PvP Flag in Open Play for NOPVP players.

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Please read my previous points.

LOL okay, see? You're being impossible. I get it man, I have you in a corner and you just want a way out. You don't want this feature, but you simply cannot bring yourself to concede that this idea changes nothing materially. It certainly doesn't "ruin" ANYTHING for a PVP player.

Thanks for wasting my time while pretending you want a constructive discussion. Debate is impossible if you won't let the opponent score a single point even when he knows he made one.

 

[Fake Newts]

Back to thinking you're a troll, and if you are genuinely hats off for baiting me back in, that's some pretty pro work.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Back to thinking you're a troll, and if you are genuinely hats off for baiting me back in, that's some pretty pro work.

Yup, there you go again. When all else fails, call people names.

You know I am not trolling. You know that. If you will not admit that whether I'm in solo avoiding PVP, or in Open avoiding PVP with a flag, nothing changes for any other player: YOU are the troll.

You get that right? You are the troll here.

 

[Fake Newts]

If you will not admit that whether I'm in solo avoiding PVP, or in Open avoiding PVP with a flag, nothing changes for any other player

Please read my previous posts on the topic.

 

[Ziziksu]

From what i read you just dont like the fact there infront of you and you cant do anything about it, immersion breaking?

 

[Fake Newts]

From what i read you just dont like the fact there infront of you and you cant do anything about it, immersion breaking?

That is one part, another being similar but distinct 'frustration' of witnessing someone actively working against you before your eyes without giving you any recourse to interact, it's not quite the same as immersion - both are an issue.

The main thing is pragmatic though: instances are very limited and you can't dictate who you're instanced with - so, operating on the premise that people generally want to be instanced with people they will enjoy playing with, as opposed to those they would hate to play with the proposed solution is a bad move. By moving the people who hate emergent BGS/roleplay/powerplay/shenanigans into Open all those potential connections are then diluting the chances of instancing with the people who like it, lowering the chances of fun occuring for a large portion of the playerbase. And despite the assertions to the contrary, there are a lot of people who play Elite for this reason.

If you're engaged in a Powerplay conflict for example and everyone you instance with is 'no-PvP' flagged, you'd then keep dropping and rerolling instances in the hopes that you find an instance populated with people you can meaningfully interact with. The same applies to all "open centric" activities: BGS wars, piracy, etc.

Given we currently have tools (Mobius, blocking, other PGs, system chat) that enable players who dislike any conflict for any reason to avoid it if they choose it seems unnecessary to impose a system that would actively detract from the enjoyment of many others. A better solution would be to make the existing tools clearer, or make a sanctioned Mobius group that's easier to find for those that want it.

 

[ethelred]

I guess I really have to dumb it down:

Me in solo delivering cargo: Not flagged for PVP.
Me in Open with PVP flag off: Not flagged for PVP.

What is being "ruined" for anyone in either of these scenarios? Nothing changes, period. And until you stop lying to me, and actually address this I will keep calling you out.

If there's no difference why are you advocating for a new mode that FDEV have shown no interest in, but has been requested since at least beta, and by your own admission is solved by either Private Group or Solo?

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

If there's no difference why are you advocating for a new mode that FDEV have shown no interest in, but has been requested since at least beta, and by your own admission is solved by either Private Group or Solo?

That's...not the kind of difference we are talking about. They are claiming this would "harm" some PVP gameplay. I'm just proving that's bunk. The same amount of PVP gameplay is being withheld from them now, the only difference is they just can't see see it happening.

 

[ethelred]

That's...not the kind of difference we are talking about. They are claiming this would "harm" some PVP gameplay. I'm just proving that's bunk. The same amount of PVP gameplay is being withheld from them now, the only difference is they just can't see see it happening.

Ok, I see your point on that.

How do you address the issue that arguably your need is already met (with the inference that therefore FDEV won't/"shouldn't" spend time developing it)?

 

[Fake Newts]

That's...not the kind of difference we are talking about. They are claiming this would "harm" some PVP gameplay. I'm just proving that's bunk. The same amount of PVP gameplay is being withheld from them now, the only difference is they just can't see see it happening.

The main thing is pragmatic though: instances are very limited and you can't dictate who you're instanced with - so, operating on the premise that people generally want to be instanced with people they will enjoy playing with, as opposed to those they would hate to play with the proposed solution is a bad move. By moving the people who hate emergent BGS/roleplay/powerplay/shenanigans into Open all those potential connections are then diluting the chances of instancing with the people who like it, lowering the chances of fun occuring for a large portion of the playerbase. And despite the assertions to the contrary, there are a lot of people who play Elite for this reason.

also saying "the only difference" is minimising the significance of that difference, although the pragmatic instancing reason is the most significant for most people.

If you like I can dig up some resources from Frontier explaining how P2P and instancing actually works, because it's possible that you've misunderstood something fundamental that would help. We cannot all exist in the same instance together, it's a technical impossibility, in fact instances are very limited even in busy systems.

 

[Chase Quinnell]

No, sorry, I won't do that. Personal use of the block feature is one thing, but a universal shared "blacklist" is something totally different that I don't support.

Good move. I mentioned in a previous post that I supported a crowdsourced blacklist. I think I'd like to retract that opinion because it just enables a witchhunt and is generally unhealthy IMO. Sharing among close friends is fine but publishing a list is just bad juju.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Good move. I mentioned in a previous post that I supported a crowdsourced blacklist. I think I'd like to retract that opinion because it just enables a witchhunt and is generally unhealthy IMO. Sharing among close friends is fine but publishing a list is just bad juju.

Yes we wouldn't want griefers to feel oppressed now would we....

also saying "the only difference" is minimising the significance of that difference, although the pragmatic instancing reason is the most significant for most people.

Well Newts I guess my rebuke to this would be the same that's been thrown in my and other faces here a gillion times: If you're concerned about instancing, that's what PG's are for.

Or is it only US, the non-PVP player, relegated to the back of the bus here? Getting tired of you and others treating us like we are second class citizens. Again, EVERY OTHER game out there does this and does it right and does it better. They don't have horrible issues because of it, we won't either. Period.

 

[Fake Newts]

Well Newts I guess my rebuke to this would be the same that's been thrown in my and other faces here a gillion times: If you're concerned about instancing, that's what PG's are for.

Or is it only US, the non-PVP player, relegated to the back of the bus here?

So, as I've said before, it's not only PvP players who appreciate the danger and stakes of open play. That aside, you're essentially now advocating a reversal of the issue, rather than a removal of the issue - which is changing your tune from the "it makes no difference to anyone" stance, so thanks for that, I think it's the first time I've seen you acknowledge the other side's point of contention so clearly and I genuinely appreciate it.

So would you propose the issue be solved in a utilitarian way? To decide which section of the playerbase 'takes the hit' so to speak? Whichever mode is the most populous or whichever preference is the widest held stakes their claim over Open and the other agrees to move to a PG? Could be interesting to hear the statistics. Frontier has some of this information but don't, to my knowledge, share it.

There is the further question of what Frontier intended - they built the game with conflict in it by design, arguably then the idea of negating player conflict via a flag system in the "flagship mode" runs counter to that design, and you can see how they might not go for it on that basis. That's up to them.

The final issue being one we discussed a long while ago, similar to the above, simply dev time. Currently the status quo provides solutions (after a fashion) for both preferences, so they might not have a huge incentive to intervene in order to essentially wind up with the same divide but upside-down.

I am glad we've reached a point where you've accepted that us (you and I, and the camps we represent) sharing an instance would be beneficial to neither party. I genuinely hope I never see you in game, and hope you wish the same

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Okay now you're most certainly trolling. I guess I knew you were when you accused us of asking for "godmode" but now your true colors are really coming out. I'm not reversing any issue, at all. I've been exactly consistent, but I have compromised while you absolutely refuse to.

Nobody takes a hit with this change, at all. Because the same players refusing to engage in Open today, are the same ones who will be in Open with their flag off in this change. No difference. You refuse to acknowledge that absolute fact, so here we are.

Only on this forum would someone be viewed as a horrible person, not worthy of playing with, for wanting to NOT kill other players and grief them. You truly have a warped view of who you should want to share an instance with, but the toxicity here never fails to surprise me.

 

[Fake Newts]

Nobody takes a hit with this change, at all.

Are you serious? But we just made so much progress, Jigs! Is this like a Forums version of 50 First Dates or something...

 

[Ziziksu]

What about introducing a tractor beam or something that immobilizes, change cargo loot drones, and REALLY punish the player for murdering people, as oppossed to looting them. But theres still the problem of division, solo players want to be part of a community, without getting mauled by low punchers. I think they should be brave, do away with solo, for a test, and punish murderers ruthlessly, where as pirates can be heroes in the opposite camps.

 

[Fake Newts]

What about introducing a tractor beam or something that immobilizes, change cargo loot drones, and REALLY punish the player for murdering people, as oppossed to looting them. But theres still the problem of division, solo players want to be part of a community, without getting mauled by low punchers. I think they should be brave, do away with solo, for a test, and punish murderers ruthlessly, where as pirates can be heroes in the opposite camps.

I agree that C&P could use a loooot of work, for sure, and I'm hugely in favour of solving the 'ganking problem' via actual game mechanics and diegetic rules.

However, I do wonder if your point about "being part of the community" is based on, possibly, some wishful thinking. Seems like you're imagining P2P is more forgiving and broader than it is, that instances aren't incredibly restrictive... and that we're constantly meeting people in space in open, or that when you do meet people there's tons of potential for nuanced interaction. This really isn't the case most of the time - player sightings are fleeting and mostly silent. That's partly why I'm not thrilled by the prospect of the community activities I care about being diluted by people who don't understand/want them - it's already rare enough to get a populated instance at all.

In places where players actually congregate like CGs it's easy to either a) use system chat to find people to play with and hop in an instance with them or b) hop in open and block gankers you don't like. I feel like you think there's a big ole' party happening without you that doesn't involve shooting... and there sort of isn't?

Trying to look at this issue from another angle; let's imagine a flag system was added - the first thing I would do would be to block all the invulnerable players I saw in the hopes that eventually I would be back in a position where instancing was favourable to my preferences. Given there aren't actually very many truly antisocial "d-bag gankers" it seems easier for you guys to block them than for Open fans to block all of you, but again we don't have the statistics on it.

EDIT: Also by the way I appreciate your contributions to the thread, thanks.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

@Fake Newts I think you deserve some sort of 'Patience of Iron' forum award. I don't know how you do it.

 

[Fake Newts]

@Fake Newts I think you deserve some sort of 'Patience of Iron' forum award. I don't know how you do it.

Haha, thanks, although I genuinely wish it were patience and not just obsessive procrastination that may or may not result in unemployment.

 

[Rat Catcher]

How many threads have been posted requesting some sort of PVE/PVP partitioning mechanic in game?

Less than the 'Open only' by a large margin, probably