PvP is a waste of resources, just ban them simple.
Open PVE Shadow Banned Server - Could it Work?
- Thread starter Chaparral
- Start date
Sole Hunter
Banned
PvP is a waste of resources, just ban them simple.
PVP is legitimate gameplay, just like exploration.
Cheating is not.
Which part is the cheating part? Are you applying your own rules or Frontiers?
Removing Open would solve all of these problems you know
Despite your apparent assertion to the contrary, private-group/solo/open-pve is not (or would not be) cheating.
What I believe the OP was referring to was replacing the Shadow Ban mode with an Open PvE mode where PvP is disabled. This of course is never going to happen because the shadow ban facility is not what they think it is. At a guess based on how FD have described it, it is probably a read only cache/proxy for the main simulation database that shadow banned players get redirected to combined with adjusted instancing rules so that they do not instance with non-shadow-banned players (in simple terms).
The additional provisions discussed - effectively to disable PvP through smart-rounds/healing-laser type logic would perhaps be a viable option but there are complications with PvP combat in other areas which essentially means that proposed provisions would not be enough to make an enforced PvE mode. It is almost certainly possible to implement but it would probably be too fundamental a shift in overall paradigm where ED as a product is concerned.
I do not believe the OP is suggesting anything that would effectively reward players that have been shadow banned.
TheMegaTurnip
Banned
"Ban PvP because I don't like it" < Thats all im reading here.
Bans should be for those who break the ToS, NOT those who play the game in a way that upsets your delicate sensibilities.
It's that simple.
Bans should be for those who break the ToS, NOT those who play the game in a way that upsets your delicate sensibilities.
It's that simple.
Funny, I am reading > "Put everyone in Open so us PvP'ers have easy targets that won't shoot back"
PvP is a waste of resources, just ban them simple.
Like I said earlier. There is no solution frontier will apply when binary statements like this exist. I get that this is tongue in cheek, but is it?
Not really. There is no balance point. None. People keep arguing this. It does nit matter, fundamentally, because the developer has made it clear they will not simply eject entire subsections of the community because another subsection has a problem with them.
People argue this, safe in the knowledge that it of course will not change, but boy is it just fantastic ammunition to make endless comments that have no constructive value at all.
Frontier made a decison; commanders are still losing their minds over it, years on. Incredible. lol.
Actually the only people who have actually promoted this recently are Frontier, with respect to powerplay. Needless to say, even when the developer tries to better define PVP they are told not to. Which makes this sort of thread a bit of a mockery because when the developer tries to make inroads, how dare they.
So let's be honest. If we distill this to a basic postion? One group wants the other group gone. That's not a compromise, that's not improving mechanics. That's not trying to find a workable solution.
It's an ultimatum; one that started right after the developer confirmed that the game would be online only, 4+ years ago. It's only ever become more obvious over time.
And yet Frontier have continued to indicate Open is still the most active mode. So either they are lying, and I have no idea what they would gain from doing so, or the broader community has long since moved on.
Last edited:
I see it this way:
The PvE group doesn't need the PvP group to play the game yet the PvP group can't survive unless the PvE group inhabits the same mode as them - simple really
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed they have - just as the last Dev statement regarding the relative sizes of the PvP and PvE populations indicated that Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.
Sandro's statement regarding Open being the mode in which the majority of players play also stated that both Solo and Private Groups have significant populations.
We'll see what they do, in time, regarding the Open only Powerplay proposal - bearing in mind that the existing feature list being considered for such a change seems to be extremely short, i.e. Powerplay only (both in the most recent Flash Topic in May and also in March'16 with the hand grenade).
Last edited:
TheMegaTurnip
Banned
Except most PvPers don't shoot those who can't fight back.
It's a shame that the small (and it is) group who kill traders and explorers for a cheap high have dictated the veiw against the whole group, because the majority of us prefer shooting at people who have a decent, or in my case (often), those who will almost definatly kill me. There is more fun overcoming a challenge than going out of your way to get a cheap rise out of people.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Is anyone asking for PvP to be banned from the game?
.... or is the request to have an Open game mode, that enjoys an unlimited population (as Open does), just without PvP?
There is already one mode, that everyone can access, that guarantees no PvP. The other choice can, with care, significantly reduce the likelihood of PvP (with careful membership list vetting).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is a shame - however the well was pretty much poisoned even before launch in that respect, in my opinion.
.... the subsequent "git gud or go Solo / Mobius" comments didn't further the cause either, indeed probably had the opposite effect to what those offering the advice hoped - as many players would seem to have, indeed, chosen to eschew Open in favour of Solo or Private Groups.
Last edited:
I think most of the non-PvP crowd (well I hope so anyway) realise that it is a small minority of the already small minority group of PvP'ers that gank or grief. What is not heard of is the PvP group policing their own so to speak, oh some mention it in passing or as a response to a post like this one but that is it. I don't think it is much of a 'thing' in the game, otherwise the forums would be full of gankers and griefers bitterly complaining that they are being hunted and killed every time they log on.
Robert the developer is trying to make the existing modes better able to encompass players, not further fracture. Squadrons is a fantastic example of this.
No offence but I don't see how continuing to support the drawing of battle lines over a thing the developer is clearly not doing, which is further fracturing the player base, is at all constructive.
An official PVE mode cannot work in the desired way; it cannot offer that cooperation model without fundamentally removing all the compelling aspects of co-op play in the process. C&P will not ever solve PVP either.
People argue this because, apart from some discussion around engaging mechanics, and engineering, this is the only remaining thing Frontier has not stood down from.
I think, friend, we are too far down the road now. It's such a massive commitment to change this in a sophisticated fashion without it potentially causing far more damage than good.
I'd rather see ways the game can handle encounters in a more intelligent manner, than just outright removing groups of people from general population - because.
Last edited:
I am in favour of player-led solutions. It's the main reason I support removing the main advantage of Combat Logging (attacker finds surprising resistance, Clogs & switches to Solo to escape their fate, switches back to open to attack another player).
AFAIK there are probably more PvPers who work to police systems than there are troublemakers. But troublemakers want to be attacked, it is their aim so no, they aren't going to complain about that
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It seems that way - but Squadrons are light on exact detail at this time though - although we know when we should hear more about them.
None taken.
The player-base arrived pre-fractured - there are three ways to play in a game that offers entirely optional PvP. The PvP/PvE schism predates this game.
Are you suggesting that removing PvP removes all of the compelling aspects of co-op play?
Indeed - those who hope that Solo and Private Groups will be either removed or neutered (by removing their effects on the BGS, etc) - and those who realise that everyone bought a game with three game modes and a single shared galaxy state.
We possibly are, maybe. We'll see, in time, whether Frontier choose to address the issue.
No group would be removed from the general population - however the game would impose any mode specific rules on every player who chose to play in that mode (should an official mode with a different ruleset be introduced at some point).
Additionally, players have always been able to choose to remove other players from their gameplay, in this game.
Unless it's specifically out-of-game targeted harassment utilizing mechanics in ways they were not intended to be used, it's not "griefing".
Griefing is harassment.
Random murderhoboing is valid and supported gameplay, not griefing.
Instead of advocating for the continued separation of the playerbase and punishing people for playing the game they want to play it, try advocating for frontier developing actual crime and punishment system that turns criminality in to high risk high reward playstyles but with significant enough consequences for attacking random people in high-sec that only the most suicidal of gankers would attempt it. Make venturing in to anarchy the equivalent of nullsec in EVE.
Griefing is harassment.
Random murderhoboing is valid and supported gameplay, not griefing.
Instead of advocating for the continued separation of the playerbase and punishing people for playing the game they want to play it, try advocating for frontier developing actual crime and punishment system that turns criminality in to high risk high reward playstyles but with significant enough consequences for attacking random people in high-sec that only the most suicidal of gankers would attempt it. Make venturing in to anarchy the equivalent of nullsec in EVE.
Inb4 the 'go play EVE' salt-lords.
It seems that way - but Squadrons are light on exact detail at this time though - although we know when we should hear more about them.
Kinda like how Powerplay was so light on details that no-one realised it was supposed to be all about consensual PvP all along! Imagine how well received it would've been from the start if that was clear!