It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[Vedmo]

You didn't answer my questions, you asked one of your own. As for my 'conclusions', sure, I have my own. I was interested in yours. I was asking honest questions structured to hopefully encourage some critical thinking from you, and get your answers. My intent was to talk to you about those answers.

Instead, I'm answered with this intellectually bankrupt trash that assumes the worst of me, attempts to insult me, and still ultimately avoids answering any of my actual questions. So let me tell you what I think happens when gankers have no easy targets.

They stop ganking. No more ganking. Gone. Goodbye. Oh sure, the game will never lack easy targets. The question is a thought experiment meant to highlight, once again, the value of choice and its potential consequences. If enough people choose not to be easy targets, then the easy ones might be so few and far between that the gankers will go find a new hobby. It's possible, but ultimately unlikely, because most people choose a very short-sighted version of self-interest that usually takes a path of least resistance. That's why this call for a PVE-only open mode, and reduced/removed rebuys, even exists in the first place.

That's my opinion on the matter. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you can even prove it, but frankly, I'm quite sick to death of the disingenuous 'partisanship' us-vs-them mentality, I'm sick to death of the value judgements and assumptions, and I'm sick to death of irrational and emotional knee-jerk reactions like the one you just dribbled out of your keyboard. I'm going to put you on ignore now, and stick to talking to people that don't jump the shark at the first sign of resistance to their own ideas. You know, like mature adults.

I'm not a part of any side, nor do I think I am fighting for a side here, and it wasn't an emotional response. It was my honest opinion of what would happen if all the explorers became unkillable.

I think we would have big threads complaining that the well defended explorers aren't fighting back, but just continue to run away.

I don't think I've taken you lightly or gone low in this discussion at all, and I absolutely did answer your question. I quoted it, restated in my own words the part I was responding to in hopes of making sure I understood it and we were on the same page, then answered it.

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

Maybe this has been mentioned elsewhere but has anyone suggested a PvP flag system for private groups?

Solo is you vs. NPCs only, you have the option to set or not set the "Report Crimes Against Me" option in your ship.
Open is you vs. NPCs and PCs and you have the option to set or not set the "Report Crimes Against Me" option in your ship.

If FD were to implement private group control over a PvP flag and possibly "Report Crimes Against Me" option it would allow private group administrators the ability to differentiate groups to the playstyles that people want. Open wouldn't change but when you join a private group you would know what kind of playstyle would be allowed, private groups could even have multiple versions of the same group.

 

[Mohrgan]

You didn't answer my questions, you asked one of your own. As for my 'conclusions', sure, I have my own. I was interested in yours. I was asking honest questions structured to hopefully encourage some critical thinking from you, and get your answers. My intent was to talk to you about those answers.

Instead, I'm answered with this intellectually bankrupt trash that assumes the worst of me, attempts to insult me, and still ultimately avoids answering any of my actual questions. So let me tell you what I think happens when gankers have no easy targets.

They stop ganking. No more ganking. Gone. Goodbye. Oh sure, the game will never lack easy targets. The question is a thought experiment meant to highlight, once again, the value of choice and its potential consequences. If enough people choose not to be easy targets, then the easy ones might be so few and far between that the gankers will go find a new hobby. It's possible, but ultimately unlikely, because most people choose a very short-sighted version of self-interest that usually takes a path of least resistance. That's why this call for a PVE-only open mode, and reduced/removed rebuys, even exists in the first place.

That's my opinion on the matter. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you can even prove it, but frankly, I'm quite sick to death of the disingenuous 'partisanship' us-vs-them mentality, I'm sick to death of the value judgements and assumptions, and I'm sick to death of irrational and emotional knee-jerk reactions like the one you just dribbled out of your keyboard. I'm going to put you on ignore now, and stick to talking to people that don't jump the shark at the first sign of resistance to their own ideas. You know, like mature adults.

There is no reason for any of this. Let the gankers gank, and let everyone else do what they do. Dwelling on the notion that other people have differing goals to yours is the problem here. Weaponless explorers have no bearing on your game. If you find one, blow it up. Who cares? But, to insist that every player needs to out fit with your view point in mind is nuts.

We have the Modes for this very reason. I want an everyday ship that can spit out a buggy, scoop fuel, take advantage of thermal weapons, and carry some cargo. That ship, although outfitted for combat, would be toast against a dedicated PvP Build. I recognize this, and fly in the appropriate environment.

I would like to point out that all of the complaints listed in your 4th paragraph, you seem to be violating. Your partisanship towards open is apparent. You are making values judgements on other player's builds. Your variation on 'git gud' is just another knee-jerk reaction that you fail to recognize, because you are making it. Ignoring a poster that doesn't meet your standards isn't displaying a whole lot of maturity either.

 

[Wrecked]

Because I think it's a stupid idea and I like this game enough to say that when I think it is stupid idea then I will do so. Sure nobody is going to force me to play in that mode. So I will have to miss out on meeting with my player faction members because they choose to play in that mode and I don't? So if I am to enjoy time with them (people from my time zone are relatively rare compared to northern hemisphere types) I need to choose this Open-PVE rubbish, or do I *force* them to pick Open?

I am only one person and as you will well know, I have little to no say as to what and how this game's direction goes. I'm only along for the ride. And when that ride is no longer in a direction I want to go, I will get off. And for people like you, the loss of someone like me is no consequence.

Does everyone in your player faction already play in Open only (no private group)?

Are you the leader of this group (how would you force them to pick Open)?

If you are the leader, are you making these people all play in Open currently and how are you doing that?

Why would you think an Open PVE mode would change the current mode everyone you currently play with chooses?

If you had to chose one... Dog or Cat as a pet (this is really the most important question)?

 

[Wrecked]

Well, in a sense they already have been nerfed. FD have boosted the thrusters magically when near planets to make handling high-G planets easier. In a surprising turn of events, all the immersion-lords have absolutely zero problems with that. Who would have thought!

Hey, when you make a game with faster than light travel, anything else you want to do is completely on the table because future!

 

[Rampant]

How does one guarantee not to be engaged in PvP, ever, in Open?
.

One cannot guarantee it. We all know that it would be impossible to guarantee such a thing.
Frankly, anyone giving this guarantee is either being deliberately dishonest or doesn't fully appreciate the implications of that guarantee.
It also has to be queried whether that guarantee comes with "conditions" such as "you must never go to a CG" and "you must never travel to an engineer in Open".

What sayest the guarantor?

 

[Rampant]

That's when you reply to them with, "haha, git gud, scrub", because then you'll be winning. That is how you know you're winning, you know? Because everyone is complaining about you.

That's some messed up definition of winning - particularly for people who play this game non-competitively and, in fact even quite the opposite to boot - yearning for a collaboration rather than a competition.

 

[Rampant]

You didn't answer my questions, you asked one of your own. As for my 'conclusions', sure, I have my own. I was interested in yours. I was asking honest questions structured to hopefully encourage some critical thinking from you, and get your answers. My intent was to talk to you about those answers.

Instead, I'm answered with this intellectually bankrupt trash that assumes the worst of me, attempts to insult me, and still ultimately avoids answering any of my actual questions. So let me tell you what I think happens when gankers have no easy targets.

They stop ganking. No more ganking. Gone. Goodbye. Oh sure, the game will never lack easy targets. The question is a thought experiment meant to highlight, once again, the value of choice and its potential consequences. If enough people choose not to be easy targets, then the easy ones might be so few and far between that the gankers will go find a new hobby. It's possible, but ultimately unlikely, because most people choose a very short-sighted version of self-interest that usually takes a path of least resistance. That's why this call for a PVE-only open mode, and reduced/removed rebuys, even exists in the first place.

That's my opinion on the matter. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you can even prove it, but frankly, I'm quite sick to death of the disingenuous 'partisanship' us-vs-them mentality, I'm sick to death of the value judgements and assumptions, and I'm sick to death of irrational and emotional knee-jerk reactions like the one you just dribbled out of your keyboard. I'm going to put you on ignore now, and stick to talking to people that don't jump the shark at the first sign of resistance to their own ideas. You know, like mature adults.

Quick straw poll please, thread subscribers...

Does the quoted post above look like the work of a mature adult, or the work of somebody who is throwing insults out the cot with their teddies?
I draw particular attention to the putting someone on ignore before remarking "like mature adults".



Back on topic - I, personally, never think about opinions of even the most well known poster on any particular topic as "us-vs-them mentality". It is easy to tag, label, classify, categorise individuals in such a way as you might tend to imagine that you know what they might post on many topics to hit these boards. Hell, I might even be one of those that has been categorised in such a way. Probably am.

From my own perspective, I don't classify individuals in that way, because I know that it is the individual opinions on each topic that is the driver and more often than not each individual has a more nuanced opinion that is simply that - a single opinion, that, together with other opinions makes the individual. Rather than the other way around - that you think you know the individual's overall character (or agenda) that you ascribe that as a label and imagine that the single opinions are driven by the overall. That to me isn't the right way around. Single topic opinions are king. Not the label you ascribe.
Plus - I would *never* put someone on ignore - this way leads to echo chambers where truth and balance are never present. I *especially* wouldn't put somebody who has opposing views on ignore - it is the opposing opinion that matters most and what makes discussion so *valuable*.


Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Chaparral]

So the OP is not about players, not about play styles, not about how to outfit to avoid gankage. The OP is about the built in penalty for socializers. It is a critique of FDEV's design model, and a call for an update to improve participation in open.

It is curious that gankers want to preserve the penalties as they are. It seems that they prefer greater penalties for fewer targets rather than lower penalties with more targets. So I guess "quality suffering" is better than "quantity suffering".

Then there are the "the game is perfect don't change it" people. I suppose they are really burned that Robigo exists, and Void Opals are a thing. They probably are in disbelief that they game is more popular now than it has been for many many months. Either that, or they pout in disgust with how these whippersnappers have it so easy these days. These people tend to carry on with their special builds for explorer survival, and usually end up with some veiled "you suck at the game" reference.

There are always people that advocate for a PVE open, which would be great, but doesn't jive with FDEV's concerns for the PVE folks.

It would be nice to read actual commentary about the death penalty status. Is it too severe? Not severe enough? What are your ideas on how to modify it if it should be modified?

 

[Zaphod Hawke]

So the OP is not about players, not about play styles, not about how to outfit to avoid gankage. The OP is about the built in penalty for socializers. It is a critique of FDEV's design model, and a call for an update to improve participation in open.

It is curious that gankers want to preserve the penalties as they are. It seems that they prefer greater penalties for fewer targets rather than lower penalties with more targets. So I guess "quality suffering" is better than "quantity suffering".

Then there are the "the game is perfect don't change it" people. I suppose they are really burned that Robigo exists, and Void Opals are a thing. They probably are in disbelief that they game is more popular now than it has been for many many months. Either that, or they pout in disgust with how these whippersnappers have it so easy these days. These people tend to carry on with their special builds for explorer survival, and usually end up with some veiled "you suck at the game" reference.

There are always people that advocate for a PVE open, which would be great, but doesn't jive with FDEV's concerns for the PVE folks.

It would be nice to read actual commentary about the death penalty status. Is it too severe? Not severe enough? What are your ideas on how to modify it if it should be modified?

Then there are the people who think it was mostly ruined by engineers, and then further stomped into the ground by the great whinge appeasement of 3304, otherwise known as C&P.

Your contribution has been noted.

 

[AP Birdman]

So the OP is not about players, not about play styles, not about how to outfit to avoid gankage. The OP is about the built in penalty for socializers. It is a critique of FDEV's design model, and a call for an update to improve participation in open.

It is curious that gankers want to preserve the penalties as they are. It seems that they prefer greater penalties for fewer targets rather than lower penalties with more targets. So I guess "quality suffering" is better than "quantity suffering".

Then there are the "the game is perfect don't change it" people. I suppose they are really burned that Robigo exists, and Void Opals are a thing. They probably are in disbelief that they game is more popular now than it has been for many many months. Either that, or they pout in disgust with how these whippersnappers have it so easy these days. These people tend to carry on with their special builds for explorer survival, and usually end up with some veiled "you suck at the game" reference.

There are always people that advocate for a PVE open, which would be great, but doesn't jive with FDEV's concerns for the PVE folks.

It would be nice to read actual commentary about the death penalty status. Is it too severe? Not severe enough? What are your ideas on how to modify it if it should be modified?

Are you surprised that this thread, just like all the others like it, have turned into, yet another, pve-ers vs pvpers argument?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

. In a surprising turn of events, all the immersion-lords have absolutely zero problems with that. Who would have thought!

You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about players who put value in verisimilitude.
But either way you are wrong it is just that fight was fought and lost a long time ago.
There are plenty of players who liked it when planets had real teeth. Docking too was hairy back in the day esp when having to boost in when silent running but someone eyeballed you. Plenty of us argued against making it safe.

 

[Lazuras Poe]

I play for the thrill!
The challenge!
The immersion!
The depth of engineered builds!
Pew pew to the max!
Everything needs to be harder!
Moor challenge!

Hold on while i chase down and destroy these evil unarmed non combatants that do not pose any challenge, threat or risk whatsoever...

Lol. You guys crack me up.

Personally, FD should just do away with pvp all together and focus on exploration.

Thats where everybody is at.

Contain pvp to Arena. Flesh out well balanced pvp mechanics there as a hologram style drop in out from anywhere.
Rebalance all the pve, ships weapons and engineering and pve npcs for pve and coop play.

Put more content, narrative and alien puzzles out in deep space with more environmental hazards for exciting exploration.

Get rid of the modes.

 

[voidwalker]

There is no reason for any of this. Let the gankers gank, and let everyone else do what they do. Dwelling on the notion that other people have differing goals to yours is the problem here. Weaponless explorers have no bearing on your game. If you find one, blow it up. Who cares? But, to insist that every player needs to out fit with your view point in mind is nuts.

We have the Modes for this very reason. I want an everyday ship that can spit out a buggy, scoop fuel, take advantage of thermal weapons, and carry some cargo. That ship, although outfitted for combat, would be toast against a dedicated PvP Build. I recognize this, and fly in the appropriate environment.

I would like to point out that all of the complaints listed in your 4th paragraph, you seem to be violating. Your partisanship towards open is apparent. You are making values judgements on other player's builds. Your variation on 'git gud' is just another knee-jerk reaction that you fail to recognize, because you are making it. Ignoring a poster that doesn't meet your standards isn't displaying a whole lot of maturity either.

You, and others, seem to be adding me to a certain crowd without actually reading what I'm saying.

I don't care what mode people play in, and I don't care how they build their ships. My only point, and the only one I have focused on, is that it's about CHOICE. The fact is, how you choose to build your ship will have consequences based on how you choose to play the game, and making certain choices in open increases the risk of being engaged and destroyed by players. I'm not putting people on ignore because they don't meet 'my standards', I'm putting them on ignore because they are clearly ignoring me, be it intentionally or otherwise, and replying to me with posts like yours that demonstrate a complete and utter failure to address anything I've actually said in this thread. I'm going to ignore you, too, because now, not only are you repeating said behaviour, but your projecting it onto me. There is not one single thing in that post that you've accused me of that you can actually demonstrate that I have done without wilful ignorance of the things I have said in my posts up to this point, all of which has been entirely in support of free choice and playing the way people want to.

Frankly, I have absolutely zero obligation to humour the kind of intellectual bankruptcy I've so far tolerated for the sake of clarifying my positions, which I've only done under the assumption that people will actually read and pay attention. It's clear, by this post I'm quoting, that you have no interest in actually understanding my point. I would call that a shame, but I'm starting to expect this kind of behaviour from this forum.

 

[CMDR Plexus Ironrot]

I play for the thrill!
The challenge!
The immersion!
The depth of engineered builds!
Pew pew to the max!
Everything needs to be harder!
Moor challenge!

Hold on while i chase down and destroy these evil unarmed non combatants that do not pose any challenge, threat or risk whatsoever...

Lol. You guys crack me up.

Personally, FD should just do away with pvp all together and focus on exploration.

Thats where everybody is at.

Contain pvp to Arena. Flesh out well balanced pvp mechanics there as a hologram style drop in out from anywhere.
Rebalance all the pve, ships weapons and engineering and pve npcs for pve and coop play.

Put more content, narrative and alien puzzles out in deep space with more environmental hazards for exciting exploration.

Get rid of the modes.

I all for more exploration goodies but why waste such a excellent flight model and combat systems? Exploration only goes so far. Really anything in games to be honest here. PvP is actually fun with the right people. And really if exploration is your cup of tea then your odds of combat are slim to non in normal situations. (excluding DW in this case) Elite has a amazing combat system and flight model and it’s great tbh. One of the big reasons I play elite.

To me what you are saying sounds boring to me minus the excitement of making my own discovery....Man to be honest Elites combat system and flight model is what keeps me playing....wow I never really thought about it....... also builds are a big part too

 

[voidwalker]

One cannot guarantee it. We all know that it would be impossible to guarantee such a thing.
Frankly, anyone giving this guarantee is either being deliberately dishonest or doesn't fully appreciate the implications of that guarantee.
It also has to be queried whether that guarantee comes with "conditions" such as "you must never go to a CG" and "you must never travel to an engineer in Open".

What sayest the guarantor?

"One cannot guarantee it" says the one who never tried it, never developed the simple skills that do guarantee it. And that's fine, that's your choice, but never say never. When I don't want PVP, I avoid it. Easily. All without leaving open.

That's some messed up definition of winning - particularly for people who play this game non-competitively and, in fact even quite the opposite to boot - yearning for a collaboration rather than a competition.

Winning is merely completing your objectives. There are millions of games out there, many of which are non-competitive, and yet, you can win those. So assuming that there MUST be some kind of competition in order for there to be a winner is fallacy number 2 in your post. Fallacy number 1 is less of a fallacy, more of a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of my posts and replies to others.

Look at this guy, he's bad. He's so bad.

Now look at me. I'm so virtuous. I'd never behave in this way that I just condemned.

You are the epitome of irrelevance in my life. After I read your first reply to me, out of the above three, I was keen to show you, in game, exactly how to avoid PVP. Then I read your second, which was intellectually dishonest by virtue of contradicting, without actually refuting, a point I made that you apparently missed. I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assumed it wasn't intentional.

Then I read your third post, and bully for you, don't you just love to have your cake and eat it too?

This is what a mature adult does. When he or she encounters somebody that has no interest in seeing things from an alternative perspective, constantly shifting the goal posts and engaging in other fallacies that avoid said perspective, and behave in a generally infuriating manner like addressing the person rather than the arguments, he or she will, instead of attempting to continue to converse with said person, end the conversation and move on with their life, to talk to people who are more capable of considering ideas that oppose their own. I must confess, I'm not as mature as I'd like to be. Real maturity would have been putting you on ignore without giving your posts the time of day, after reading that last one. Alas, my weakness is hubris.

But my strength is, I can see and accept my own personal flaws just fine, and don't need carebear scrubs to point them out to me. Goodbye.

 

[Dirtbird]

Does everyone in your player faction already play in Open only (no private group)?

Are you the leader of this group (how would you force them to pick Open)?

If you are the leader, are you making these people all play in Open currently and how are you doing that?

Why would you think an Open PVE mode would change the current mode everyone you currently play with chooses?

If you had to chose one... Dog or Cat as a pet (this is really the most important question)?

Is there a purpose to this line of rapid fire questioning? Perhaps you are not aware that I am not able to force anyone to pick any mode - there is an element of irony to the statement in my post. I hope most people were able to understand that.

FWIW, we all aready play in Open and I am not able to force anyone to do anything, merely request. In this hypothetical situation, maybe I will switch modes, maybe they will. I think that was alluded to in my post too.

In any case, Open-PvE is a deal breaker for me in that it breaks my suspension of disbelief. That is important to me. If the universe presented by this game breaks enough so that I consider it ridiculous, I will leave. I also explained this in a post a little after the one you quoted.

 

[Jereaca]

"One cannot guarantee it" says the one who never tried it, never developed the simple skills that do guarantee it. And that's fine, that's your choice, but never say never. When I don't want PVP, I avoid it. Easily. All without leaving open.



Winning is merely completing your objectives. There are millions of games out there, many of which are non-competitive, and yet, you can win those. So assuming that there MUST be some kind of competition in order for there to be a winner is fallacy number 2 in your post. Fallacy number 1 is less of a fallacy, more of a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of my posts and replies to others.



You are the epitome of irrelevance in my life. After I read your first reply to me, out of the above three, I was keen to show you, in game, exactly how to avoid PVP. Then I read your second, which was intellectually dishonest by virtue of contradicting, without actually refuting, a point I made that you apparently missed. I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assumed it wasn't intentional.

Then I read your third post, and bully for you, don't you just love to have your cake and eat it too?

This is what a mature adult does. When he or she encounters somebody that has no interest in seeing things from an alternative perspective, constantly shifting the goal posts and engaging in other fallacies that avoid said perspective, and behave in a generally infuriating manner like addressing the person rather than the arguments, he or she will, instead of attempting to continue to converse with said person, end the conversation and move on with their life, to talk to people who are more capable of considering ideas that oppose their own. I must confess, I'm not as mature as I'd like to be. Real maturity would have been putting you on ignore without giving your posts the time of day, after reading that last one. Alas, my weakness is hubris.

But my strength is, I can see and accept my own personal flaws just fine, and don't need carebear scrubs to point them out to me. Goodbye.

I think we will never agree, you seem to be define escaping a PvP encounter as avoiding one. That is not avoiding PvP it is PvP. This is a fundamental difference between our perspectives. What is wrong with Fdev creating a PvE mode? The current PG system is still PvP enabled, just a lower chance of it.

 

[voidwalker]

I think we will never agree, you seem to be define escaping a PvP encounter as avoiding one. That is not avoiding PvP it is PvP. This is a fundamental difference between our perspectives. What is wrong with Fdev creating a PvE mode? The current PG system is still PvP enabled, just a lower chance of it.

What is with all this 'you seem' nonsense? If you want clarity on my position, ask for it, but stop assuming. I NEVER classified escaping PVP as avoiding it, I've classified it as evading, and only loosely, in the context that you're evading direct PVP combat.

Many people, myself included, have explained what's wrong with a PVE-only open mode, in many posts, many times, none of which have actually been directly refuted. I, for one, am not going to repeat myself. Please, try actually reading posts from now on, and stop making assumptions on points you don't understand. Ask for clarity instead.

What I want to know is, why should any players be capable of avoiding conflict with other players at all? I accept that it's possible in the game with PG and Solo, but the only legitimate justification I've seen for that is the peer-to-peer server infrastructure. Not everyone is capable of playing in open due to poor internet or networking conditions. But everything else is a variation of, "because I don't want to," and to that I think, so what?

 

[Lazuras Poe]

I all for more exploration goodies but why waste such a excellent flight model and combat systems? Exploration only goes so far. Really anything in games to be honest here. PvP is actually fun with the right people. And really if exploration is your cup of tea then your odds of combat are slim to non in normal situations. (excluding DW in this case) Elite has a amazing combat system and flight model and it’s great tbh. One of the big reasons I play elite.

To me what you are saying sounds boring to me minus the excitement of making my own discovery....Man to be honest Elites combat system and flight model is what keeps me playing....wow I never really thought about it....... also builds are a big part too

I know right! But hey, FD are trying their best. Well, in so far as your gameplay style and choices are catered for.

Shame about the players that don't want PvP.