully be acceptable to people that do not like being shot out of the sky randomly, but not really change anything for people who opt-out from being instanced with such players.

How does that appease PvP players?

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

How does that appease PvP players?

Appease may be the wrong word (it is assuming that they are appeased now). It would keep the situation for them exactly as it is now, any player they encounter would be possible to attack as they would not be instanced with players that have PvP switched off.

The main difference would be that players with PvP off would fly in an open galaxy instead of solo mode. Players not wanting to meet PvP off players would not meet them (they don't meet them now either as they allegedly are in solo) and players not wanting to be shot at by other players would not be shot at by other players (but still fly in an open galaxy with other players).

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

Actually we have the solution already. If you want to be in open, play in open. Random player encounters means random player interaction. Full stop. Stop trying have the former without the latter. If you don’t want random player interaction that’s fine, there’s solo and pg, where you can control who you encounter.

plus you already have the advantage of being able to influence open from solo/pg.

You may think this is a solution because it works for you. This thread is now on page 90 and it is not the only one of its kind. Clearly everyone does not think it is a solution, in particular, I suspect those are players who would like to have restrictions on the random player interactions. "Random" does necessarily mean "anything goes". Random, even mathematically, comes with laws and different random distributions. What I am suggesting is something that would not change a single thing for players wanting open to behave as it is now and appease those people who want constraints on the random interactions.

 

[Rick6549]

You may think this is a solution because it works for you. This thread is now on page 90 and it is not the only one of its kind. Clearly everyone does not think it is a solution, in particular, I suspect those are players who would like to have restrictions on the random player interactions. "Random" does necessarily mean "anything goes". Random, even mathematically, comes with laws and different random distributions. What I am suggesting is something that would not change a single thing for players wanting open to behave as it is now and appease those people who want constraints on the random interactions.

And thats too bad, because thats how to game is designed, and if you dont like it you have two modes and a block

 

[Old Duck]

FWIW, I've not encountered a griefer in Open in ages, and I CLEARED MY BLOCKLIST.

Maybe they are all playing the beta? Or mining for a fleet carrier. Regardless, I wonder how much of this thread is living in the past.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Modes are fine as they are. You pick which one suits you, and off you go.
The modes don't have to be fixed for a solution to this problem. The fix should be in the environment. PvP flags or PvE mode will introduce too much gamey influence. It intrudes the Elite Reality, where you shoot at a player, this player recieves damage. No magic bullets. Grouping players together, or separating them will only add to a fragmented player base.

Influencing the BGS is exactly how it should be. Across all modes, across all platforms. It's the single thing that is shared between all players. And like in real life, there are many unseen factors at work, influencing the BGS, which are beyond your control. In some aspects, you're just riding the wave. I bet in 2008, a lot of stock traders went: Oh that's so unfair! Why can't I shoot the person who crashed the market?

Again, the fix should be in the environment. System statuses and security levels should mean something. Being a bad boy should have consequences, especially if this bad boyism translates to mass murder. And these consequences should also be played out in game. Permits could be used for this.