Yes, cos you're a pirate. I have no interest in being pirated. I have no interest in attacking other players. I have no interest in being within 100ly of another player.
Open PvE
- Thread starter SiriusSeven
- Start date
- Status
Yes, cos you're a pirate. I have no interest in being pirated. I have no interest in attacking other players. I have no interest in being within 100ly of another player.
and it tells that 1/3rd doesn't play open (for various reasons).
noone wants to take away open play.
and you can play it perfectly without me
But your implication, and that of may others, is that players are abandoning OPEN because they can't hold hands and be super friendly with no danger at all......
The results from today so far that is not even close to happening. SOLO and GROUP are completely legitimate ways to play and I have no objections at all to someone deciding they want an easy game to be even easier from time to time. Maybe you're not really paying attention and don't want to risk the small chance of losing a big cargo...It doesn't matter. 2/3 of players are in OPEN as it is now and I think most of them have figured out that if you want to be safe, stay out of the core systems, mod your ship so it can take a few hits, or move to a different trade route if a system is particularly busy.
ED is super easy in OPEN as it is. But everyone who flies with no armor and no insurance (which is way too cheap as it is), and then doesn't pay attention to the contacts close by and proceeds to get blown up because they don't know how to run....Well, we see them here complaining about the big bad space griefers. If you fly a fat, slow, unprotected ship in OPEN space, the chances of you getting blown up are small but if they happen it was your choice to run that way.
We should never be seeking to moderate how someone plays the game. Exploits, cheats, hacks sure..
Its meant to be a cut-throat galaxy after all. I see a lot of complaining from some people and given they seem to exist in solo or private group I wonder what the beef is. I suspect that the majority of people who do go on these rants about perceived 'griefing' and so on haven't actually had many of those experiences in ED.. I know I haven't
There does appear to be an ideological dislike of anything pvp related; as evidenced by the often used, 'this is not Eve' dogma.
I'm happy with it being a cut throat solo or PvE Galaxy. I just have no interest at all in a cut throat PvP Galaxy.
I can vouch for the 'not EVE'. That is a brutal, unforgiving nebula where griefing is a known and more or less accepted form of game play that exists alongside others. ED is super easy as it is. But it's still too hard for some.
You've kinda made my point for me. Attacked by an NPC and destroyed.. okay.. attacked and destroyed by a player.. not okay.
Genuinely can't get it.
Don't call yourself a liar in public. Bad form.
I know, and I suspect my form may get worse as this thread progresses. Sometimes I can't help myself.
Yes we should, regionally. Absolutely we should otherwise it's anarchy everywhere. And if it's anarchy everywhere, why bother with the pointless conceit of labelling systems or security levels as anything else?
Bits of it are. Logically most of it is because it's 99.999% lawless systems. But some of it should be safe, or at least safer, just as it was in its three previous iterations and for very good backstory reasons. And you've been around long enough to know that, so I'm really not sure why you would choose to dismiss it.
and another one assuming to know why I play solo
you have no idea...
i'm just showing up various reasons... that doesn't mean they are mine
i know how to hide in open, i know how to fight, i don't care for losses... i just don't want to play with you. it's really that simple.
i don't want to play with you.
As stated, I don't have a dog in the race personally. But there is something eating at me that I wish I could get a straight answer.
Why NOT PvE? And I don't want to hear this "the game is too easy" nonsense. This isn't an e-peen waving contest. I just want an honest answer why people are opposed to the idea.
Developer resources? Legit complaint and I can support that. Game does need more a this point.
I mean, even if it's "because I don't want all my victoms to run away", I can accept that answer because at least you are honest. And when that happens, we can have a good conversation of what needs to happen.
But all this silly "you all are cowards" or "this game is already too easy" nonsense? That's not an honest answer. And that's why the die-hard anti-surprise-PvP crowd isn't buying it.
Why NOT PvE? And I don't want to hear this "the game is too easy" nonsense. This isn't an e-peen waving contest. I just want an honest answer why people are opposed to the idea.
Developer resources? Legit complaint and I can support that. Game does need more a this point.
I mean, even if it's "because I don't want all my victoms to run away", I can accept that answer because at least you are honest. And when that happens, we can have a good conversation of what needs to happen.
But all this silly "you all are cowards" or "this game is already too easy" nonsense? That's not an honest answer. And that's why the die-hard anti-surprise-PvP crowd isn't buying it.
I agree there should be a PVE mode, but it should be a separate save.
and another one assuming to know why I play solo
you have no idea...
i'm just showing up various reasons... that doesn't mean they are mine
i know how to hide in open, i know how to fight, i don't care for losses... i just don't want to play with you. it's really that simple.
i don't want to play with you.
THEN GO SOLO AND YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS THREAD IS POINTLESS. But that's not what you want. You want to play with others but not be affected by them in any way at all.
He wants one thing - you want something else.
It's not particularly hard to understand.
Then why did you purchase an online game that, since it was first proposed in its Kickstart, guaranteed that players would be able to choose who they would play with and switch modes at will?
The game was advertised, and sold, to players that want to have full control over their experience. Players that want to be able to completely exclude certain behaviors from their gameplay universe. I doubt this is ever going to change.
It's not about fear, never was. I would say that it's about some players being utterly unpleasant on purpose, whenever the rules allow, thus the game giving everyone else the tools to either avoid those players or to prevent them from causing any harm, but even that is only part of the truth; players have different reasons for not wanting to play in an open mode where attacking unwary players is possible, perhaps even encouraged.
Actually, I have seen (and played) more than a few games where communications between opposing teams aren't allowed, games where repeatedly swearing or verbally abusing other players will result in the ability to use chat being revoked for a few days, and games that don't even provide chat. Also, nearly every single online game nowadays allows the player to selectively mute others. So, what you call "nonsensical" in your example is something that is common practice in the real world.
I genuinely can't get how someone can even think the two equivalent. For me they're as different as night and day. And both when on the receiving and the giving end.
To put it simply, an NPC is a piece of code incapable of actual reasoning, devoid of malice or pleasure, so attacking or getting attacked by one is not any different than, say, looking up at a waterfall you intend to climb; they are just an obstacle you have chosen to face. Whereas facing a real person is a completely different experience, even if the difficulty and the end result are strictly the same.
Even different kinds of PvP can have a quite distinct feel depending on whether it's agreed upon or not. Agreed upon PvP isn't any different than a friendly sparring match, something I happen to enjoy quite a bit; unwanted PvP, though, feels more like a mugging, which is still unpleasant even if I teach the pretense mugger why attacking someone that had military training and practices multiple martial arts is a bad idea.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Or, more likely, to only be affected by other players when he has given his consent. Exactly what I want, too. And kinda what a PvE mode is about.
What I want is the constant stream of whining from a vocal minority to end. It offers nothing that is in the least bit constructive and will not make this game any better. But I am reminded of a perfectly good MMO that was ruined by the level-in-two-weeks-and-everyone-should-have-a-cheap-flying-mount crowd (WoW - played Vanilla to end of Burning Crusade and quit). God forbid we actually have a game with some challenge to it.
What he wants is a theme park. There's that established group with about 5K members that pretty much operates the way he wants. PVE problem solved. Again, his participation here is redundant.
How do you know it's a vocal minority?
(clue - you thinking it is isn't good enough)
To be honest after reading all these posts, the constant whining seems to be coming from your corner mate.
People want a PvE mode and you can't seem to grasp the concept of Co-Op gaming without breaking into patronising insults (Re: Holding hands)
People have the right to request it a feature of a game that brings them enjoyment.
You also have the right to disagree, but try not to get so emotional about it.
You want risk? Come visit me in Australia I'll take you swimming.
Its not my idea as much as I would like to take the credit for it, more an amalgamation of forum posts presented with my own addition (the tick box, "I agree not to PK") to join group with. If you PK in PVE after agreeing not to, you are banned from PVE and x consequence, you agreed to the T's & C's for PVE (the tick box), "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" and make "x consequence = X consequence", fully reimburse the victim from the funds of the aggressor and more.
If someone joins a group and positively affirms that they understand the rules & will abide by them, then break them I don't care if FD fine them the amount to fully reimburses their victim or fine them a thousand times that value, or even move them to the "special place for special people group".
Mobius has been about for ~ 6 months, now has ~ 7k members, I will take the credit for asking the question "hi Mobius, how many players have you has to kick", we all know Mobius had to hit the "accept" button ~ 7k times (it was said that would be about 40 hours, thats a full working week) but I wanted to know how many times he had to be the "sheriff" and hit the "bye bye" button, the answer was, 4 IN TOTAL OVER ~ 6 MONTHS
I guess 99% of the people playing in the Mobius group are working with the "honour system" quite well. Extrapolating, 4 idiots kicked from 7k players, using the 400k (the biggest number) owners.... 4/7000 * 400k = 228 the 400k is all owners of the game not active players.
Lets guess half of the 400k are active that would be 114 kicks, that's less than 4 people a day getting removed from PVE, FD have the ability to refund people for bugs (after checking) surely they can do the same (on the odd occasion) if someone gets PK'd in PVE.
I think the "check box" ensuring the player confirms they agree (explaining the rules & consequence of breaking them) would if the consequences were severe reduce the administration of the group a minimal level for FD.
One world, One mode. Mmmm
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90583
Have a look, it has been discussed before.
Last edited:
We just need Mobius to post a "SO I QUIT" thread and PVE mode will be released in a week.
Job done!
- Status