There's no way to make the game "good" for piracy without forcing role play on players who don't want to participate in role play, and if you force role play on someone, well it's no longer role play for them, you are essentially forcing that player to play the way you want them to play, not the way they want to play. It's not an argument or point that can be won.
Open Play, Gankers and Notoriety
- Thread starter CardioTherapy
- Start date
There's no way to make the game "good" for piracy without forcing role play on players who don't want to participate in role play, and if you force role play on someone, well it's no longer role play for them, you are essentially forcing that player to play the way you want them to play, not the way they want to play. It's not an argument or point that can be won.
you seem to have misunderstood my point from the very beginning then, because this is pretty much what I've been saying... I thought something fishy was going on.
Sometimes the colours around the name letters confuse me and I reply to the wrong poster, forgive me if I have made that mistake here, it's likely we are agreeing and I didn't notice the different poster name.
I suspect what happened is the debate on this particular topic is so polarised, and everyone on either side of the discussion seems to base their entire argument on the false premise that the other side are the root of the problem, that it becomes difficult to process a view that doesn't fit one of these two stereotypes*. I'm guessing you read part of my post then made a series of assumptions (not blaming you, I also do that from time to time).
Edit, for clarity and because I like typing.
*In this case the stereotypes are:
Stereotype A = Angry at gankers, blames them for the lack of structured multiplayer. Thinks Open should have some Mobius-esque rules and/or that PvP players should be punished. Sometimes claims they'd be happy to participate in consensual RP-friendly PvP if certain ephemeral circumstances were met but that gankers make it impossible.
Stereotype B = Angry at solo/PG players, blames them for the lack of structured multiplayer. Thinks Open should be mandatory and/or that combat loggers should be punished. Sometimes claims they try to participate in consensual RP-friendly PvP based on an intrinsic honour code but that solo players and combat loggers make it impossible.
I am neither angry at gankers nor solo players, I blame Frontier for the lack of structured multiplayer. I think the modes as they currently exist are about as good as we can reasonably hope for given the wide and often irreconcilable preferences of the playerbase. I do PvP and am fully aware that its sustainability as a pastime relies on the tacit agreement of both parties. The most I wish for in this area would be the addition of mechanical stakes for PvP encounters beyond insurance costs, but Frontier has made little effort to create such structure.
Edit, for clarity and because I like typing.
*In this case the stereotypes are:
Stereotype A = Angry at gankers, blames them for the lack of structured multiplayer. Thinks Open should have some Mobius-esque rules and/or that PvP players should be punished. Sometimes claims they'd be happy to participate in consensual RP-friendly PvP if certain ephemeral circumstances were met but that gankers make it impossible.
Stereotype B = Angry at solo/PG players, blames them for the lack of structured multiplayer. Thinks Open should be mandatory and/or that combat loggers should be punished. Sometimes claims they try to participate in consensual RP-friendly PvP based on an intrinsic honour code but that solo players and combat loggers make it impossible.
I am neither angry at gankers nor solo players, I blame Frontier for the lack of structured multiplayer. I think the modes as they currently exist are about as good as we can reasonably hope for given the wide and often irreconcilable preferences of the playerbase. I do PvP and am fully aware that its sustainability as a pastime relies on the tacit agreement of both parties. The most I wish for in this area would be the addition of mechanical stakes for PvP encounters beyond insurance costs, but Frontier has made little effort to create such structure.
Last edited:
@Fake Newts, et al, when there are game mechanics discussions to be had that may alter or resolve the problems with piracy as a whole, then maybe all sides can come to the table and talk about it, but until then it seems you are right that the issue is both polarized and complicated because deep down, we all want something different, and I mean that in the sense of human beings as a whole as well as the sub group of them that play the game. There are no two people on this entire planet than have exactly the same desires/expectations/goals & willingness to compromise.
However, without FDev, that conversation and any game mechanics that may result from it will never come to pass.
I am in no way telling you not to argue your case. Argue away. But I will caution you that spending your time and effort where you are more likely to see results may be a better option for you personally and as a player.
However, without FDev, that conversation and any game mechanics that may result from it will never come to pass.
I am in no way telling you not to argue your case. Argue away. But I will caution you that spending your time and effort where you are more likely to see results may be a better option for you personally and as a player.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
How could multi-player be re-structured to bring players with differing expectations of the game together successfully?
Not forgetting that there are those who bought the game with no intention to play among other players - as the modes mean that multi-player itself is an optional extra in this game. Plus the players that cannot play in either of the multi-player game modes, i.e. console players without premium platform access.
I don't think it could, I think it could potentially better cater to all tastes using mode differentiation. I'm not talking about multiplayer being designed better in order to get everyone in Open play. I think there could be more structured multiplayer components for those that want it, both in terms of co-op and PvP.
Both sides of the debate regularly present the idea that the behaviour of the other side is responsible for Elite's 'sub par' emergent multiplayer interactions - I still feel like I'm being misunderstood as having an agenda re. enforcing one mode. I don't care which mode people play; it's completely immaterial to either group's complaints - the multiplayer concerns people have do not stem from a population issue, nor can they be solved by brow-beating the other side into behaving differently.
I'm actually getting a bit frustrated at being so consistently misunderstood, I'm willing to accept it might be my failure in writing but I wish I knew how to express it in such a way that didn't keep getting me pushed into one absurd camp or another. At no point in this thread did I claim I wanted people to be forced together in a single server, in fact from the outset I said the exact opposite (edit: I'm not the OP).
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There is little to no differentiation between the game modes - the choice is to either play alone or play in a PvP-enabled game mode. DBOBE basically ruled out the possibility of an Open-PvE mode (in addition to the existing Open(-PvP) mode) explaining that it would be too much work to remove all possible methods of damaging other players.
What desired forms of "emergent multiplayer interactions" are lacking, noting that "emergent" has often been used as a euphemism for "some form of PvP"? We have Fuel Rats, Hull Seals, the DSSA - all, in my opinion, emergent gameplay.
Mobius and it's rulings against violating its purpose shows that this is possible, within reason. What DBOBE stated feels like a lazy excuse.
PvP structure and stakes are almost entirely lacking. More comprehensive and reliable co-operative missions would be nice. More in-game ways to find like-minded players and start playing with them. Clearer signposting of BGS interactions and Squadron affiliation... for example...
I didn't say the game has no emergent multiplayer and I put 'sub-par' inside quotation marks because it's something both sides of the debate claim as true, while blaming the other. "Open play is just gankers / combat loggers" / "I would play there if .... etc" all these things are predicated on the idea that Elite's multiplayer could be better 'if only the other side would co-operate' (edit: which as multiple people have pointed out multiple times is unworkable).
I believe it could be better through additional mechanics and systems, but in the sentence you quoted it was not a statement of my opinion.
We're being somewhat combative with each other in our replies but I really don't think we actually disagree, except possibly the degree to which Frontier could improve multiplayer structure mechanically speaking.
Last edited:
I can see their point though, Mobius only works on an honesty / honour system and is self-policed. Things get a lot more complicated if you have to design actual systems to generate the same results, how do you handle friendly fire or rams for example, do you turn PvP damage on in combat zones or not, etc. You can see that from Fdev's perspective it's much easier to just let players handle the rules in their own PGs.
Temporarily lock anyone out of the PvE if they are involved in CMDR to CMDR damage of any source. Increase the lock out timer with every offense. If you are offending too frequently, you are banned from that mode. If such damage is detected, give a warning. If it happens a second time, 15 seconds timer, then force-logout, then locked.
People who follow the rules to the letter will not have any problems then. For safe coop, there are still private groups.
Mobius bans both sides if you retaliate btw
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Probably because PvP itself is a completely optional extra in the game and is not designed to be a dominant part of the game - the only game feature that requires PvP is CQC - affecting pan-modal game features does not,
Sounds like the "let me know which players to attack" request that's been made by players who prefer PvP for quite some time.
What forms of "emergent multiplayer interactions" are lacking then?
What if I join the PvE group as a troll and fly in front of a bunch of newbies as they're bounty hunting. They get flagged as offenders and blocked from PvE mode?
The offended one will be locked out for a slight time. If you however do it frequently, your lockout time increases and eventually is permanent.
Intentionally trying to get damaged by another player is an offense in Mobius as well.
I'm responding to you in good faith and I feel like you're being kneejerk and hostile in return, it's a little disappointing especially considering you're a moderator.
PvP is "a completely optional extra" yes, but so are squadrons, so are SRVs, so is Powerplay... what's your point? The fact that it's optional doesn't mean it couldn't be developed and have better integrated systems for people who want it. I don't understand your contention here.
What am I supposed to do with this? What it "sounds like" to you sounds to me like you bringing the baggage from a thousand forum arguments to this post and putting words in my mouth. The BGS isn't very well signposted which affects solo players too, it'd be nice to have a clearer vision of the effects you're having on the gameworld. And relating to the above point, some players like PvP, what's wrong with them having systems to a) find one-another more easily and feel like their activities are integrated into the game world? Not every PvP encounter has to be at someone elses' expense.
I just told you which areas of multiplayer I thought could be improved, these things are of course my opinion and you're entitled to your own.
My point was not to show that there's no solution, but that implementing these solutions in an official game-mode would require work and, probably, active monitoring and intervention from Fdev staff for it to be as effective as Mobius's own rules. It seems unlikely that Frontier will want to spend time working on the complex interactions and rulesets required to make an official version when it's easier to let players self-police.
For clarity, I don't think it could never happen, but I think it's unlikely given from their perspective it 'already works'.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
When not moderating threads, moderators are free to express their opinions just as other forum users are.
How would changes made to more easily identify PvP targets affect players who currently play in Open who have no interest in PvP?
Indeed - as we don't all want the same things - the only thing we're guaranteed to have in common is that we play the same game.
Still putting words in my mouth, I didn't say "more easily identify PvP targets" - that's something you said. Nor did I say it should be a mandatory feature, that's something you assumed based on past baggage I'm guessing. I'm not a game designer, I'm assuming you aren't either - hashing out the specifics of how such systems would work is not something we're going to be able to do in this format.
Absolutely true and I believe there's room in the game, especially considering the modes available, for people with varying tastes to find the kind of experience they're looking for.
The game contains many systems you can choose to engage in or not. Presenting the opinion that PvP, co-op, or whatever branch of multiplayer we happen to be talking about might not be developed to its platonic ideal =/= 'demanding that everyone participate in an activity of my choosing'.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Apologies - it seems that I may have misinterpreted this:
.... unless the suggestion was to have some form of PvP-flag, i.e. a player with it set would be identified as being willing to engage in PvP?
If that were the case then there'd be those who would specifically target those with the flag set to "off" - because they would know for sure that the target didn't want to PvP.