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

[Old Duck]

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.

I had an epiphany this morning as I lay in bed before the alarm went off. C&P values "stuff" more than people. I get scanned with stolen LTDs, and all of the sudden I have a multi-million credit bounty / fine. You know how many murders I have to commit to earn such a bounty? A lot! It's bass-ackwards, at least from a gameplay perspective.

(No miners were harmed in the making of my life of piracy)

 

[Cheese Helmet]

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.

I mean they technically could go try and shoot “the guy who crashed the stock market” there’s just consequences instead of a mode switch lol

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

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

I never said I cared. What I do care about is having meaningless threads that never lead anywhere. If this was not an issue for part of the player base, threads like this would not exist.

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?

This is a game. The stock market is not.

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.

I would be perfectly happy with such a change as it would also introduce actual meaning to something that right now does not. Just make these threads stop.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I mean they technically could go try and shoot “the guy who crashed the stock market” there’s just consequences instead of a mode switch lol

My point was, there's not a one guy that crashed the market. There's many guys and many outside influences beyond anyone's control.

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

I mean they technically could go try and shoot “the guy who crashed the stock market” there’s just consequences instead of a mode switch lol

Would that not imply shooting themselves?
But I digress ...

 

[Cheese Helmet]

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.

It’s a solution because it works for the game and how it’s designed. This game doesn’t let you control what someone else does, only if you can encounter them.

 

[Old Duck]

This is a game. The stock market is not.

Sure it is, it's just a rich man's game

 

[Hellfire85]

How does that appease PvP players?

It doesn't. Simple.
____

Not encountering PvE player also means losing out on finding new players for squadrons who might become interested in PvP after interdicting them and "mentoring" them or simply telling them how to get better at evading and such.

Having a PvE/PvP switch means ultimately dumbing down the game for many people who will chose to ignore PvP from the start due to the heavily biased PvE/anti-PvP community that never lets out a single chance to advertise how bad PvPers, Open Mode and PvP in general are (we are not all gankers/griefers, even in Pirate/"terrorist" groups, there are people kind enough to help you in learning stuff if you don't act salty/toxic towards them after a rebuy and ask for advice instead)

The biggest issue I see here is that, compared to the PvP community, some solo-folks/PG-players/anti-PvPers are much more vocal and way saltier than most PvPers.

And most suggestions I see to ease your mind and save your playstyle revolve around taking from us (the PvP community) but not trying to find a solution that might appease everyone.

We asked for meaningful PvP such as making PP open only as it is heavily influenced by players that counter powers in solo/PG keeping them safe from any kind of harm or counterattack, we asked for a rebalance of the ships and combat in general, you were against it (can't find proof, it's been a while, probably archived already)
we are also asking for a working crime and punishment system that makes the whole combat thing meaningful but that doesn't cross your mind, no you just want the whole ED galaxy to work according to your rules only and anyone who disagrees is a potential ganker/griefer who just wants to shoot harmless traders or explorers.

You are saying we push our gameplay onto you, but let's be honest, you are doing the same: trying to force your gameplay onto us, constantly.
All we do is make do with what we have and use the tools we were given to do the things advertised from the beginning.
Do the same, try to get better at evading or fighting back instead of asking FDev to hold your hand and we will all be able to enjoy the game in the way we want.

 

[Misty_Dark]

It doesn't. Simple.
____

Not encountering PvE player also means losing out on finding new players for squadrons who might become interested in PvP after interdicting them and "mentoring" them or simply telling them how to get better at evading and such.

Having a PvE/PvP switch means ultimately dumbing down the game for many people who will chose to ignore PvP from the start due to the heavily biased PvE/anti-PvP community that never lets out a single chance to advertise how bad PvPers, Open Mode and PvP in general are (we are not all gankers/griefers, even in Pirate/"terrorist" groups, there are people kind enough to help you in learning stuff if you don't act salty/toxic towards them after a rebuy and ask for advice instead)

The biggest issue I see here is that, compared to the PvP community, some solo-folks/PG-players/anti-PvPers are much more vocal and way saltier than most PvPers.

And most suggestions I see to ease your mind and save your playstyle revolve around taking from us (the PvP community) but not trying to find a solution that might appease everyone.

We asked for meaningful PvP such as making PP open only as it is heavily influenced by players that counter powers in solo/PG keeping them safe from any kind of harm or counterattack, we asked for a rebalance of the ships and combat in general, you were against it (can't find proof, it's been a while, probably archived already)
we are also asking for a working crime and punishment system that makes the whole combat thing meaningful but that doesn't cross your mind, no you just want the whole ED galaxy to work according to your rules only and anyone who disagrees is a potential ganker/griefer who just wants to shoot harmless traders or explorers.

You are saying we push our gameplay onto you, but let's be honest, you are doing the same: trying to force your gameplay onto us, constantly.
All we do is make do with what we have and use the tools we were given to do the things advertised from the beginning.
Do the same, try to get better at evading or fighting back instead of asking FDev to hold your hand and we will all be able to enjoy the game in the way we want.

As a PvE player, I agree with you.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The biggest issue I see here is that, compared to the PvP community, some solo-folks/PG-players/anti-PvPers are much more vocal and way saltier than most PvPers.

That works the other way around as well

Some PvPers are much more vocal and way saltier than most solo-folks/PG-players.

 

[Brrokk]

...
The biggest issue I see here is that, compared to the PvP community, some solo-folks/PG-players/anti-PvPers are much more vocal and way saltier than most PvPers.
...

As I've mentioned before, I think the exact opposite is true. There are far more requests for Solo to be removed, complaints about people "hiding" and demands for game features to be Open-only than there are complaints about being ganked.

Counting threads or posts is the only way to prove it. I surveyed the first two forum pages once, which is how I came to my assessment. But of course it's a moving target.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

As I've mentioned before, I think the exact opposite is true. There are far more requests for Solo to be removed, complaints about people "hiding" and demands for game features to be Open-only than there are complaints about being ganked.

Counting threads or posts is the only way to prove it. I surveyed the first two forum pages once, which is how I came to my assessment. But of course it's a moving target.

Notice the cunning use of the words most and some.

Some explorers are more vocal than most miners
Some miners are more vocal than most explorers

Both can be true

 

[TrollhunterX]

Imagine if all of those players that have been forced into solo mode or private groups do to the toxicity in open were actually still in open. Imagine all the extra players that would bring. How many more opportunities for new squadrons, more power play, and more bgs interaction.

Imagine, in essence, a world, or rather, galaxy, where actions have consequences, and have to be justified to powerful authorities. Which is the thing some players felt they were promised, and never got.

It would certainly feel more 'ummursive'. Although, to be more so, players might have to 'git gud' at avoiding systems with corrupt, or just overzealous police, and knowing when to bribe officials.

69 pages? Here's to doing the tonne...

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

Not encountering PvE player also means losing out on finding new players for squadrons who might become interested in PvP after interdicting them and "mentoring" them or simply telling them how to get better at evading and such.

You are not going to encounter them as it is now. They are in solo. The people who might be interested in learning PvP are more likely to play in open.

Having a PvE/PvP switch means ultimately dumbing down the game for many people who will chose to ignore PvP from the start due to the heavily biased PvE/anti-PvP community that never lets out a single chance to advertise how bad PvPers, Open Mode and PvP in general are (we are not all gankers/griefers, even in Pirate/"terrorist" groups, there are people kind enough to help you in learning stuff if you don't act salty/toxic towards them after a rebuy and ask for advice instead)

Solo mode already does this.

And most suggestions I see to ease your mind and save your playstyle revolve around taking from us (the PvP community) but not trying to find a solution that might appease everyone.

It does not take anything away from you. I suspect that most people that would switch PvP off are currently in solo.

You are saying we push our gameplay onto you, but let's be honest, you are doing the same: trying to force your gameplay onto us, constantly.

I would agree if the entire galaxy turned into a PvE galaxy. This is not what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting was trying to let everybody have their own cake and play with like-minded people.

 

[Agema]

Never played open, unless you count for a few seconds when I've accidentally misclicked on starting play. And I did once let a friend's son play on my computer when they were visiting, so of course being a teenager, the first thing he did was ignore my instructions and fly to Shinrarta in open with my account, where someone instantly deleted him for no reason at all.

I might suggest there is an air of unreality about the game in terms of commanders who slaughter law-abiding characters (PC or NPC). In reality, that sort of person would get the spaceship equivalent of a entire SWAT team dedicated to them the minute they entered a system with sufficient authority. They'd be banned from an insurance re-buy in most of the galaxy, and if they lost a fight, most jurisdictions would see them step out of their lifepod straight into a 100 year sentence in maximum security prison. But those sorts of consequences are deemed too harsh.

Every single sandbox game in existence with PvP ends in lots of players who specialise in killing other players running amok: it's just what happens when there's a de facto consequence-free environment. We all know this. I am inclined to think lowly of griefers / gankers: they are basically a variety of internet troll. But the way you deal with trolls is by not feeding them. In other words, don't play open.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

You are not going to encounter them as it is now. They are in solo. The people who might be interested in learning PvP are more likely to play in open.


Solo mode already does this.


It does not take anything away from you. I suspect that most people that would switch PvP off are currently in solo.


I would agree if the entire galaxy turned into a PvE galaxy. This is not what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting was trying to let everybody have their own cake and play with like-minded people.

We are putting the cart before the horse here. The mode you're talking about does have to be created first. Unless there some big surprise in the new era update, at best we're looking at this being implemented a very long time from now.

Also, it is possible that maybe Frontier are actually ok with open being their dangerous and cutthroat mode

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

We are putting the cart before the horse here. The mode you're talking about does have to be created first. Unless there some big surprise in the new era update, at best we're looking at this being implemented a very long time from now.

Also, it is possible that maybe Frontier are actually ok with open being their dangerous and cutthroat mode

Yes, I know that bit. It was just a thought that popped into my head and I wanted to see the reaction to it.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Imagine, in essence, a world, or rather, galaxy, where actions have consequences, and have to be justified to powerful authorities. Which is the thing some players felt they were promised, and never got.

It would certainly feel more 'ummursive'. Although, to be more so, players might have to 'git gud' at avoiding systems with corrupt, or just overzealous police, and knowing when to bribe officials.

69 pages? Here's to doing the tonne...

Part of the draw for me was that on one hand you can have these massive powerful groups wielding influence and power, but beautifully opposite, you have the Wild West that is space. All I want for the game is that to be realized, not all this “I need to be invincible from bad things”

 

[Just Paul]

I would play an actual hard limited PVE/Open mode exclusively.

No reason to subject myself to unwanted PVP whatsoever given the current state of the game. No benefits. Very little fun. Nothing to prove.

Either that or fundamentally redesign the pvp interactions to actually provide positive and engaging gameplay, plus reward, for the victim.

Unfortunately for you, FDev have ruled out an open-pve mode. So talking about open-pve is the same as talking about the Cobra mk4. It's not going to happen at least for ED. What's so special about the mk4 anyways? Or is it because, I can't haz?

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.

They are bigger bullet sponges, but that's it. Their actions are predictable like all other npcs. Once you figured that out, it's just a grind and lot's of heatsink synth. It gets boring fast. Even the noob in their Asp is less predictable and therefore a more interesting opponent. And you never know if it's an alt-account and you get deleted by an KI-Asp.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

What's so special about the mk4 anyways? Or is it because, I can't haz?

Just me being facetious.

Obviously in this case the use of a topic that has been done to death as a demonstration of things that will never happen and the futility of the continued argument was not seen as comparable to the topic of PvE open though.