I’d like more commanders in the Open

[Darth Ender]

all fdev has to do to fix people who want to be in open but dont like being singled out is for fdev to stop differentiating cmdr's from npcs.. Get rid of the "cmdr" get rid of the hollow target.

Now if you get killed or targetted for being an unshielded ship, it was just due to that. Would have nothing to do with you being a human. Problem solved.

i still think the game would be better off if they had escort mechanics (mostly for missions but also hireable as ad-hoc).

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I don't care about Ganker, I don't care about honor, and I don't care about you. I just tell it like it is, or rather what impressions I have gathered after 5 years of reading the forum. I'm just gonna leave you with this: If you think gankers are universally accepted, you're dreaming. In your little tea club this may be true, but beyond that reality begins.

No one is asking for “acceptance” bud. They’re asking for the game to be improved.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Now we talk. Accepted by whom? The like minded? It seems you didn't read the quote I offered and now you are trying to redefine this 'title'. That's not how language works.

First of all, you can stop with the condescending attitude. It just makes you look bad and less likely to be taken seriously.

The comment you linked is delusional and wishful thinking at best.

Here, you go. Here's on of my previous comments.

I’d like more commanders in the Open

Indeed, but the types aren’t “I like pvp” vs “I don’t” Both types exist - and there's no need to like PvP to buy or play a game that does not require it. they are “ I Iike having my mistakes cost me” vs “I don’t like having my mistakes cost me”and the modes of open for the former and solo for...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Robert Maynard]

No one is asking for “acceptance” bud. They’re asking for the game to be improved.

As are other players - and not all players want the same things nor would they necessarily agree on what constitutes an improvement.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

As are other players - and not all players want the same things nor would they necessarily agree on what constitutes an improvement.

Probably not. And that’s where fdev needs to pick a design philosophy and stick with it, because they haven’t and it’s why everyone is unhappy

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

That goes both ways. If scorn is innappropriate for the goose, it should be for the gander as well. If you don;t want the PvP crowd to all be washed with the same brush, have the PvP Crowd not wash thier PvE counterpoints the very same way. Each side has a bias about who's actually at fault over the name calling, but we Commanders can see that it goes, equally, both ways.

The only way to get more people into open, is to get more people into what open has to offer. I've been here since launch, and it's been the same thing the whole time. People telling stories about open, for the good, and for the bad. Just accept that you can only expect to play along side those that have the same interests as you. What ever the size of that population turns out to be, we just have to live with it.

Oh for sure. I whole heatedly agree and I would say the same thing to any pvpers doing the same to the pve players as well.
However, I rarely see pvpers use the level of name calling and slander that many players use towards gankers.

I think it's pretty clear that the only one at fault here is Frontier for their decision to give pvpers basically zero content in this game is. Not saying that PvP content would completely eliminate gankers but it would reduce their numbers by at least half

 

[Robert Maynard]

Probably not. And that’s where fdev needs to pick a design philosophy and stick with it, because they haven’t and it’s why everyone is unhappy

I expect that Frontier picked their design philosophy before they pitched the tri-modal galaxy with entirely optional PvP over seven years ago.

 

[Brrokk]

Probably not. And that’s where fdev needs to pick a design philosophy and stick with it, because they haven’t and it’s why everyone is unhappy

Actually FD have chosen a design philosophy and stuck with it. That's why some people are unhappy.

However, I think the modes implemented by instancing rules are a brilliantly innovative way to make the game appeal to various types of players.

 

[Darth Ender]

As are other players - and not all players want the same things nor would they necessarily agree on what constitutes an improvement.

more succinctly, modes are simply not going to change. At all. So talking about open pve nonsense special sectors where pvp is required and elsewhere it's banned etc. is all pointless wastes of text. Fdev isn't going to do it.

You have a choice when you play .. you can choose to play in open where everyone is a potential enemy, you can choose to play in groups where you agree on some rules ....or you can play in solo. The only improvements that make any sense in suggesting would be mechanics that exist across those modes in equally useful manners.

we have some kind of escort mechanic that can be used by anyone on any mode but isn't god-like in power and by no means guarantees your safety..
we have removing human identifiers from the game altogether.

we were already given special starter systems for newbies to learn how to play in safety before blindly going out in the galaxy in open so really they have no excuse for their decisions. If you play in open, you have decided it's ok for you to be attacked by other humans. You dont get to dictate the rules of that engagement.

Ideas that improve the game improve them regardless of the mode you play in, not at the detriment of any. (that's why it's so hard to improve the game because the mode system is the single biggest compromise to all types of players the worst design indecision they could have made and guarantees that they will never make any single player type happy with nearly any decision)

I think removing the human specific identifiers would be the easiest and best choice. There's no reason for any mode or any role you have to differentiate a human ship from a npc ship. None at all. You want to be a pirate, be a pirate...do pirate things..fine. you want to be a psycho and just kill everyone, then kill everyone.. that's fine. you want to do anything ..you just do it. it shouldn't matter if your target is human or not. It shouldn't matter if your attacker is human or not. Unless they go out of their way to tell you, it has no place in the game to make any difference.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Actually FD have chosen a design philosophy and stuck with it. That's why some people are unhappy.

However, I think the modes implemented by instancing rules are a brilliantly innovative way to make the game appeal to various types of players.

The only decision philosophy I’ve seen since horizons is “do everything half baked”

 

[Mohrgan]

Oh for sure. I whole heatedly agree and I would say the same thing to any pvpers doing the same to the pve players as well.
However, I rarely see pvpers use the level of name calling and slander that many players use towards gankers.

I think it's pretty clear that the only one at fault here is Frontier for their decision to give pvpers basically zero content in this game is. Not saying that PvP content would completely eliminate gankers but it would reduce their numbers by at least half

It was not FD's intention to offer anything but a galaxy sim for us to use. There is no chumming up to traders, or miners, or PvE combat comanders. Why should the be beholding to those that want more than the game offers? PvP has always been available, but has never been a focus of the game.

Then there's the subject of CQC/Arena. That feature goes to demonstrate what FD thought would be viable PvP, but it was rejected out of hand. Now that you can queue in game, lets hope it give the PvP crowd an outlet.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think removing the human specific identifiers would be the easiest and best choice. There's no reason for any mode or any role you have to differentiate a human ship from a npc ship. None at all. You want to be a pirate, be a pirate...do pirate things..fine. you want to be a psycho and just kill everyone, then kill everyone.. that's fine. you want to do anything ..you just do it. it shouldn't matter if your target is human or not. It shouldn't matter if your attacker is human or not. Unless they go out of their way to tell you, it has no place in the game to make any difference.

The hollow marker discussion was dead and buried a long time ago.

.... and to assume that players would not learn how to detect other players is naive at best.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

I take it that, on that basis, we'll never hear another complaint about players in Solo and Private Groups affecting the game?

That has nothing to do with the players though. That's just poorly designed game mechanics.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

It was not FD's intention to offer anything but a galaxy sim for us to use. There is no chumming up to traders, or miners, or PvE combat comanders. Why should the be beholding to those that want more than the game offers? PvP has always been available, but has never been a focus of the game.

Then there's the subject of CQC/Arena. That feature goes to demonstrate what FD thought would be viable PvP, but it was rejected out of hand. Now that you can queue in game, lets hope it give the PvP crowd an outlet.

If that's your honest opinion about giving pvpers content then have literally no place to complain about gankers.

This is exactly the absurd, self defeating, argument I see over and over again.

"Gankers are a problem" -> "then give them content to keep them busy" -> "this game is for everyone and PvP has never been the focus" -> "gankers are a problem" -> "then give them content" -> ""this game is for everyone"..........

 

[Ian Skippy]

The hollow marker discussion was dead and buried a long time ago.

.... and to assume that players would not learn how to detect other players is naive at best.

I still think it would be cool if you could have a 'spoof ID' module on your ship. Yes, you can monitor bandwith and so forth, but 1) most don't, and 2) good luck picking out the cmdr in a busy system before he is out of reach already.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I still think it would be cool if you could have a 'spoof ID' module on your ship. Yes, you can monitor bandwith and so forth, but 1) most don't, and 2) good luck picking out the cmdr in a busy system before he is out of reach already.

It would be used by those seeking to attack CMDRs too - which might encourage even fewer players to play in Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That has nothing to do with the players though. That's just poorly designed game mechanics.

Like acceptance of gankers behaviour, opinions vary on that topic too - one player's "poor design" may well be another players "favourite feature".

 

[Ian Skippy]

It would be used by those seeking to attack CMDRs too - which might encourage even fewer players to play in Open.

Honestly, I don't really base my recommendations/proposals/brainfarts on what it would do to the population numbers. I think it'd be a cool thing to have in the game, is all. Make it cost a lot of energy, have it be illegal in certain systems (autocratic rulers dont like these subversive tactics!).

 

[Robert Maynard]

If that's your honest opinion about giving pvpers content then have literally no place to complain about gankers.

Players have been demanding PvP content for as long as the game design has been around. Frontier have not yet chosen to acquiesce to their demands.

 

[Mohrgan]

If that's your honest opinion about giving pvpers content then have literally no place to complain about gankers.

I don't see the correlation. At all. But, I have ceded open to it's own fate long ago. Gankers take up zero of my time or thoughts. They make the environment as it is, and they can have it.