PVP vs. PVE

Looks like a change to the FAQ w.r.t. single player requiring online was made on or before 10th December 2012, i.e. about half way through the KS period.
Did you scooch through the whole bit? Have a gander at the paragraph which was the last update of the FAQ you're referring to. Clearly, even then FDev's were still touting offline play:

"Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate)."

Unless we're reading different FAQ's lol. Seriously, I'm still flu'ee and I can just about read the screen. What could be funny right now is PvP'ing in my sidewinder and see how long I last. Maybe I should start Corona Clan. We'd be easy to spot, wobbling to our targets like a bunch of very slow pack hound missiles
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Did you scooch through the whole bit? Have a gander at the paragraph which was the last update of the FAQ you're referring to. Clearly, even then FDev's were still touting offline play:
I did. Offline mode was an expected feature of the game between c.10th December 2012 when it was added to the Kickstarter scope and 14th November 2014 when Newsletter 49 was issued. That did not change the three online modes that had always been part of the Kickstarter pitch (the first paragraph of the same FAQ entry you quoted making that clear).
Unless we're reading different FAQ's lol. Seriously, I'm still flu'ee and I can just about read the screen. What could be funny right now is PvP'ing in my sidewinder and see how long I last. Maybe I should start Corona Clan. We'd be easy to spot, wobbling to our targets like a bunch of very slow pack hound missiles
Stay safe and well.
 
How would you see on that, where the galaxy is split into two, one for each mode?

There are 3 modes, not 2 :) lol

But joking aside, Frontier has ruled out a few things.
I personally think it's a good idea, have a PvP and a PvE split but David Braben addressed this in an interview a few years ago and it was a hard "no".
Also mode-locking any content was also a hard "no". There was talk of bonuses to Power Play if you played in Open but that never happened.

Somethings are simply not going to change, no matter how much you want them to change.

The fact they released all additional content after release with the option to be played in Solo/PG shows how Frontier is trying to support people who simply don't want PvP, however, David Braben himself plays in Open mode as he, like you, enjoys random encounters with other people.

Perhaps instead of complaining about what other people are doing in-game, why don't you bring forward suggestions for new content that is geared towards PvP.
Bounty Hunter and Assassination missions for players, not NPCs. Challenges like steal a set amount cargo from (assigned random player) someone using limpets.
Things like this (but better than my suggestions)
 
Lately I've been considering going to Borann A3 and dropping in the hotspot, searching for victims to pirate. I know waiting in a high sell system is more likely to be effective, but it seems more fun to fly around an asteroid field looking for miners. It would also give them an option to continue mine after my "tax" and only lose minimal income.
 
If I oppose you in BGS I'm dictating how you spend your free time in a game you bought with your money. I accept that people will try since this is a multiplayer game. What I find rude is people who chose to do that in a way that they can be anonymous and with no chance to suffer any consequences for trying to dictate how I spend my free time in a game I bought with my money.
Not true. If you oppose me in BGS, I can always opt to not play the BGS if the rules are not to my liking.

The same goes for logging into Open. It's not 'rude' to be interdicted in Open. That's what comes with the territory. If I do not want to be interdicted, I should not play Open.
It's not 'rude' to be opposed in the BGS in a different mode than Open. They are not dictating your playstyle, since you chose to get involved in the BGS. If you play the BGS, you face the consequences of playing the BGS. You know this beforehand, it's your choice. It's your game you paid with your money.
 
Not true. If you oppose me in BGS, I can always opt to not play the BGS if the rules are not to my liking.

The same goes for logging into Open. It's not 'rude' to be interdicted in Open. That's what comes with the territory. If I do not want to be interdicted, I should not play Open.
It's not 'rude' to be opposed in the BGS in a different mode than Open. They are not dictating your playstyle, since you chose to get involved in the BGS. If you play the BGS, you face the consequences of playing the BGS. You know this beforehand, it's your choice. It's your game you paid with your money.
If you were previously playing BGS and someone made you stop playing it, they have dictated how you play the game...

I also find it a bit naive to think the BGS is the only reason someone would chose to play the game. How about having the best flight model for a space sim and the joy of flying? Weird I know...

I don't find opposition rude. I find the attitude by some individuals who chose all of the following rude;

A) Attack another player or group of players
B) Choose to play in Solo/PG
C) Specifically do B to be anonymous and avoid personal risk

The attitude by someone who tick all the boxes is what I find rude, because to me that represent someone who want to impose their will on others but who doesn't care to face any consequence of their actions, and that's a behaviour that I find rude.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The attitude by someone who tick all the boxes is what I find rude, because to me that represent someone who want to impose their will on others but who doesn't care to face any consequence of their actions, and that's a behaviour that I find rude.
More or less rude than someone who wants to impose their play-style preference through demands that all opposition engage in the optional activity that is PvP when engaging in an activity that does not in any way require the player to engage in PvP?
 
Last edited:
If you were previously playing BGS and someone made you stop playing it, they have dictated how you play the game...
If I was previously playing Open, and someone made me stop playing it, they have dictated how I play the game.

Or: I have decided to go into Open, and therefor I have decided to open myself up to PvP interaction from other CMDRs.

You cannot have been previously playing the BGS and not be subject to interference from other CMDRs. The situation has not changed since when you initially decided to play the BGS.
I don't find opposition rude. I find the attitude by some individuals who chose all of the following rude;

A) Attack another player or group of players
B) Choose to play in Solo/PG
C) Specifically do B to be anonymous and avoid personal risk

The attitude by someone who tick all the boxes is what I find rude, because to me that represent someone who want to impose their will on others but who doesn't care to face any consequence of their actions, and that's a behaviour that I find rude.
I trust you feel the same way towards ganking? Not griefing, ganking. Since ganking is also a tactic to avoid personal risk, and is targeting other players.
 
Last edited:
More or less rude than someone who wants to impose their play-style preference through demands that all opposition engage in the optional activity that is PvP when engaging in an activity that does not in any way require the player to engage in PvP?
I don't find making demands rude, and I don't find confrontation rude either. If you don't want to engage with a player (in a system) which want to attack you, another choice would also be to go to another system, or use your skill to avoid interdiction and deny them the opportunity to engage you in normal space.

If I was previously playing Open, and someone made me stop playing it, they have dictated how I play the game.

Or: I have decided to go into Open, and therefor I have decided to open myself up to PvP interaction from other CMDRs.

You cannot have been previously playing the BGS and not be subject to interference from other CMDRs. The situation has not changed since when you initially decided to play the BGS.

I trust you feel the same way towards ganking? Not griefing, ganking. Since ganking is also a tactic to avoid personal risk, and is targeting other players.
Did you not read the post I was responding to in my initial quote? I was comparing fighting player ships to fighting a player through the use of BGS.

You are saying the same thing I am: you can't play the BGS without affecting anyone else. Which is fine to me, I don't have a problem with people affecting others.

Ganking isn't anonymous, and to my knowledge there are also player groups who target gankers. That makes the situations not equivalent.

As for my view on ganking: since I like PvP I think it's a shame if I get attacked by an overwhelming opposition with no chance to fight back. It's a missed opportunity of a good fight. I don't find attacking unarmed ships without reason interesting either, and it's not something I have engaged in.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I don't find making demands rude, and I don't find confrontation rude either.
In which case, others "demanding" that the confrontation take place through the BGS should not be a problem.
If you don't want to engage with a player (in a system) which want to attack you, another choice would also be to go to another system, or use your skill to avoid interdiction and deny them the opportunity to engage you in normal space.
Those are other choices - however one need not accede to the demands of players wishing to engage in an optional play-style.
 
Did you not read the post I was responding to in my initial quote? I was comparing fighting player ships to fighting a player through the use of BGS.

You are saying the same thing I am: you can't play the BGS without affecting anyone else. Which is fine to me, I don't have a problem with people affecting others.

Ganking isn't anonymous, and to my knowledge there are also player groups who target gankers. That makes the situations not equivalent.
In both cases you opted in. And you find it rude when other players play the game by the intended rules. The players are not dictating your playstyle, the rules of the game dictate your playstyle.

Solution: opt out. It's the same solution I use when I don't want any PvP forced upon me. Until now, it has been proven a fail-safe method.
 
I know it's allowed, and that these are choices. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain why I think you're describing different situations however.

In one situation, you are completely anonymous and any confrontation will take place purely on your terms.

In another situation, you can be found out, and confrontation can happen in any way you -and- your opponent choose.

Any engagement in Open between two players will only lead to a firefight and/or rebuy on any side if both sides accept it, or if one side is unprepared and/or play poorly. Can you atleast agree with this paragraph?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I know it's allowed, and that these are choices. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain why I think you're describing different situations however.
Then any application of an external "code of conduct" to the engagement is moot.
In one situation, you are completely anonymous and any confrontation will take place purely on your terms.
On equal terms with the defender - both have unfettered access to the BGS to attack / retaliate.
In another situation, you can be found out, and confrontation can happen in any way you -and- your opponent choose.
Indeed.
Any engagement in Open between two players will only lead to a firefight and/or rebuy on any side if both sides accept it, or if one side is unprepared and/or play poorly. Can you atleast agree with this paragraph?
Certainly.
 
Then any application of an external "code of conduct" to the engagement is moot.

On equal terms with the defender - both have unfettered access to the BGS to attack / retaliate.
I removed the part of your response we are in agreement about. The other two points I would like to add a bit of nuisance to.

On your first point, what do you mean by external code of conduct? For me: I just don't like the behaviour, for the reasons I've tried to explain. I understand it is allowed and legitimate, but I don't like it because confrontation can -only- happen on the terms of the attacker, which ties into the second point.

If I want to try and make a confrontation happen through fighting your ship (which I understand isn't always beneficial to me), I can try and do so, and you can try and avoid making it into fight between our ships. He who plays best will succeed and impose his choice on the other, which I find fair. Being "forced" to only respond through the BGS itself is what I don't like (even though I know it's allowed). It removes options, which is what I'm against.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
On your first point, what do you mean by external code of conduct? For me: I just don't like the behaviour, for the reasons I've tried to explain. I understand it is allowed and legitimate, but I don't like it because confrontation can -only- happen on the terms of the attacker, which ties into the second point.
Not liking it - considering that playing the game as intended is in some way "unfair". The BGS does not care about how players feel about which game modes it can be affected from.
If I want to try and make a confrontation happen through fighting your ship (which I understand isn't always beneficial to me), I can try and do so, and you can try and avoid making it into fight between our ships. He who plays best will succeed and impose his choice on the other, which I find fair. Being "forced" to only respond through the BGS itself is what I don't like (even though I know it's allowed). It removes options, which is what I'm against.
Which sounds like the contention is that it's only "fair" if both parties are available to engage in PvP - which, from the perspective of a player who has no interest in PvP, sounds rather "unfair". The BGS is not a test of PvP skill, after all, as it does not require any player to engage in PvP to affect it. PvP, in relation to the BGS, is only an option when both sides want to engage in it. That one player's choice not to engage in PvP can override a player's desire to engage in PvP simply reinforces the fact that PvP is optional in this game.
 
Last edited:
Not liking it. The BGS does not care about how players feel about which game modes it can be affected from.
I don't think I've ever expressed that I think the game should care what I, or anyone else feels. What's your point?
Which sounds like the contention is that it's only "fair" if both parties are available to engage in PvP - which, from the perspective of a player who has no interest in PvP, sounds rather "unfair". The BGS is not a test of PvP skill, after all, as it does not require any player to engage in PvP to affect it. PvP, in relation to the BGS, is only an option when both sides want to engage in it. That one player's choice not to engage in PvP can override a player's desire to engage in PvP simply reinforces the fact that PvP is optional in this game.
We have already agreed that you will only be successfully interdicted and engage in a firefight or face rebuy if both of you choose to do so. What's unfair about that? You don't have to like something for it to be fair: I don't like NPC interdictions but they're still fair.

I know you can override my desire for options: that's my point. I find it rude to take away my options. That's my moral. I've never once said it is or should be the games. I have proposed that players -choose- to play open-only when they engage in BGS and have tried to explain where I'm coming from, that's all.

You're free to disagree, that's your choice, but you seem to think I want the game to change. I'm just explaining my view.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I don't think I've ever expressed that I think the game should care what I, or anyone else feels. What's your point?
That liking something, or not, does not change the game for anyone else.
You don't have to like something for it to be fair: I don't like NPC interdictions but they're still fair.
Indeed - and everyone affecting the BGS is fair - although some don't like it.
I know you can override my desire for options: that's my point. I find it rude to take away my options. That's my moral. I've never once said it is or should be the games. I have proposed that players -choose- to play open-only when they engage in BGS and have tried to explain where I'm coming from, that's all.
The options are not being taken away - they are not being offered. No-one requires to play with anyone else in this game.

Some choose to engage in BGS activities in Open only - that's up to them and good luck to them. That they do does not mean that anyone else should though.
You're free to disagree, that's your choice, but you seem to think I want the game to change. I'm just explaining my view.
Indeed, and noted.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom