I suggest not to cling to individual words. Why don't you ask about the axe?) You understand perfectly well what I meant by comparing "axe" and " high technology")
Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
I suggest not to cling to individual words. Why don't you ask about the axe?) You understand perfectly well what I meant by comparing "axe" and " high technology")
This thread has gone off track some time ago: it was about how to improve PvP content in the game, so I don''t see why it interests PVE players.
Any useful suggestione for PvP content?
I'll put something in the ring: increase bounties on players and publish a galaxy-wide bounty board for PvP bounty hunting.
Any useful suggestione for PvP content?
I'll put something in the ring: increase bounties on players and publish a galaxy-wide bounty board for PvP bounty hunting.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The playing field is level - each PvE action completed by a player has the same effect in all game modes. That some choose to play among other players, who may hinder their progress in those PvE actions is their choice. Choices have consequences in this game.
There is only one galaxy state - shared by the three game modes on the three game platforms.
Other players have always been optional in this game and, short of removing Solo and Private Groups, Frontier can't force any player who doesn't want to to play with other players - and even if they did remove Solo and Private Groups there's still the block feature (which Frontier consider to be a necessity in their multi-player game) to consider. Then there's the P2P nature of the game that both limits instance population and suffers from what are default settings on some routers (and that's before anyone fiddles with them or incoming P2P connections on their PC). Then there's the fact that, if the game was made Open only, no-one would be required to play it at all - it would be up to each player to decide whether they wanted to play it.
Not intentionally fuelling no
However your position the E
was designed for purely open play is not true, in fact an off-line mode was expected before it was launched, and many would still like it.Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Words are all we have to convey meaning in a written medium.
Ok then - what is the difference between the "axe" and the intangible "high-tech" solution?
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
Putting aside the 'Fnarr Fnarr' double-entendre aspect of this statement, even on this most basic point, you will find people who sit in the opposite camp. People like me, for instance.
I love the solitude of it, even when I'm in a populated area. I like to feel like the sole pioneer in a fictional world, literally me against the universe. I do not want any interactions with other 'real people'. I played a lot of RDR1 online and the constant chatter from people, playing their awful music, eating (disgusting) whilst wearing a mic. It was too much. I'm not in the game to make friends. I'm not there for a bit of company. I'm playing it to escape.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Regarding increasing bounties on players and publishing a player bounty board - all bounties on players or just those gained from attacking players? Players gaining bounties for NPC activities may have no interest whatsoever in PvP. Also noting that some players oppose treating crimes against players and NPCs differently.
Any such system would need to indicate which platform the player was on, whether they were playing at the moment, if playing their current game mode and their current location (as finding a specific player not friended is "challenging" in this game). That's before considering the block feature and menu exit.
Any such system would need to indicate which platform the player was on, whether they were playing at the moment, if playing their current game mode and their current location (as finding a specific player not friended is "challenging" in this game). That's before considering the block feature and menu exit.
Not intentionally fuelling no
However your position the E
So for those who wanted solo mode, solo mode remained in excellent condition. The problem is that the open mode is cropped lengthwise and across. No one forces solo players to go play an open game. Fans of open mode are asking for improvements, polishing and maybe changes to some mechanics in open mode. Why does someone always made sure that the open players are trying to find a solo player?
Its a false choice if the other party wins regardless because they pull the plug. By that logic any conflict in open is meaningless because its outcome can be negated at any time.
Shared, but not equal- players are the only real danger in the game. Its a choice not to face that danger, just as it is to entertain it.
This does not explain why its OK to waste another time- its ironic people go on about griefing, and yet menu logging, clogging etc is juts the same, since its annulling any work the other party has done. Network problems do happen, but when its a consistent pattern its clear its being abused. to the detriment of others.
Robert I really like you. Your analytical knowledge is frightening hehe. But you miss the overall point.
It's not about what we have and how we can fix it. It's not about suggestion and debate.
It's about 2 profoundly different concepts about the future of what's to me the best game ever made.
in its current format it'll plod along niche little known unlike wow.
And long may that continue I say....
No suggestions no nothing..just saying as above heh
It's not about what we have and how we can fix it. It's not about suggestion and debate.
It's about 2 profoundly different concepts about the future of what's to me the best game ever made.
in its current format it'll plod along niche little known unlike wow.
And long may that continue I say....
No suggestions no nothing..just saying as above heh
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Playing in Open at all is a choice made by each player (that can play in multi-player) - and, while players may choose to interact in Open, any player may retract their consent regarding the interaction at any time. Any player / player conflict in Open occurs because each "side" consents to it.
If "meaning" is only given to player / player conflict when participants are forced to see it through to a conclusion (and may not have wanted it in the first place) then I'd suggest that this game does not satisfy that requirement nor, given Frontier's stance on menu exit being acceptable at any time, is it designed to.
For some, not for all. Frontier set the challenge posed by the game - players may provide an optional extra level of challenge for those who want it.
Any time spent by a player working up to an encounter with another player is their own choice to potentially waste - as the other player does not require to play along.
Last edited:
OK. These are figurative expressions. Products made with an axe are usually rough, without attention to detail. Well, products created with the help of "high technologies"...I think it is not necessary to explain how they differ from clumsy work.
And with the help of words, we try to convey not the words themselves, but the essence of our thoughts.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is indeed about two fundamentally different concepts - and Frontier set their course over seven-and-a-half years ago and haven't deviated from it in relation to the optionality of other players in their game where all players have always been offered the ability to both experience and affect a single shared galaxy state.
It can be argued that one of the concepts is a quite different game - a game that Frontier consciously chose not to design, pitch, develop or release.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Many players would like changes to Open - as all players bought a game that offers it as an option (subject to being able to play in multi-player) - and some of those changes are diametrically opposed.
While Open is the only open game mode with an unlimited population all players have a potential interest in how it may be changed. If changes towards the PvP play-style are wanted then maybe suggesting the addition of an Open-PvP mode would be more successful - as players who eschew PvP would still have regular Open.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Blocking a player from ones game is a boolean operation - it's unconditional and controlled by each player and is so simple that it doesn't require a high-tech approach.
If what is being suggested is a block feature that is able to be circumvented in particular situations then I doubt that such a variant would meet the requirement that led to the inclusion of the block feature in the design in the first place.
I would welcome any way to change the open regime constructively and fairly. Its deeper processing and polishing.
I was just referring to its simplicity ("clumsy axe work"). I just suggest to approach this function in more detail and difficult (High technology). That there would be no possibility of these bypasses and abuse.
If you like being alone, like feeling like the only pioneer in the galaxy, then you probably play a solo game, right?
This thread has gone off track some time ago: it was about how to improve PvP content in the game, so I don''t see why it interests PVE players (NO OFFENCE INTENDED).
Any useful suggestione for PvP content?
I'll put something in the ring: increase bounties on players and publish a galaxy-wide bounty board for PvP bounty hunting.
Any useful suggestione for PvP content?
I'll put something in the ring: increase bounties on players and publish a galaxy-wide bounty board for PvP bounty hunting.