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

[Jockey79]

well, they have several consecutive 'best mmo of the year' awards on record, from quite solid sources. you don't have have to trust me (since you obviously have not played it and lack first hand experience, but why should that stop you from having a strong opinion!).

https://community.eveonline.com/news/awards-and-accolades/#awards

Star Citizen has awards and it's not even a game yet, what's your point?

I can sit here listing loads of games that got awards that didn't deserve them.
I've even voted in those awards so I know just how rigged they are, with how they list other nominations of 5 indy games no one has ever heard of and 1 big mmo game that we all know - can you guess where most of the vote go yet?

Same as the Oscars, BAFTAs and so on and so on. It's self contained bubble industries patting themselves on the back.
SWTOR even got a "Worst Business Model" for 2016, who needs an award for that? It has EA in big letters on it, of course it's a horrible business model, it's EA!

You shouldn't rely on rigged sticker awards, you should play a game and judge it for yourself - not what paid promoters think of it.
3 years of EVE taught me a few things, first and foremost - don't let griefers/gankers be the loudest voice on the forums - as the Devs do listen.
It also taught me, no game ever should be a 2nd job - and 12 - 16 hour mining events was a 2nd job.
And it also taught me, there are worthless people out there who are just out to ruin everyone's fun, because they are just nasty little people.

Lucky for me, Frontier had the foresight to use a selective mode system and heavily instanced the game.
So we can enjoy Elite: Dangerous without having to give a 2nd thought to those people who ruined EVE.
I just hope Chris Roberts has given it some thought, after all this time it would be a shame to see SC fail because there is no way to control who you play with.

 

[Robert Maynard]

anyway, dude, i you want to keep on bashing eve just go ahead, but it isn't going to make ed better.

Definitions of "better" vary from person to person - personally, I am of the opinion that E: D is "better" for not having followed CCP's design for EVE.

 

[Jockey79]

anyway, dude, i you want to keep on bashing eve just go ahead, but it isn't going to make ed better.

Only "bashing" EVE due to your daft proclamation it's the best MMO ever - that's you opinion and you're welcome to it, mine is that it is the worst MMO ever and I'm just as welcome to my opinion as you are yours.

But don't misunderstand me, I hope EVE sticks around for years to come.
As long as it is a honey pot for people I don't want to see in other games - then long live EVE.
Keep those players out of games I enjoy, where they a suffer each other and we don't have to suffer them.

 

[Rampant]

They are scared, terrified actually, terrified of being dead in 5sec due to incompetence and *star* in someones video titled "conda ded in 2sec".
Dont delude yourself, people hide in carebear modes in order to not show their incompetence in understanding basic game mechanics.

Posts that state that players are "scared" or "terrified" show a lack of credibility, it is also pretty tedious.

Stick with it, though. Posts with lack of credibility can always trend towards future posts with an even greater lack of credibility if you make enough effort.

Yours

Mark H

 

[Sylveria]

Only "bashing" EVE due to your daft proclamation it's the best MMO ever - that's you opinion and you're welcome to it, mine is that it is the worst MMO ever and I'm just as welcome to my opinion as you are yours.

But don't misunderstand me, I hope EVE sticks around for years to come.
As long as it is a honey pot for people I don't want to see in other games - then long live EVE.
Keep those players out of games I enjoy, where they a suffer each other and we don't have to suffer them.

Agreed completely with this sentiment... we've been getting an exodus of Ex-EVE players who want ED turned into EVE because CCP managed to bungle it recently with the PLEX and Alpha training messes.

I really hope they turn it all around and make Valkyrie an optional part of their main game. (and stop trying to turn ED into the game they wish it was)

 

[StiTch]

You shouldn't rely on rigged sticker awards, you should play a game and judge it for yourself - not what paid promoters think of it.

While I am not a fan of anything rigged/predetermined, it's pretty difficult to bring subjective game opinion onto a debate. You're literally asking the dude to argue using his opinion. And that...is going to go wrong before we've started.

 

[EvE4evah]

They got around that by making disposable ships that they could lose and pouncing. I was caught as I approached the jumpgate in highsec.. they blew my mastodon (or mammoth it has been a while) to heck, then as security forces rushed in and took them on their friend in another transport came in and picked up all my cargo. I was thanked and then podded. Uninstalled right after.

Hahahahahahahhahahahhahaa

 

[EvE4evah]

Just to put it out there.

1: It is entirely possible to sit in open and not be matched together with other players, they do not need to be in solo or group.
2: It doesn't take that many people to do a 'war' with BGS especially in remote and low population location, then also remember the natural fluctuations from people that don't care about the BGS doing various missions, so again to supplement (1) you can simply be missing them.
3: what one group of people that you know says, does not with any certainty represent what others do.

Conclusion, you do not actually know what anyone is doing or their motivation by it, nor du you know the amount of people that do the things you believe people are doing. You are purely suspecting this, based on flawed evidence, only ones that have the real evidence are frontier.

Isn't AEDC a prominent indirect PvP PowerPlayer group?

 

[skinnered]

While I am not a fan of anything rigged/predetermined, it's pretty difficult to bring subjective game opinion onto a debate. You're literally asking the dude to argue using his opinion. And that...is going to go wrong before we've started.



I wonder if that's how EVE players feel about ED and crybabies...

*dodges thrown shoes*

Mummy, mummy the other boys and girls won't play with me; and I want them to. Tell their mummies and daddies to make them play with me. Boo...ooh.
Is this what you had in mind when using the phrase cry-baby?

 

[StiTch]

Mummy, mummy the other boys and girls won't play with me; and I want them to. Tell their mummies and daddies to make them play with me. Boo...ooh.
Is this what you had in mind when using the phrase cry-baby?

No, I had in mind people indignantly overreacting to clearly facetious threads and posts

 

[EvE4evah]

Mummy, mummy the other boys and girls won't play with me; and I want them to. Tell their mummies and daddies to make them play with me. Boo...ooh.
Is this what you had in mind when using the phrase cry-baby?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/crybaby

 

[Jockey79]

While I am not a fan of anything rigged/predetermined, it's pretty difficult to bring subjective game opinion onto a debate. You're literally asking the dude to argue using his opinion. And that...is going to go wrong before we've started.

Yea but he is failing at facts as well, like EVE being the pioneer for real world currency when it was actually the 2nd game to do it and the first game is still going strong (reminds me, must update that - not loaded it this week).

So I'd rather discuss ideas based on his opinion than on false information.
At least his opinion will be honest, and I can respect that.

I wonder if that's how EVE players feel about ED and crybabies...

*dodges thrown shoes*

The EVE lot can barley read, so I doubt they even understand what goes on here (unless you're translating for them, are you an EVE spy? )

And I'm not being mean when I say this, I can even back that comment up;

If you click that top link in my Sig, or go to : https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/ (explains we are all connected and you can do it alone or with friends)

At no point does Frontier advertise, nor have they ever advertised Elite: Dangerous as a PvP game.
They have said it is a game where you can PvP if you want to, but they have never said that the game is based on or centred around PvP.

Yet we get veteran EVE players come here demanding to know why this "PvP game" has a block feature or why it has a mode system despite no advert saying ED is a PvP game.
(So either cannot read or will not read - the first has a valid excuse to a degree, the 2nd is beyond contempt)

I mean I hate what EVE became as I loved that game. But I'm not on their forums moaning about it, because it was never sold as a PvE game.
It was sold as a game where PvP can and will happen anywhere. I just never expected it to get as bad as it did. (Though Znort seems to suggest CONCORD has been given some teeth now, took long enough).
So I went off the game, gave my account away and went and found a new game and didn't look back. Not going to haunt their forums like some do here, just moved on.

 

[kinglemo2000]

Nailed it. This would give PVP its place. It wouldnt be a grief, cause it would be part of the game. Everyone would have to take part in it if they wanted PVP against another faction or powerplay period. I've never been a part of a game where objectives could be taken this way.

When I got into this game, I did do some research, see powerplay was introduced. I seen a PVP video on reddit come through and thats how I discovered this game. I WAS LIKE WOW CHECK THIS OUT! After a bit of research, I see or hunt other commanders, Powerplay and factions were hyped. I seen a space game with PVP and progression.

I wouldnt even know how to look for all modes are equal and its a part of this game. Not when youre new or have never heard of it. Ive never seen something like this before.

So yeah, through steam and some youtube videos. I thought I was getting a completely different game and I wouldnt have bought it otherwise. I have fallen in love with it though. And thats why I am here. There has got to be some lee-weigh given to make PVP relevant besides salt. With no options to use solo and private to take objectives.

Its not all about shooting people either, Traders hold the advantage for the most influence changes besides Murder with the BGS. There could be groups of wings and different meta's, Piracy, massive battles. People would be so busy with this stuff, we would see less ganking at Sag A and all that good jazz. Oh yeah its still going to happen. But few and far between.

Give people the chance to do this that forces PVP in a positive light. Not everyone wants to be a hot dang griefer or ganker. We just want Legit healthy PVP with objectives. Something to fight for. And thats just not going to happen when people can take the less riskier way out against the people they are fighting.

People say, well thats not the game I paid for blah blah blah, I paid for 100% of the game. Yep and its up to you to do it. You would still have the same 100% and I do. The guy already doesnt do powerplay, or BGS stuff. But they sure dont have any problems running their mouth just to argue.

I really hope this is not one of the reasons Legit PVP in this game has been held back. Very sad if thats the case.

Its the whole reason this snowball effect of toxicity with everyone is a griefer, and legit griefing, and this stupid hotel california/modes discussion thats been going on for years. Really not fair to players on both sides to allow the sorts of things I've seen because of it. Doxxing, and PG ganks, (Streamsniping although I welcome this myself).

PVP could be better. And if people want to take part in it. Then join everyone else giving direct PVP its meaning. And when its part of the game, people will understand it. People get salty and dont understand it, because it has no meaning. So give it the meaning.

Some of the people around here complain it has no meaning, and then turn around and say it already has meaning.

This is what I mean when I say, this is called having your cake and eating it too.

This is where you still fail to understand that PvP would not work and you would still lose the BSG battle if you have a PvP side v a PvE side in open in a BSG battle say 20 strong each side the PvP side would be sitting their patrolling in small wings trying to cover several instance's to defend their system, this is all taking place in open with no block feature all the PvE team would have to do is make sure they are wing together and make sure they are all on each other friend list's and time their jumps together and as wings are king followed by friends list on the matchmaker server there be a good chance you wont even instance with them. The PvE group could even get 5 of their team to unfriend and have unarmed cheap throw away ships to keep jumping into your system to increase the chance of a instance with you and as long as they stay clean let the PvP group interdict them and blow them up (which would get very boring for the PvP group) this would also help the PvE group as it would lower your rep with your own faction and make you hostile in your own system. The five ships may even be carrying missions for your faction you won't know so by destroying them you could also be weakening your own faction by doing so.

You be better off running missions for your faction the time wasted running around on the lookout for a ship you could have run several missions to strengthen your faction, the only time I would see PvP a good option would be when the system enters a state of war then perhaps PvP could be used to drive out the opposing group from CZ's to help win that war

 

[StiTch]

Yea but he is failing at facts as well, like EVE being the pioneer for real world currency when it was actually the 2nd game to do it and the first game is still going strong (reminds me, must update that - not loaded it this week).

So I'd rather discuss ideas based on his opinion than on false information.
At least his opinion will be honest, and I can respect that.

I'm loathe to get into personal poo-flinging matches, much less when it's someone else I'm trying to represent. I'll leave the details of the debate for between ya - just be careful that dragging pure opinion into a discussion is counterproductive as it gets.

My personal opinion is delete solo and PG, create avenues for PvP bounty hunting, create potent PvE police forces, and create a game where players truly shape the galaxy - but cannot forget consequence exists.

Is that relevant? Well perhaps the parts about PvP bounty hunting and PvE police. I am not seriously going to campaign for the removal of PG/Solo though, because it just ain't gonna happen.

Let's find ways to improve the game that add, not take away. Add content that gives PvP purpose, remove nothing except players that literally cannot handle the idea of PvP existing as something more than folks playing over in the corner among themselves.

The EVE lot can barley read, so I doubt they even understand what goes on here (unless you're translating for them, are you an EVE spy? )

Ah crap, you got me....it turns out webdings is excellent for translating into primitive grunts and pointing gestures.

And I'm not being mean when I say this, I can even back that comment up;

If you click that top link in my Sig, or go to : https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/ (explains we are all connected and you can do it alone or with friends)

At no point does Frontier advertise, nor have they ever advertised Elite: Dangerous as a PvP game.

Within that exact same page:

"or just hunt other Commanders"

Mindless murder is literally advertised gameplay.

There are a number of advertisements and early development discussions pertaining to PvP. Calling it core gameplay, perhaps not. But when someone suggests that PvP should not be catered to in the slightest because "it was never advertised to you" or "was never meant to be a serious part of the game"? Jog on, son.

 

[znôrt]

Agreed completely with this sentiment... we've been getting an exodus of Ex-EVE players who want ED turned into EVE because CCP managed to bungle it recently with the PLEX and Alpha training messes.

are you for real? xenophobia much?

relax, ed will likely never be anything like eve. but ed has serious shortcommings in some areas and could benefit from and find inspiration in experiences other successful developers had, amongst those but not only, ccp.

ahem, specially in areas where they are totally clueless, like ... oh, multiplayer!

actually, guys, the funny thing is that i'm totally with you: multiplayer is so sub-par in ed, at so many levels, that they would do good in forgetting about it altogether, and concentrate in giving us a vibrant galaxy to explore and fly through! meh, i think i'm repeating myself.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Yea but he is failing at facts as well, like EVE being the pioneer for real world currency when it was actually the 2nd game to do it and the first game is still going strong (reminds me, must update that - not loaded it this week).

So I'd rather discuss ideas based on his opinion than on false information.
At least his opinion will be honest, and I can respect that.




The EVE lot can barley read, so I doubt they even understand what goes on here (unless you're translating for them, are you an EVE spy? )

And I'm not being mean when I say this, I can even back that comment up;

If you click that top link in my Sig, or go to : https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/ (explains we are all connected and you can do it alone or with friends)

At no point does Frontier advertise, nor have they ever advertised Elite: Dangerous as a PvP game.
They have said it is a game where you can PvP if you want to, but they have never said that the game is based on or centred around PvP.

Yet we get veteran EVE players come here demanding to know why this "PvP game" has a block feature or why it has a mode system despite no advert saying ED is a PvP game.
(So either cannot read or will not read - the first has a valid excuse to a degree, the 2nd is beyond contempt)

I mean I hate what EVE became as I loved that game. But I'm not on their forums moaning about it, because it was never sold as a PvE game.
It was sold as a game where PvP can and will happen anywhere. I just never expected it to get as bad as it did. (Though Znort seems to suggest CONCORD has been given some teeth now, took long enough).
So I went off the game, gave my account away and went and found a new game and didn't look back. Not going to haunt their forums like some do here, just moved on.

Thats a cool story, but in reality Open mode is a slaughter house. I am at the Oracle now, the amount of ganking this time exceeded everything I ever saw in this game.
Clearly the whole concept of PVP failed miserably, 3 modes killed meaningful PVP and there is nothing left to do but mine salt.
Fdev had a game in mind but after 4 years with no to poor content implementation (for PVe as well) it doesnt work even closely to what was intended, unless they actually intended for Open mode to become a mad max EVE style gank fest.

Let all repeat together "All modes are equal, ED is not PVP game". It doesnt change the fact that this design failed and the game is as shallow as Space Engine with NPCS.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Clearly the whole concept of PVP failed miserably, 3 modes killed meaningful PVP and there is nothing left to do but mine salt.

The three mode system was clearly designed such that PvP would not be dominant - and, if dominance is what is required to make PvP meaningful, then it would seem unlikely to become so as it remains an optional element of the game.

 

[Jockey79]

Thats a cool story, but in reality Open mode is a slaughter house. I am at the Oracle now, the amount of ganking this time exceeded everything I ever saw in this game.
Clearly the whole concept of PVP failed miserably, 3 modes killed meaningful PVP and there is nothing left to do but mine salt.
Fdev had a game in mind but after 4 years with no to poor content implementation (for PVe as well) it doesnt work even closely to what was intended, unless they actually intended for Open mode to become a mad max EVE style gank fest.

Let all repeat together "All modes are equal, ED is not PVP game". It doesnt change the fact that this design failed and the game is as shallow as Space Engine with NPCS.

Again I'll ask, is open dead or a "slaughter house"?

I keep seeing the same few GSPs claiming open is dead and needs people forcing into it, then in another thread it's just a gank fest because you're all bored.
You know dead and "slaughter house" are exclusive arguments, it cannot be both.

And the selective mode system is a success, not just here but also in other games that have it - antisocial players who just want to wreak others time are furious, so the mode system is a raging success.
All future MMOs should take note - they don't need to pay for CS or GMs and can save money by having a selective mode system.

 

[StiTch]

Hey !! Hauling leaflets in open (or any mode for that matter) can be a lot of fun!

I am sure it can if that's your thing. And if it is one's thing, especially for those that enjoy the zen aspect, it exists everywhere in game. Hauling is the centerpiece of multiple mission types, trading, passenger content, the new station evac...

In context with PP especially though, it'd be far more engaging if - say - a side could gain an advantage by attempting to interrupt the enemy leaflet deliveries. In response, "the enemy" could employ reactive PvP forces that use high speed tactics and FSD missiles (look, I'm even bringing the PSM modules in here!) to lock enemies down as they get pounded on quickly by players and the police.

From mindless cargo hauling to a) a need to consider your leaflet hauler's build - sheer defense, stealth etc., b) a purpose for trade escorts, c) proper team management...

It cannot be the centerpiece of all ED hauling, but with PP being a conglomeration of pre-existing PvE activities in the name of competition, I cannot see a better platform for it.

ED promised many things the fact that everybody would affect the system and they could even play in solo or just with their friends.

I agree that the multiplayer (ie real time interaction) needs work, (so does the whole game tbh) for one a better communication system, more things to do together. Improving Open, that opens a sticky wicket since "Improving" can mean different things to different people, but yeah improvements are a great idea. But locking things to one mode (based on the feed back here) is not a popular idea.

I dont think it was a sick joke, I think it was a way to ensure the maximum number of players regardless of location/platform/or playstyle could get togther (even off line like these forums) to play the game and enjoy it. Of course I could be totally wacked but you are all a figment of my imagination anyway.

I am well aware I've created another one of "those" threads, but it's been a unique opportunity to see how players respond to very simple and reasonable content requests, there being no OP with intentions for the thread that take it elsewhere.

The proposal I've touted about twenty times here alone by Ziggy very simply allows PvP to be relevant and takes nothing from PvE players. It literally just counts the score separately for Open and PG/Solo, with both objectives being relevant in some form. The PG/Solo players can still contribute every bit as much as they always have: a side cannot rely only on PvE or PvP. The reactions have been...interesting, though notably more positive just after I mention it's a Ziggy Original (tm) suggestion.

Some PvE players across various threads have been all for it, other not so much - though I still have yet to see an objection that boils down to anything with more substance than "but I don't like the idea of PvP having content/being relevant".

 

[Deleted member 115407]

What is a GSP?