Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place

[Robert Maynard]

Actually, I'mma use this as a chance to clear something up with anyone still reading: myself among others do not necessarily care how x player plays their game. We do not object at all to the notion of players "playing their way" at all, regardless of our complaints with specific game mode mechanics.

Complaining about the game modes is as reasonable as complaining about the possibility of direct PvP in multi-player - both are by design.

What we will address is players using poorly conceived trailblazing as an excuse to have a go at PvP players. By all means, please, take a shieldless T9 to trade in Open. Utterly your right. But just because NPCs will generally prove themselves incapable of even catching you, don't have a rant about griefors ruining your fun when you get stung. Choice and consequence is the soul of this game - want to sacrifice shields for cargo capacity, and thrusters for jump range? Yes moar profitz, but yes more chance of losing that profit.

TL;DR I don't care whether players git gud. Just don't git bad and then blame other humans because you made a poor judgement call, and definitely don't get crappy because we offered assistance.

Choices and consequences indeed - and Frontier would seem to be undertaking a balance pass on consequences for those that engage in criminal activity.

*shrugs* even a moderator isn't interested in having the decency to accept another playstyle exists. Now, what was that about me having to build bridges?

Where did I suggest that PvP does not exist as a play-style? Citation, please.

Bridges are built from both ends - however both sides need to want there to be a bridge in the first place and be prepared to compromise on the design of said bridge and supporting infrastructure....

 

[Theodrid]

*shrugs* even a moderator isn't interested in having the decency to accept another playstyle exists. Now, what was that about me having to build bridges?

There was no 'having to' about it Stitch, just figured you might want to, Robert can't agree to your proposal because each suggestion needs to be taken on merit, so, it wasn't by any means a 'fair trade'.

If you don't want to build bridges Stitch that is fine but you can't have reasoned discourse without doing so, you can't expect folk who are being told they are scared, cowards and much worse on reddit and in YT vids to want to engage in civil discussion on the issues that matter to you. If you really want to discuss PVP issues - the good ones and the bad ones - then do so, if you want people to soften to your position a little as I have then you have to at least make some effort to meet them halfway rahter than your current 'why should I' approach.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I like that suggestion by Ziggy!

Here's the link to it

PowerplayPvPvE

 

[StiTch]

Choices and consequences indeed - and Frontier would seem to be undertaking a balance pass on consequences for those that engage in criminal activity.

I'll take that as acceptance of my statement, with your customary soggy flair.

Where did I suggest that PvP does not exist as a play-style? Citation, please.

Bridges are built from both ends - however both sides need to want there to be a bridge in the first place and be prepared to compromise on the design of said bridge and supporting infrastructure....

You said you are not willing to support it. Same thing, yes? I didn't ask you to support any particular proposal or sentiment, but something as simple as supporting the playstyle. As before...PvP players are oft those among the front for making PvE suggestions. And yet you cannot bear to go as far as slowing down on the objections when anything pro-PvP is put forward. Tisk...and we had you down as the community lot

...you have to at least make some effort to meet them halfway rahter than your current 'why should I' approach.

My point is that you're making the assumption it has to be myself that makes the effort to meet half way. I've made many many attempts to meet halfway or even further - it's oft the people on the other side that are not interested.

But I am also not interested in turning this into a sob story, so I'll stop this particular conversation here.

Here's the link to it

PowerplayPvPvE

Aye, there it is.

If anything serious can come of this thread, I'd like it to be support for that proposal.

 

[Theodrid]

I'll take that as acceptance of my statement, with your customary soggy flair.




You said you are not willing to support it. Same thing, yes? I didn't ask you to support any particular proposal or sentiment, but something as simple as supporting the playstyle. As before...PvP players are oft those among the front for making PvE suggestions. And yet you cannot bear to go as far as slowing down on the objections when anything pro-PvP is put forward. Tisk...and we had you down as the community lot



My point is that you're making the assumption it has to be myself that makes the effort to meet half way. I've made many many attempts to meet halfway or even further - it's oft the people on the other side that are not interested.

But I am also not interested in turning this into a sob story, so I'll stop this particular conversation here

Stitch, I obviously didn't mean 'you' in isolation, for the 'why should I part', yes partially, but not overall, and I have no clue why this is suddenly a 'sob story'.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You said you are not willing to support it. Same thing, yes? I didn't ask you to support any particular proposal or sentiment, but something as simple as supporting the playstyle. As before...PvP players are oft those among the front for making PvE suggestions. And yet you cannot bear to go as far as slowing down on the objections when anything pro-PvP is put forward. Tisk...and we had you down as the community lot

I am not supportive of restricting existing pan-modal content to a single game mode, i.e. Open only, no. That is not to say that I would necessarily be unsupportive of new content designed with PvP in mind.

That PvP players are among those making suggestions for the PvE game is completely unsurprising - as we all engage in PvE to some extent.

If pro-PvP proposals require arbitrarily blocking players in two of the three game modes from accessing that content then it is unsurprising that there is opposition, is it not?

 

[StiTch]

Stitch, I obviously didn't mean 'you' in isolation, for the 'why should I part', yes partially, but not overall, and I have no clue why this is suddenly a 'sob story'.

You know what I mean though

And sob story was my own phrase. I think we're at the end of this particular discussion, and repeating an implication that we're hard done by won't get anywhere.

If pro-PvP proposals require arbitrarily blocking players in two of the three game modes from accessing that content then it is unsurprising that there is opposition, is it not?

Well you know it isn't arbitrary, regardless of whether you agree, but while I could argue it's a tad selfish to demand you have all the content, the above Ziggy thread among others are proof that PvP content doesn't have to forget about you.

As PP was intended to provide a platform for player conflict I can see no better change to make to it. Honestly I'd be a happy man if the result of this thread was simple support for that proposal. It doesn't forget anyone, and no it's isn't "everything we could ever want" but hot damn it would be a very, very big step in the right direction.

 

[Theodrid]

You know what I mean though

And sob story was my own phrase. I think we're at the end of this particular discussion, and repeating an implication that we're hard done by won't get anywhere.

Agreed, but, going back to the original point, you want more reasoned discourse on PVP suggestions yes? - you are well within your rights to want this to be 'a thing'. The connection cannot be beyond you though that in condemning some of the more toxic manure that goes on in game in plain sight on these boards would soften some PVE players to your position and suggestions, (by you I mean the PVP community). In short Stitch it's all well and good talking a good game but actions - in this case postings on here and other mediums - speak far louder. I've seen it said so many times, 'yeah, that kinda sucks' in relation to some players behaviour from PVP enthusiasts, then, in their next breath they are in the thread with the latest lolzmuppet trolling video declaring how hilarious it is and how it's the funniest thing they've ever seen, some PVP players need to make their minds up and show a little consistency.

 

[EvE4evah]

Here's the link to it

PowerplayPvPvE

I fully support this
(NeilF is still my number 01 but you're getting there fast, Ziggy my love)


Robert, we can't possibly want ED to stay the same forever… remember, "even if you're on the right track, if you just sit there, you'll be run over"…

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well you know it isn't arbitrary, regardless of whether you agree, but while I could argue it's a tad selfish to demand you have all the content, the above Ziggy thread among others are proof that PvP content doesn't have to forget about you.

Of course it's not arbitrary - it's a clear attempt to introduce a requirement to play in Open to engage in particular content, i.e. make oneself available for PvP - in a game with no requirement whatsoever to engage in PvP to engage in particular content.

As PP was intended to provide a platform for player conflict I can see no better change to make to it. Honestly I'd be a happy man if the result of this thread was simple support for that proposal. It doesn't forget anyone, and no it's isn't "everything we could ever want" but hot damn it would be a very, very big step in the right direction.

While PowerPlay may be considered to offer opportunities for consensual PvP (Sandro said as much in a recent stream) it also does not require players to engage in PvP to engage in PowerPlay content.

That proposal would seem to put a PvP-lock on some actions, i.e. if there are no PvP players on one side then the other side would presumably win, regardless of any PvE activities undertaken by the side lacking PvP players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Robert, we can't possibly want ED to stay the same forever… remember, "even if you're on the right track, if you just sit there, you'll be run over"…

I expect that we don't want it to stay the same forever - we just can't agree on which direction it should take....

 

[StiTch]

The connection cannot be beyond you though that in condemning some of the more toxic manure that goes on in game in plain sight on these boards would soften some PVE players to your position and suggestions, (by you I mean the PVP community). In short Stitch it's all well and good talking a good game but actions - in this case postings on here and other mediums - speak far louder. I've seen it said so many times, 'yeah, that kinda sucks' in relation to some players behaviour from PVP enthusiasts, then, in their next breath they are in the thread with the latest lolzmuppet trolling video declaring how hilarious it is and how it's the funniest thing they've ever seen, some PVP players need to make their minds up and show a little consistency.

But my point is that it's not my right any more than yours to denounce their playing. Until FD introduce a rule that states murder is illegal it is as much an acceptable part of the game as any PvE activity. In the game itself, where roleplaying is king, absolutely sport your disdain - provided it's not used simply as an excuse to cheat.

On the forums? Either accept you can have discourse with someone that does an activity you don't like, or petition for that activity to be banned by FD. Otherwise you are simply throwing a personal objection up.

PvE players should be capable of conversing with myself or others without having some misguided need for hatred towards "dem nasty griefors" fulfilled.

Of course it's not arbitrary

Then why call it arbitrary? Sometimes I feel you just need to contradict people

While PowerPlay may be considered to offer opportunities for consensual PvP (Sandro said as much in a recent stream) it also does not require players to engage in PvP to engage in PowerPlay content.

That proposal would seem to put a PvP-lock on some actions, i.e. if there are no PvP players on one side then the other side would presumably win, regardless of any PvE activities undertaken by the side lacking PvP players.

Come on, I know we're in the spirit of being reasonable but that's just pathetic. You've taken something you know was intended to provide PvP, and said you don't want it having a PvP aspect at all if it means an entire power not employing a single PvP unit would lose anything. It's like worrying that a trade CG might fail because no traders at all decide to turn up.

I am seeing no effort on your part to meet halfway or even a fraction of the way. Unless you can be reasonable, I have no more effort for you.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then why call it arbitrary? Sometimes I feel you just need to contradict people

It's arbitrary because there's no need for it (depending on one's point of view).

Come on, I know we're in the spirit of being reasonable but that's just pathetic. You've taken something you know was intended to provide PvP, and said you don't want it having a PvP aspect at all if it means an entire power not employing a single PvP unit would lose anything. It's like worrying that a CG might fail because no traders at all decide to turn up.

I am seeing no effort on your part to meet halfway or even a fraction of the way. Unless you can be reasonable, I have no more effort for you.

It was Frontier that consciously implemented PowerPlay in all three game modes, not me. It does offer like-minded individuals the opportunity to PvP for a reason - but there is no requirement to, i.e. it's completely optional.

.... and CGs are not particularly affected by PvP - as they are available in all three game modes, like PowerPlay.

There's no meeting halfway on a binary decision - PvP is either not a requirement of gameplay (as now) or it is (as some would like it to be).

 

[Jockey79]

You've taken something you know was intended to provide PvP, .

Right here is where you all keep tripping yourselves up.

A feature that was introduced to be played from any mode (including Solo) cannot be "intended" to be PvP.
There is not much PvP in Solo mode.

Think about it.

 

[Goose4291]

The weird thing is, the first time I heard the 'get good' phrase was from a player who'd been flying an unshielded type 6 in open bemoaning being ganked by a pirate who theyd refused to surrender cargo.

I offered a decent amount of advice on evasion, loadouts and that in the end its sometimes better to surrender a bit of cargo than lose it all.

The response?

"HOW DARE YOU TELL ME TO GIT GUD"

I think that was the last time for a long period I tried to offer any help.

 

[Cosmos]

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 it They 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

I like this post.

 

[Theodrid]

But my point is that it's not my right any more than yours to denounce their playing. Until FD introduce a rule that states murder is illegal it is as much an acceptable part of the game as any PvE activity. In the game itself, where roleplaying is king, absolutely sport your disdain - provided it's not used simply as an excuse to cheat.

On the forums? Either accept you can have discourse with someone that does an activity you don't like, or petition for that activity to be banned by FD. Otherwise you are simply throwing a personal objection up.

PvE players should be capable of conversing with myself or others without having some misguided need for hatred towards "dem nasty griefors" fulfilled.

Stitch, hoping you would recognise and be critical of some of the manure that goes on is not 'misguided', it is a reasonable expectation, I am having reasonable discourse with you but I'm fairly sure you would like for everyone, or as many as possible, to recognise flaws in certain areas of the game that matter to you, such as combat logging, that is also reasonable. But lets not pretend all toxic play from elements of the playerbase are equal here, some, as you well know, are much worse than others, why on earth would you and others not be critical of at least some of these activities? Honestly, I get the impression sometimes that if it's a PVP player being as disruptive, exploity and toxic as possible it's all fair game but if it isn't someone from 'the PVP club' then all hellfire gets rained down on them.

Let me give you an example, I've been pretty pro PVE on these boards but I have been consistent as you like in regards to combat logging, I've repeated many times it is wrong, if you are doing it you shouldn't be playing in open, (in particular), and that I think doing so is a muppet move. It is not something that affects me to any large degree, it is mainly an issue for PVP orientated players but that doesn't stop me recognising it as crap gameplay. I don't need some reward for recognising it as such, I don't take a 'why should I?' approach I just recognise it and some behaviours for what they are, why can't you do the same?

 

[StiTch]

Right here is where you all keep tripping yourselves up.

A feature that was introduced to be played from any mode (including Solo) cannot be "intended" to be PvP.
There is not much PvP in Solo mode.

Think about it.

Sorry mate but even Sandro said it lol.

PP consists of a number of pre-existing activities; the only "new content" is the conflict between the powers.

 

[EvE4evah]

Of course it's not arbitrary - it's a clear attempt to introduce a requirement to play in Open to engage in particular content, i.e. make oneself available for PvP - in a game with no requirement whatsoever to engage in PvP to engage in particular content.

I see this more as a proposal to offer additional content for PvP, not limiting content for anyone. I'd make it so that PvEers can do whatever they already do right now, but PvPers have a new way of influencing BGS and specially PP, specifically with PvP.

While PowerPlay may be considered to offer opportunities for consensual PvP (Sandro said as much in a recent stream) it also does not require players to engage in PvP to engage in PowerPlay content.

That proposal would seem to put a PvP-lock on some actions, i.e. if there are no PvP players on one side then the other side would presumably win, regardless of any PvE activities undertaken by the side lacking PvP players.

Your argument is that, oh but people simply won't want to PvP, hence you're proposing content that is locked away for them

Then the restrictions come from their minds, not the game.

Many players don't fancy exploration, will never go to SagA*. The requirement for doing so is: lots of time (unless you Brentnall-fit an Annie for BB Racing), and tolerance to repetitive black screens. Would you agree that this content is being locked away from those people?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sorry mate but even Sandro said it lol.

Indeed he did - however there's big difference between "offering opportunities for PvP" to "requires players to PvP to participate" - Frontier chose the former rather than the latter.