PvP (Open) commanders not welcome on this forum?...

[Fracktal]

Cough, FD listening to complaints about the gimbal nerf which could be negated by upgrading the sensors

Well, my opinion on the matter is that this Nerf was not needed because:

- A counter already exist (Chaffs)
- It would indirectly affect Ships which need to have Gimbals and therefore would need to be rebalanced as well.

You can see it as "Weak players crying getting again their opinion through" if you want, but I'm more on the side of the "Finally FDev is taking some time before rushing a change that could break load of stuffs".

 

[Zambrick]

FDev have adopted the same policy that many other games have adopted. When someone files for a refund it costs less time and results in happier customers to just hand out the refund without investigation.

Fact: I got a refund for making a stupid mistake that FDev would have noticed if they had checked the log data. I got my FDL blown up because I couldn't figure out why I couldn't jump into SC and I was under the impression that it was some sort of hardware or software failure with my HOTAS, because I couldn't get a variety of buttons to respond.

FDev looked at my request and instantly refunded the rebuy without question.

I went back later and looked at a screenshot. My landing gear was down and I wasn't even paying attention to the error messages.



No, not the entire AI code. That's not how AI scripts work. It's not some amorphous mass that all goes bad at once. The scripts branch out like an old tree with hundreds of limbs. Just because one limb goes bad doesn't mean the entire tree is going to rot and fall on your head.

There were one or two branches of the AI script that were screwed up and were properly adjusted, under no circumstance has the "ENTIRE" AI script needed to be rewritten. That's just silly and an ignorant assumption on how AI programming works.

The AI is not stable right now, and does plenty of stupid things. You're clearly not paying attention.

Figthers are ignored by stations.

Pirate and Bounty scripted AI have trouble navigating around outposts and debris, which results in their scripts just breaking entirely. They'll either just fly off in a straight line or keep flying in circles navigating around the station/debris

Pirate AI will also target any active limpets you have running instead of targeting your ship, which they can't hit, which can be abused to no end.

The AI is borked right now. Rotisserie maneuver levels of borked.

I never asked for a rebuy return. They just gave it to everyone who got killed that week. They admitted to a mistake and that their AI was broken.

You built a game AI before? How about a complete logic statement? AI works nothing like your description. The point of AI is to provide a tailored experience. You just described an un ending If, Then, Else statement that would wipe out any server the moment the player did anything the AI did not already predict.

AIs have a pool of resources/skills/actions or whatever to choose from. The AI then is told what its limits are. In our case all of our combat stats weapon load out and combat rank determine the limit. Then the AI chooses those resources/skills/actions to provide which ever level of difficulty it has determined it needs to be in order to give the player a challenge. Then whenever gamestate changes it then re evaluates and tunes using the current resources. So if you blow off an NPCs multicannon it re tunes to the fact that it is now missing that cannon and if it cannot give you a challenge in combat, it will try to challenge you by escaping. If the AI can still defeat you then it stays in the fight. If the AI can still defeat you but it has to operate outside of its capabilities, then it should try to escape. That was the part that was broken. I am sure I over simplified it but its close.

What our AI was doing was reaching for said resources and picking out stats that did not fit the encounter and instead were tuned to destroy the player. You know things like giving anacondas the speed and maneuverability of FDLs or suicide crazy vipers attacking anacondas.

Even if it resulted in its own death. I was actually getting bored with how many NPCs I was killing when this thing was broken. Ships were interdicting me that should not have been doing so. It was dumb. But just because a few people had a good experience with their particular fight, doesnt mean that the AI was not broken.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Thanks for the historical informations (I like history). Looks like my memory was not that wrong.

Side note: the Code vs. Hutton truckers (vipers vs cobras) was a fun event. Too bad that there is now such a rift between imaginary player groups (PvPers and PvEers).

I agree with that sentiment.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Sorry, I was not clear again. I meant after official patch release not during beta stage. I don't believe Fdev was able to get sufficient data, for balance purpose, during betas, until the last one.

They probably improve on that aspect seeing the recent release, and gathered enough from the past 6 months of 2.1 being live.

I have beta access, but not using anymore.

AI has been overhauled during betas about half a dozen times. There have been so many iterations of the AI that never saw the live servers that it's hard to describe.

A lot of the bugs only get introduced after the scripting has had it's guts ripped out to put the AI in a sufficient comatosed state that they're in danger of being squashed by the glacially progressing asteroids in RES's due to being incapable of predicting their direction

 

[thirstyfish]

Knock what off? No idea what that statement is in reference to concerning my post :S


Disagree. Both types of PvP can be avoided and countered.

How to avoid direct PvP (i.e. ship to ship combat):
- Play in Solo
- Play in a Private Group
- Stay away from CGs or busy areas in Open

How to counter direct PvP:
- Learn to fight; Fight back with a proper PvP fit build
- Learn to run; High wake when interdicted

Now for indirect BGS PvP. How to avoid:
- Learn to work the BGS and build up your faction so it is not easily assailable

How to counter:
- Work to push back the enemy's attempts and pray to God you have more numbers on your side.

However, a BGS attack can always be started and waged against whoever you want, whenever you want. Ship to ship combat cannot be started against someone in Solo or a PG group you are not a member of. And that's really my point as to which one is easier to avoid. By using Solo or PG you can guarantee never to see direct PvP. There is no such guarantee with the BGS since it can be attacked from all modes - sure it would be crazy for someone to attack a well fortified faction but nothing stops them trying whereas crucially direct PvP can be cut out entirely by the player if they so choose. With the BGS you fortify your systems and hope for the best.


Um... so is the act of typing abuse. That's the player doing it not the game. And typing abuse is expressly stated as against the rules. Combat of any form is not. You may not like it but that's the way it is. Typing abuse is more serious that blowing up space pixels because it is directly attacking the person behind the screen and that's not on. This is a game and no one should have to deal with verbal or written abuse.


Yeah, ok. Next time I'll just say "with no due respect whatsoever"

The phrase is meant as a way of saying, "Nothing personal but I very strongly disagree." if you want to take it personally after that that''s on you. I mean I could just forget about the etiquette and go with, "what a load of bollix" if you'd like?

Thanks for the red herring btw, tasty. 'Griefing someone' has specific definitions attached to it such as repeatedly interdicting the same person or not letting them leave the station, etc. PvP is not greifing by default (it depends how it's used) whereas texting abuse is harassment and bullying by default. Simples.


I am directly addressing what you say and then you accuse me of twisting your words. So forgive me for not letting you get away with accuse me of something I am not doing. If I am somehow misinterpreting the subtext or additional meaning behind your words well... this is text based communication for you. Subtext and nuances of meaning don't really work the same as when speaking in person.

Wasn't specifically referring to you with the sticks and stones.

BGS--You do have to know what minor faction to attack. Good luck finding that out. Unless the person explicitly states it somewhere, you can't possibly know.

Not a red herring.
7.3.1 The Game and/or Online Features may allow communications between users by means including but not limited to text and voice. When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behaviour, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Nothing there about behavior having to be repeated. If repeated, then its harassment. If not, it can be qualified as bullying. Both violate the EULA. Griefing is bullying, and griefing can easily be harassment.

Yes, being abusive in communication is against the rules. Speeding is against the law. Clearly no one puts much impact on either. Make no mistake, I am not defending such action. Just pointing out that it is a far lesser evil than what some PvPers inflict on others. PvPers violate this rule with at least the same frequency as PvEers.

Oh, and its not "just pixels." The pixels represent time and effort put into the game. If its "just pixels," then abusive comments are "just words."

 

[Sylow]

So uh.. How long ago was this?

Because newbie players can't leave solo until they've made their first jump out of system and I'm not sure when Frontier implemented that mechanic, if it wasn't there from day one.

Source: Me trying to help friends who had just bought the game by doing palladium dumps and not being able to get them into open to do the trade/drop-off, ultimately resorting to google to figure out why.

.
I don't know exactly when it was. He said he bought the game when it was on offer quiet a while ago. That rules out the 2016 black friday sale. When was the last sale before that?
.
Sorry, i didn't ask for -when- this happened, i was more trying to do damage control, tell him that there are ways around that bad experience and that we could play this game together. Based on this thread, i feel very sorry, i guess i should have told him to suck it up, never return to this game but please tell me the exact date when this happened...? (This last sentence was not aimed at you, but at some other low-quality posting in between, who just concludes that recent changes to the system "prove" that this could never have happened... )
.

 

[babelfisch]

Yesterday I posted a video of me interdicting a Cutter who had no shields, he instantly blew up because our ships spawned in a way that made them collide. There was no shaming or blaming him personally, I tried to use the thread and video to get people to realize that running shieldless is a bad idea. The video was removed from the post and the thread was locked.

I also posted it on reddit where there also is a naming and shaming rule, but it was kept up and got 2k views as well as sparking a lot of discussion. Do you see why I prefer posting on reddit?

Sorry, I am bit late...

That video was hilarious, stupid shieldless trader hahaha

Glad you liked it, I thought it was funny too lol. And pretty educational as well since it showed what can happen if you choose greed over protection!

Its a shame that nearly three years after release, open mode traders like myself are still trying to drum that into peoples heads.

"Oh but installing a shield would affect my cr/hr"

The funny thing is I saw the same cutter later, in open, still shieldless. Some people never learn.

quick correction it was 64T instead of 32T but still not a huge impact on your CR/HR when compared to a rebuy.

main point: Send em a message explaining there mistake then Kill that fool so it sinks in.

Haha seriously, someone should hand this Cmdr his Darwin Award [big grin]

As much as I agree with the idea of using shields... These replies show exactly why the video was removed, this is clearly naming and shaming. You could have praised him for not being a combat logger instead

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I needed a quote to provide someone who wasn't wholly convinced just how personally offensive some of the comments from PvE players can be.

Windscreen was all like: Pfft, PvEers
Then Ziggy was all like:

I am a very competitive PVP player.

And then Zambrick was all like: Yeah, but they be other games
And then Windscreen was all like: Ha!
And then Ziggy was all like: Game wasn't specified in post
And then Windscreen was all like: It was implied!
And then Ziggy was all like: Pfft, Schmimplied.
And then T.J. was all like: Uhm ... fellows.
And then we were all like: Oh yeah.

That sure was a sticky Friday I can tell you.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Cough, FD listening to complaints about the gimbal nerf which could be negated by upgrading the sensors

hang on....... i thought that was a brilliant idea, making total sense and was disappointed they did not go through with it.

you cant just pick something FD did that you do not like and "blame the forum"........

in any decision where it is a yes no outcome there will be nay sayers on both sides.... ultimately FD carry the can for all decisions they make. I am a member of this forum, and a PvE player and most of the time when it comes to game stuff, more complexity is almost always the side i fall on.

1 person posted in another thread "I will be ****** If FD ever implement npc crew and i have to employ them for my massive ship" Does that mean if FD do not implement ships crew like in the DDF i have the forum to blame?

 

[STARB0YY]

Sorry, I am bit late...













As much as I agree with the idea of using shields... These replies show exactly why the video was removed, this is clearly naming and shaming. You could have praised him for not being a combat logger instead

I can agree those comments were shaming however not sure where you get the naming part, but they weren't in the thread that was locked. Besides he had no time to combat log, lol.

 

[Riverside]

I can agree those comments were shaming however not sure where you get the naming part, but they weren't in the thread that was locked. Besides he had no time to combat log, lol.

Any PvP vid is likely to show the name of the targeted Cmdr, this seems a very simple idea to grasp & I've seen a few vids where the name has been blanked out. Could you not do the same?

Mocking another player for their naivety or even stupidity seems to be the sort of thing you might do with your friends where you know they can take a practical joke, doing it with strangers where you don't know how they'll react seems a little weak to me.

 

[Sylow]

Mocking another player for their naivety or even stupidity seems to be the sort of thing you might do with your friends where you know they can take a practical joke, doing it with strangers where you don't know how they'll react seems a little weak to me.

.
Hmm, actually i think for a small but visible part of our playerbase, that's exactly the point: among their friends, or who they consider closet to the term friends, they are likely to be the target of the jokes, so they need to do something to strangers to also be able to feel good about themselves?
.
Might be just me, but the impression keeps coming back. Also mind you, that's not the majority of the PvP people, just a selected few, which give that impression.
.
And unrelated to that, but very much related to a lot of things said in this thread: there is the term PvP. Several people here kept repeating and pointing out that by definition griefing and ganking is PvP, so the term fits for them. So they are a minority and have their own terms with negative connotation. Yet i know that there is a much bigger part of the PvP base, who is out for a challenge, fights honorably and does not participate in those "sealclubbing" activities. Yet i never noticed a specific term for them, which carries all the positive connotations.
.
Is there no such term? If there is, what is it? If there is not, then why isn't there? I would find such a term to be really helpful, to finally in a posting be able to distinguish between those where the correct term would be stuck in the language filter of the forum and those, who could be called duellists, honorable knights, gentlemen PvPers or anything like that. At the moment it's always quite a hassle to point out the positive part of PvPers, without including the scum which also hides under the same blanket term.
.

 

[Rampant]

.
Hmm, actually i think for a small but visible part of our playerbase, that's exactly the point: among their friends, or who they consider closet to the term friends, they are likely to be the target of the jokes, so they need to do something to strangers to also be able to feel good about themselves?
.
Might be just me, but the impression keeps coming back. Also mind you, that's not the majority of the PvP people, just a selected few, which give that impression.
.
And unrelated to that, but very much related to a lot of things said in this thread: there is the term PvP. Several people here kept repeating and pointing out that by definition griefing and ganking is PvP, so the term fits for them. So they are a minority and have their own terms with negative connotation. Yet i know that there is a much bigger part of the PvP base, who is out for a challenge, fights honorably and does not participate in those "sealclubbing" activities. Yet i never noticed a specific term for them, which carries all the positive connotations.
.
Is there no such term? If there is, what is it? If there is not, then why isn't there? I would find such a term to be really helpful, to finally in a posting be able to distinguish between those where the correct term would be stuck in the language filter of the forum and those, who could be called duellists, honorable knights, gentlemen PvPers or anything like that. At the moment it's always quite a hassle to point out the positive part of PvPers, without including the scum which also hides under the same blanket term.
.

Whatever term you want to use for the honorable PvP combateers, the dee-bags will always use that term to describe themselves. Sad but true.

Like in another thread recently, when describing a Cutter destroying anyone else who spawned at the ruins in Open: someone said that they *could* be using role-play, something along the lines of destroying "trespassers on his lawn" or "making the area safe from danger so he could deploy his own SRV". These so-called reasons would just be lies. The only motive for dee-bags like that is to destroy other weaker equipped players, and they will do this under the guise of "PvP", because it is "valid"...

...while the entire Open environment suffers as a consequence.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

I never asked for a rebuy return. They just gave it to everyone who got killed that week. They admitted to a mistake and that their AI was broken.

Ah, so in your case there was even less investigative effort than there was in mine, meaning none at all, because FDev just blanket assumed that everyone was a victim and applied refunds because that was the easiest, least time consuming manner in which to handle the situation and make people happy.

You built a game AI before? How about a complete logic statement? AI works nothing like your description. The point of AI is to provide a tailored experience. You just described an un ending If, Then, Else statement that would wipe out any server the moment the player did anything the AI did not already predict.

YEP. Used to write AI scripts for dueling in Baldur's Gate and did a lot of tweaking for Quake Bots. I've also done more AI scripting for a variety of Bethesda games than I can remember, and it wasn't hard to put Bethesda to shame with their Gumby-like AI.

AIs have a pool of resources/skills/actions or whatever to choose from. The AI then is told what its limits are.

Incorrect, the resources are it's limits.

In our case all of our combat stats weapon load out and combat rank determine the limit.

Then the AI chooses those resources/skills/actions to provide which ever level of difficulty it has determined it needs to be in order to give the player a challenge.

Incorrect. The AI's combat rank is also a resource pulled from the pool of resources. This is why at some combat ranks, such as expert, you regularly run up against either crap-fit master/deadly rank Anacondas and the like or superbly fit moderate rank FAS/FGS's which absolutely put said Anaconda to shame, because in the random assignation of resources, resources are not given priority based upon their importance for a more consistent result. Ships that at a glance should be much more threatening, like an Anaconda with a Master rank, are not because they're filled with confetti. Ships that look like an average challenge, like an FAS with an Expert rank, are filled with fiery death.

Then whenever gamestate changes it then re evaluates and tunes using the current resources. So if you blow off an NPCs multicannon it re tunes to the fact that it is now missing that cannon and if it cannot give you a challenge in combat, it will try to challenge you by escaping. If the AI can still defeat you then it stays in the fight. If the AI can still defeat you but it has to operate outside of its capabilities, then it should try to escape. That was the part that was broken. I am sure I over simplified it but its close.

Incorrect. The NPC is given a variety of choices. Some choices are given more "weight". A random choice is picked out of the hat and then that section of scripting is played on until another event requiring a bifurcation check occurs.

What our AI was doing was reaching for said resources and picking out stats that did not fit the encounter and instead were tuned to destroy the player. You know things like giving anacondas the speed and maneuverability of FDLs or suicide crazy vipers attacking anacondas.

The stats did fit the encounter, because that was intended. You're complaining about a feature that was intentionally put in the game to provide a wider variety of encounters.

Not everyone finds engineered Anaconda's challenging. Not everyone was under the impression that aggressive Vipers were a pushover. That is you judging the situation by YOUR standards without taking into account that every player has a different set of skills, and thanks to all of the screwed up milk runs we've had in the past that players used to grind credits on top of braindead AI combat rank is in no way indicative of player skill.

It'd be nice if FDev would admit this was a problem and do a complete combat rank wipe with the next AI update. AFTER THAT, they could narrow down the variety of encounters to more closely match a players' skill, since they now have a more accurate understanding of what the player's skill really is instead of trying to judge by the excessive padding and inaccurate data players have gained over the last two years, for a more tailored and fitting experience.

Right now, as long as they keep judging by the data instead of the players, they only have two choices. Huge variety, or braindead AI that does not scale. It all boils down to a reliance on combat rank and that combat rank being bull.

What you refer to as a bug, a completely broken AI, was a design choice that they decided to switch out for an equally valid design choice.

And both are crap.

Moreover, Not a single word of this has anything to do with what I was referring to, which is the Beta AI.

The AI that went live was braindead, meaning that a large portion of the variety which you found extraneous in the released AI was fully functional and enjoyable in the early Beta, and only became pointless after the changes that went live.

Surprise surprise, they had to make adjustments to take out ALL of the features that relied on the updated AI after they gutted it, an event which happened before you ever saw it.

 

[Riverside]

...while the entire Open environment suffers as a consequence.

This is a gross exaggeration.

Look if another player or group of players are able to hold ground by force successfully, you either accept they have the high ground or go & get reinforcements yourself. It's pretty simple really.

Fortunately they have to sleep at some point, and if another group takes over, well maybe you need to consider that you are not going to solve this problem alone.

 

[CMDR CPT. Boris]

 

[Rampant]

This is a gross exaggeration.

Look if another player or group of players are able to hold ground by force successfully, you either accept they have the high ground or go & get reinforcements yourself. It's pretty simple really.

Fortunately they have to sleep at some point, and if another group takes over, well maybe you need to consider that you are not going to solve this problem alone.

You misunderstand.

What I mean by that is, well, there's myself and *ALL* of my ED playing real life friends, who've joined Mobius and will play solely there as long as it exists as a group. Then there's a load of people reporting what is happening to them at the ruins, and they're also doing similar.

So the direct consequence is that the population of the environment is reducing. I would say therefore that it is suffering as a consequence. Feel free to use your own opinion to describe whether it is suffering or not, but I don't think it is reasonable to disagree that the population *is* not as large as perhaps it *should* be... simply as a *direct consequence*.

Hope that makes more sense?

 

[babelfisch]

I can agree those comments were shaming however not sure where you get the naming part,

Because the name was shown in the video.

but they weren't in the thread that was locked.

Because it was locked.

 

[Sylow]

Whatever term you want to use for the honorable PvP combateers, the dee-bags will always use that term to describe themselves. Sad but true.

Like in another thread recently, when describing a Cutter destroying anyone else who spawned at the ruins in Open: someone said that they *could* be using role-play, something along the lines of destroying "trespassers on his lawn" or "making the area safe from danger so he could deploy his own SRV". These so-called reasons would just be lies. The only motive for dee-bags like that is to destroy other weaker equipped players, and they will do this under the guise of "PvP", because it is "valid"...

...while the entire Open environment suffers as a consequence.

.
Probably. But the deciding differences are:
1. Currently the mentioned persons can claim to be PvPers and according to the definition they are right. If the new term would be more strict, they would be wrong.
2. Those who actually belong to the closer and more positive definition could draw a line. Something like "yes, you are PvPers, but you are not TopGun". (Term randomly chosen. )
3. A positive term, combined with a positive image, might actually be an incentive to change behaviour for some. (Yes, that's very much a might, it's speculative. I mean, some will tell you that one born a will ever be a ... but hey, if you don't try to improve things, then they won't improve. )
.
So there's a chance that this would fail. And as there's no term like that yet, it's also very hard and unlikely that this even could get going. But i'll keep wondering why this isn't part of our gaming culture, as it would not only improve our culture but also give those who belong to the mentioned group something to be proud of and yield them admiration.
.

 

[Riverside]

You misunderstand.

What I mean by that is, well, there's myself and *ALL* of my ED playing real life friends, who've joined Mobius and will play solely there as long as it exists as a group. Then there's a load of people reporting what is happening to them at the ruins, and they're also doing similar.

So the direct consequence is that the population of the environment is reducing. I would say therefore that it is suffering as a consequence. Feel free to use your own opinion to describe whether it is suffering or not, but I don't think it is reasonable to disagree that the population *is* not as large as perhaps it *should* be... simply as a *direct consequence*.

Hope that makes more sense?

Yes I guess you make a good point, More people (such as yourself & your friends) would be playing in Open were it not for these antagonists, it's something of a truism though, because if 'they' go away then ED loses players, but with the current mechanism you can both play & the overall playerbase remains higher.

If you take out the top layer another layer becomes the new top layer. How far down does it have to go before you are prepared to venture out into Open?

You & I are probably of similar skill, but I play in Open & accept that I cannot simply travel with impunity. I have to be cautious & attentive. This is how I play the game.