Modes Open Mode Balancing Proposal... Open PvE

[Asp Explorer]

Leave it to Mobius apologists to cheapen the struggle of millions of people worldwide in their endless crusade to be bad at a video game.

Not a good look, buddy.

So, please enlighten me here.

What makes you think you are anything other than bad, and a poor bad at that, at a video game? Are you seriously trying to tell other people that you are somehow better than them at video games?

If so - I have a video game* that's very enjoyable and takes a great deal of skill to participate in, and if you feel so inclined to display such utter superiority and humiliate scrubs like me - you are more than welcome to show us who is boss.

*purchase of replacement equipment may be required

Not that it's a jab at you on a personal level of course, but the PvP-Pro-Bro mindset as a whole

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Yea Carebear! Any more insults you want to throw since trolling is all you are well maybe decent at? And For your information, they were not accommodating a "safe space" (oh look another insult) but they DID bend over backwards and give the ability to account ban people like you who feel that THEIR game play is so right that they can lie to get into other PG's just to hunt people they know won't fight back.. because yea we know how you don't want to scratch your ship.



Funny how I never said it wasn't part of the game (as you pointed out) but that it isn't a core part of the game... in that besides blowing a ship up and causing a rebuy screen (just as an NPC opponent would do) what does it effect does it have on the game itself... zippo

My rhetoric? Funny as I'm not the one demanding they change the game for my playstyle.. but yes you have explained.. but again the affect is the same as if an NPC did it... otherwise... ZIPPO...



You've been trying from the start to force people to open cause you need more targets. And in Solo I'd as connected to the BGS and the Universe as anywhere else, just don't see people like you. PG's oh many that extra step was brutal.. I mean asking to join... why would someone make you do such a thing... all that time wasted when I could have been.. oh look that didn't take any time at all and am ingame and having fun. As for the router... all I've ever done is plug mine in.



No PVP isn't it is just something that is there.. it doesn't effect anything that an NPC affects.

And Certain PVPers are the ones who are entitled... Open only, rewards for Open, Buffs for Open, Open affecting PP and the BGS more than PG or Solo does.... that is entitlement... me me me me me grubby wanting.

PVE PG's are finding themselves overflowing.. so some have requested a PVE server... Because you know FDev did say you can play as you like and many people don't like PVP yet they still like to play with others... so it is only fair that they have an opportunity to do that.

As for your "It isn't a slippery slope, it is consitency" horse hockey...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

slippery slope - You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.


Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.


Your "example" was a blatant as all heck slippery slope argument, but nice try in trying to deny it.



OH LOOK!!!! Another insult... now I'm an apologist. Ohhhh and you point out that one of the PG's I am in is Mobius... must mean we are up to dastardly deeds... or you could be saying this because you think your lame attempt is a good attempt at discrediting the group. Yet it is interesting how you say this... where were your comments when ol Edgy was comparing things to Communism and even the Civil War and the fight to end Slavery. *crickets, crickets, crickets* Oh I get it... if a PVP enthusiast want to compare PVP meaning more to the game then just killing to slaves fighting for their freedom against the Confederacy, THEN it is ok... yet I dare to point out a slippery slope fallacy by noting another slippery slope comparison and then suddenly I'm "cheapening the struggle of millions of people worldwide" Though the insulting cheap shot at PVPErs "in their endless crusade to be bad at a video game" was expected sadly. All I did was point out that BOTH were slippery slope fallacies, I didn't compare them to each other, but nice try there. Oh and by the way... I don't cheapen the struggle.. I live it daily ^,^.

Ohwow git gud at forum pvp, this was like having a turret conda fighting my frag FAS, it can only go one way.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

It's way more fun than seal clubbing! The game pays you to do it!




Nothing stopping you from hunting other commanders...that has always been in the game!

There is nothing about CATCHING other commanders in the game is there? Marketing speak gets you guys out every time! LOL!

It pays you credits they are useless, seal clubbing pays with Himalayan salt, very rare item.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The point of the image I linked is that it (PvP) was marketed in the advertising as a core feature.

.... just as players in Solo affecting the economy, politics and conflicts of the connected galaxy is contained in the advertising - must make that a core feature too.

 

[Goose4291]

.... just as players in Solo affecting the economy, politics and conflicts of the connected galaxy is contained in the advertising - must make that a core feature too.

Which is what I was saying about broken or ill thought out game mechanics, and a desire to shut down any conversation to redress that by some individuals, even when it becomes something they proceed to moan about.

E.g. The shared assets across all modes concept, while great, was identified early on by those who've played a multiplayer game in the last decade as an exploitable loophole for griefers to 'retreat' to solo/PG when credits are short, so they can fund their griefacondas safely before unleashing them on open again. Those who pointed this out were accused by the usual suspects of having 'an agenda, being 'griefer shills trying to force people into open' and all the other sort of nonsense we see in threads like these by the exact same camp of forum.users who went onto moan about the likes of CODE and SDC doing... exactly what they'd previously argued was okay.

 

[Roybe]

Which is what I was saying about broken or ill thought out game mechanics, and a desire to shut down any conversation to redress that by some individuals, even when it becomes something they proceed to moan about.

E.g. The shared assets across all modes concept, while great, was identified early on by those who've played a multiplayer game in the last decade as an exploitable loophole for griefers to 'retreat' to solo/PG when credits are short, so they can fund their griefacondas safely before unleashing them on open again. Those who pointed this out were accused by the usual suspects of having 'an agenda, being 'griefer shills trying to force people into open' and all the other sort of nonsense we see in threads like these by the exact same camp of forum.users who went onto moan about the likes of CODE and SDC doing... exactly what they'd previously argued was okay.

Playing the wrong game? Stop! Don't like the rules of the game? Stop playing it! You only hurt yourself.

 

[Roybe]

It pays you credits they are useless, seal clubbing pays with Himalayan salt, very rare item.

Meh...salt is salt. Marketing gets people to think it's somehow rare and meaningful!

 

[Goose4291]

Playing the wrong game? Stop!
Don't like the rules of the game? Stop playing it! You only hurt yourself.

I find this quite rich coming from someone who tried to lead a feet stamping protest to demand FDev changed things post first Mobius mockrage over two years ago, yet is still here.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is what I was saying about broken or ill thought out game mechanics, and a desire to shut down any conversation to redress that by some individuals, even when it becomes something they proceed to moan about.

E.g. The shared assets across all modes concept, while great, was identified early on by those who've played a multiplayer game in the last decade as an exploitable loophole for griefers to 'retreat' to solo/PG when credits are short, so they can fund their griefacondas safely before unleashing them on open again. Those who pointed this out were accused by the usual suspects of having 'an agenda, being 'griefer shills trying to force people into open' and all the other sort of nonsense we see in threads like these by the exact same camp of forum.users who went onto moan about the likes of CODE and SDC doing... exactly what they'd previously argued was okay.

One is broken and the other isn't? That's a matter of opinion.

There are those who contend that there's no such thing as griefing in this game and that playing in Open means that one has signed up for anything that happens there - players that don't like that experience can play in either of the other game modes.

That some of those who prey on other players only want to play in Open when they are engaged in that past-time is up to them. Everyone gets to make the choice, on a session by session basis, how many players they might meet - some choose poorly, a time or two, others are content with their choices.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I thought we were at rock bottom, but you fellers kept at it, and still managed to go south.

Impressive dedication there.

 

[Komemiute]

Heh, just had an idea. Imagina that every time a player-pirate kills a player-trader, the player-trader gets this little window.

[ Was the kill justified? [] Yes [] No ]

If the player-trader picks "[] No" the player-pirate will never see the player-trader again. Automatically.
Now- wouldn't that make Players a bit more cautious with their kills?

There's plenty of forum posts with people happy of a violent interaction as long as that was Roleplayed...

DISCLAIMER: The titles Pirate and Trader are just for explanation sake, and not aimed at anyone. I cuold have written Griefer/Carebear or whatever/shmatever...

 

[tolm]

So here's a thought:

Why is being attacked by a player "harassment" (despite you knowing that you clicked on open) but not an NPC?

As long as you're feeling entitled to a PvE-only mode that "should" have been in the game since launch, why not ask for what you really want and include that all hostile NPCs be removed so that you can cr/hr in your shieldless Cutters in total peace?

There’s a certain “plateau” as to how tough an NPC will be, what engineering (if any) they have, etc. Players, on the other hand, can vary wildly resulting in two people in the “same” ship being completely outmatched. What’s more, the game will throw NPC pirates at you based on the level of the mission you’re doing, along with the occasional “random” encounter if you are carrying cargo or have a bounty on your head. Players don’t make any such distinction so you can be interdicted / attacked by a completely overpowering opponent for no reason other than flying from A to B.

This is why I advocate certain situations - such as (specific?) missions, carrying (a particular type of?) cargo or having a bounty on your head making you a “viable target” for other Pilots Federation pilots (i.e. players) with any murders occurring outside of those scenarios requiring the rebuy to be paid by the murderer (increased bounty amount) instead of the victim. I would further suggest a Pilots Federation “Most Wanted” list at each station - for CMDRs with such a bounty on their head who are nearby - along with Assassination missions which give players regular information on the targets location so some old school vigilante justice can be handed out.

That would instantly make random murder less of an annoyance for victims (although it would still not be great) and would allow FD to choose which Community Goals were “open season PvP” by simply controlling whether the required goods to be delivered made you a “viable target” or not. It would also allow outmatched Pilots to jettison their cargo for a player pirate - giving the pirate what they wanted but also ceasing to be a “viable target” and hence protected against rebuy if the pirate decides to finish them off anyway.

For players wanting to play as a criminal, this simply means they need to choose their targets more carefully or - to be honest - I could see the “Most Wanted” boards becoming a bit of a badge of honour, especially if the bounties increase based on how long the player has been “on the run” ... maybe even reward players who evade capture (in game, not offline!) in some way ... decals, etc?

That would seem to address (at least some of) the negative aspects of “griefing” whilst also introducing some interesting gameplay for both law abiding and criminal players.

 

[SMcA]

Almost, just let me know who you are planning to undermine and I will gladly help you.

I would have to find out what this PP is about, first. But I said “almost” then I remembered that I could unsubscribe from the Modes of Elite sub forum.

That doesn’t seem to be working for this thread. I got the email saying that there was another reply. [haha]

 

[Mouse]

I'm still waiting for you to explain why your request for a tailored version of open is valid but no one else's is.

Comprehension issues? One side people are demanding changes for greedy reasons...forcing people to be targets, minimizing others' gameplay while buffing their own, etc.. On the other side. You have one request for an environment that should have been added to the game but wasn't, especially since PG's have been formed to try to take up this slack but are overflowing. Understand it now? One request for a cooperative mode, accessible from the start where people don't have to ask permission to join, just like open, offering the same gameplay chances of meeting utter strangers, just without PVP. PVErs do not begrudge PVPers having Open, why do PVPers HATE the idea that those who don't like to PVP want an equal mode? PVErs are not trying to take away from PVPers unlike what some PVPers want to take away from PVErs...

The point of the image I linked is that it (PvP) was marketed in the advertising as a core feature.



No, but you are the one vehemently defending against peoples efforts to highlight broken mechanics and issues with gameloops that ruin the experience for others in a shared multiplayer gameworld.

As to the rest of your post... I think you need a little time away from your computer in the real world. A nice walk, perhaps?

Will have to disagree Goose as it was marketed as an ability, not as a core mechanic. And I am defending the game from those who bought the game, realized it was not what they wanted and instead of going on to a different game, decided to ruin it for everyone else by demanding changes to suit them and them only.

And "as to the rest of my post" I was fine and still am. I love it how when I point out others' hypocrisy and all.. I am told I am being "too excitable". Nope, all I am doing is pointing out the veiled insults, bad attempts at snide comments, and strangely calling out PVErs for something they didn't do while being suspiciously silent when a PVP advocate actually did it.

 

[Sylveria]

Comprehension issues? One side people are demanding changes for greedy reasons...forcing people to be targets, minimizing others' gameplay while buffing their own, etc.. On the other side. You have one request for an environment that should have been added to the game but wasn't, especially since PG's have been formed to try to take up this slack but are overflowing. Understand it now? One request for a cooperative mode, accessible from the start where people don't have to ask permission to join, just like open, offering the same gameplay chances of meeting utter strangers, just without PVP. PVErs do not begrudge PVPers having Open, why do PVPers HATE the idea that those who don't like to PVP want an equal mode? PVErs are not trying to take away from PVPers unlike what some PVPers want to take away from PVErs...

I'd offer Cubeo Bacon... but you already have it aplenty

It's a pretty accurate summary- in essence, PvPer's insisting (and some could say "demanding") that PG/Solo have absolutely no influence while then also insisting that PvEr's are somehow "demanding" their own little "safe space", when in actuality PG's is nothing of the sort and Solo is by default non-PvP by design. (being non-multiplayer)

I'd also like to add that I find it amusing that some who argue for their own "liberty" in respect to Open and PvP by default seem strongly motivated to keep "liberty" from those who wish to PvE and not PvP in Open... just imagine what this would look like in reverse. I don't think PvEr's would be so strongly motivated to disallow such from PvP players. (hence the suggestion of a flagging system for those who wish to engage each other)

If I were completely "against" PvP- I'd propose they just remove PvP altogether and no flagging... it appears that some seem to forget this one little aspect of the proposal is what balances it.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I must say. This is the first time in my whole gaming career I have ever come across a group of people. That doesnt mind attacking another group of people. But doesnt want to be stopped themselves by simple attack and defend mechanics.

While, all at the same time labeling people a griefer.

What a time to be alive.

 

[Sylveria]

I must say. This is the first time in my whole gaming career I have ever come across a group of people. That doesnt mind attacking another group of people. But doesnt want to be stopped themselves by simple attack and defend mechanics.

While, all at the same time labeling people a griefer.

What a time to be alive.

I'm not sure what relevance your statement has in my thread proposing Open PvE utilizing a flagging system... but I'm quite sure you're amused with yourself for making it, nonetheless.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I must say. This is the first time in my whole gaming career I have ever come across a group of people. That doesnt mind attacking another group of people. But doesnt want to be stopped themselves by simple attack and defend mechanics.

While, all at the same time labeling people a griefer.

What a time to be alive.

You're projecting darling. I never attacked any other player in any shape or form.

I'm a nice guy.

 

[Jockey79]

I must say. This is the first time in my whole gaming career I have ever come across a group of people. That doesnt mind attacking another group of people. But doesnt want to be stopped themselves by simple attack and defend mechanics.

While, all at the same time labeling people a griefer.

What a time to be alive.

I've only ever been attacked here.
Be it once in open by someone who just talked with me for 10 minutes and indirectly twice and pushed out of my system.

I just potter about, doing my own thing, ignoring the rest of you exist.
And that is the way I want to keep it.

You can do what you want in open, I can do what I want in the mode I choose that session.

Yet somehow, you demand to ruin my game play because I don't want to play with you.

 

[Mouse]

I'd offer Cubeo Bacon... but you already have it aplenty

It's a pretty accurate summary- in essence, PvPer's insisting (and some could say "demanding") that PG/Solo have absolutely no influence while then also insisting that PvEr's are somehow "demanding" their own little "safe space", when in actuality PG's is nothing of the sort and Solo is by default non-PvP by design. (being non-multiplayer)

I'd also like to add that I find it amusing that some who argue for their own "liberty" in respect to Open and PvP by default seem strongly motivated to keep "liberty" from those who wish to PvE and not PvP in Open... just imagine what this would look like in reverse. I don't think PvEr's would be so strongly motivated to disallow such from PvP players. (hence the suggestion of a flagging system for those who wish to engage each other)

If I were completely "against" PvP- I'd propose they just remove PvP altogether and no flagging... it appears that some seem to forget this one little aspect of the proposal is what balances it.

Good points, and since I can't rep you at the moment I will share some of my bacon with you ^,^

+ 1000 Cubeo Razorback Bacon.

I must say. This is the first time in my whole gaming career I have ever come across a group of people. That doesnt mind attacking another group of people. But doesnt want to be stopped themselves by simple attack and defend mechanics.

While, all at the same time labeling people a griefer.

What a time to be alive.

Says the one who's been antagonistic and attacking from the start while stating "I'm doing this for your own good"