WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Touche to Agonys thread. I know both are satire. Good point well made.
Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place
- Thread starter StiTch
- Start date
Goose4291
Banned
See title.
What about having PvE in relegated areas? I mean it could be controversial, but aside from cries that "FD sold us a game that said I could blaze mah own trail!", it would be a fair riposte to players that want to bring Open mode down to the exact same level of Solo play.
So, what are the arguments for this?And itThey can be summed up in a single word: Toxicity.
Toxicity is the bane for many games, and with PvP in any game, you get very high levels of toxicity generated by PvE players that are terrified of the idea of interacting with other human beings.
No, PvP isn't immune to toxicity, but it gets much worse when any discussion around it is instinctually invaded by pitchfork wielding knights on high horses.
Ok, having said all that, there are times PvE can be useful and fun, even for those who are predominantly...no sorry, I can't bring myself to finish this one.
Suggestions:
1) Restrict PvE only to private groups. Players that don't want PvP...oh wait, this is already working as intended
2) Create special zones where PvE players are safe from murder. It could be called "private group" or something.
3) Implement a system of PvE consent. All who want to PvE have to ask the NPC nicely, as it is not ethical to shoot an NPC that hasn't given his consent. The consent lasts until the NPC despawns, and circumventing this mechanic to shoot an NPC that hasn't given consent will have you labeled as a neckbeard sporting psycho.
Thankyou for your consideration xxx
Well played sir, well played.
See title.
What about having PvE in relegated areas? I mean it could be controversial, but aside from cries that "FD sold us a game that said I could blaze mah own trail!", it would be a fair riposte to players that want to bring Open mode down to the exact same level of Solo play.
So, what are the arguments for this?And itThey can be summed up in a single word: Toxicity.
Toxicity is the bane for many games, and with PvP in any game, you get very high levels of toxicity generated by PvE players that are terrified of the idea of interacting with other human beings.
No, PvP isn't immune to toxicity, but it gets much worse when any discussion around it is instinctually invaded by pitchfork wielding knights on high horses.
Ok, having said all that, there are times PvE can be useful and fun, even for those who are predominantly...no sorry, I can't bring myself to finish this one.
Suggestions:
1) Restrict PvE only to private groups. Players that don't want PvP...oh wait, this is already working as intended
2) Create special zones where PvE players are safe from murder. It could be called "private group" or something.
3) Implement a system of PvE consent. All who want to PvE have to ask the NPC nicely, as it is not ethical to shoot an NPC that hasn't given his consent. The consent lasts until the NPC despawns, and circumventing this mechanic to shoot an NPC that hasn't given consent will have you labeled as a neckbeard sporting psycho.
Thankyou for your consideration xxx
Now this is truly brilliant.
Your points were an excellent pot-stirrer; I was thoroughly impressed by the controversy potential!
Let's not make people seriously think that mods are trying to remove PvP from the game. Being THAT openly biased would...actually never mind, I think most of the forum has accepted that by now, Brett included.
To be fair it's a bed that FD created removing offline solo. If that had been implemented correctly from the start I suspect there wouldn't be half the problems we have now. When I first started ED up I actually thought the Open/PG/Solo format was well conceived, until I became half experienced and realised what they had attempted with the BGS - which was ultimately the downfall; "all players are tied into the same BGS, only not actually tied together".
As in CQC is your dedicated PvE mode?
Given the matchmaking I can't disagree
If only they had kept offline solo.
They could have their fancy looking (and sounding!) 1984 feature set game, and the rest of us could have a game made in this century.
Apart from the part where Elite was designed from the ground up to be a PvE game with optional PvP.
Apart from that little detail.
So then Open PvE was not intended either? Gotcha.
Indeed. But if it comes down to the wire, and OpenPvE becomes healthier for the game overall than the current OpenPvP then it’ll happen. It just needs the percentage of players that want it to cross an Fdev defined threshold.
For what it’s worth I don’t think it will unless the continued lack of it actively starts to hurt sales.
Sorry, are you talking about the pro-PvP folks or the pro-PvE folks? It’s literally impossible to tell.
Tip: read this post with sad violin music playing in the background.
Goose4291
Banned
Strangely I hear that same violin whenever you outpin about group functionality.
I hear the Devils Gallop whenever there's a rush of "git-gudders".
[video=youtube;e7bsL00aCGg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7bsL00aCGg[/video]
I dunno, I kinda heard rumbling the stomachs of those starving to death for easymode targets in Open.
Hmm sounds like a new ED meme. I'm imagining Ben Kenobi just after Alderaan was destroyed...
Last edited:
When do I ever outpin about group functionality? You should have gone with beige planets. If you're no-you-ing, do it right.
Want to go again?
Goose4291
Banned
When do I ever outpin about group functionality? You should have gone with beige planets. If you're no-you-ing, do it right.
Want to go again?
I'll just leave this here.
That's not about group functionality darling. And that particular quote needs Ave Maria.
Cue animated gif.
Cue animated gif.
Goose4291
Banned
I see. I forgot. Obviously you were referring to advocates of multiplayer functionality in a positive way when you call them 'little napoleonic tyrants'.
How silly of me to make that mistake.
Don't confuse the issue with facts!
The mistake you made was telling me I was talking about group functionality. I wasn't.
The other mistake is that sad violin music goes with a woe is us post. The piece you quoted was a celebration of a feature which make little napoleonic tyrants redundant.
Really mate, take my advice and go with beige planets posts. Those are suitable for sad violin music.
Last edited: