So you want to play in Open, eh?

[CMDR Nick]

My Admiral advises:


The pursuit of what we term 'paltry bounties' (Rights reserved) are clearly explained to the Fleet and to aligned Officers in our latest guide.

Claiming bounties which, by any reasonable standard, are of very low value to the bounty-hunting Commander are regarded as ungentlemanly.

Although we cannot directly sanction Commanders for behaving legally, we may well disapprove.

Ship-kills classed as 'murders', and those computed as 'paltry bounties' (Rights reserved) may result in promotion penalty if they exceed a reasonable number (generally, three per year.)


Fly hard and live long Commanders.


Peace through Force (Rights reserved.)


Yours aye,


Vincent KILLER (Adm., rtd.)


***** ******* Navy

 

[Jockey79]

I do agree, but the CODE really should know that their efforts failed!

Good job explaining that to them.
They see any attention (good or bad) as a win.

The only way to beat them, is to ignore them and not acknowledge their existence in any way.

 

[biohazard15]

Good job explaining that to them.
They see any attention (good or bad) as a win.

The only way to beat them, is to ignore them and not acknowledge their existence in any way.

I do agree with you here. They are terrorists - and terrorists seek public attention. No PA = no gain for them.

 

[CDR Michael Darkmoor]

Nonya... there is truth in all that you've posted. But there are some ideas that you might be missing as well.
Consider the relatively new player who, not having the vast and glorious experience of your group, stumbles upon one of your "blockades" and is attacked and killed before they can even figure out that the warning was meant for them.

Is this the definition of "Fun"?

Is there an actual belief that this will cause this person to "get organized" with others and add to the game or will that action in fact, actually end up driving them back into Solo... thus increasing the groups "boredom" due to lack of players to play against.

If there is a CODE... there should be a "code". One that takes into account the varying experience and even situational awareness of other players. Ganking Noobs... is really a bit that tears down the stated goal of increased player interaction. Wound, not kill... chase off... not destroy. If they fight back... Free Reign.

That was not happening yesterday. There are other words used to describe the action taken yesterday...

<not unfriending you yet>

 

[TD Bauer]

Sounds to me like the OP is trying to suggest people play the game the way he wants them to play it, so it can provide more fun and amusement for him and his CODE members.

"do this" and "do that" and "be organized" and "Learn to fight back" ... "your boring us because you can't put up a fight" ....

Sadly, from what I gathered over the Hutton CG timeline, all the CODE really managed to do was push more players into the already 11k+ Mobius PVE player group. And I believe posts like the OP's will push even more people that way when the next CG hits.

 

[Joe Akeem]

I'd love to join a gang of rouges spreading havoc among the stars, IF there was a REASON behind it. But since I don't see the reason - and being a grown-up, I think I'll pass.

 

[CMDR Nick]

Nonya... there is truth in all that you've posted. But there are some ideas that you might be missing as well.
Consider the relatively new player who, not having the vast and glorious experience of your group, stumbles upon one of your "blockades" and is attacked and killed before they can even figure out that the warning was meant for them.

Is this the definition of "Fun"?

Is there an actual belief that this will cause this person to "get organized" with others and add to the game or will that action in fact, actually end up driving them back into Solo... thus increasing the groups "boredom" due to lack of players to play against.

If there is a CODE... there should be a "code". One that takes into account the varying experience and even situational awareness of other players. Ganking Noobs... is really a bit that tears down the stated goal of increased player interaction. Wound, not kill... chase off... not destroy. If they fight back... Free Reign.

That was not happening yesterday. There are other words used to describe the action taken yesterday...

<not unfriending you yet>

My Admiral advises:

In December we will amass a Fleet in this region and raze the CODE.

Stand by for further instructions.


Fly hard and live long.


Peace through Force (Rights reserved.)


Yours aye,


Vincent KILLER (Adm., rtd.)


***** ******* Navy

 

[Snarfbuckle]

You don't read the news much do you

What, cops shoot people all the time in the US - why cant ED cops be just as triggerhappy?

All we get are mallcops that MIGHT file a report IF we are lucky and IF they happen to be in the neighbourhood.

- - - Updated - - -

---
I think no-one wants Open play to be a police state but currently the situation is next to anarchy (or at least seems to be).

Nope, there should of course be a sliding scale of security depending on how close to core worlds you are.

At the moment I feeel no "safer" in an Anarchy system than I do in Sol or Achenar.

Law enforcement should be VERY visible in high sec worlds and be VERY prone to call in heavy reinforcement because their patrol cars (Eagles/Viper) cant match an Anaconda battle tank.

 

[Skyrun]

I guess the bottom line is we need you folks to get better at this because right now while your forum posts may be entertaining to read online, in-game you're boring us and we need you to start creating your own in-game content on-the-fly like we do. FDEV does not always have to create it. Look at those wacky races (which look like fun by the way) around stations, or out to Sag A. Where are the trade competitions? CZ Combat competitions (CQC does NOT count, sorry Xbox players)? Mining competitions (mine this much X from this exact RES in X amount of time)? Where are the trade wars? (heh, TradeWars2002 notwithstanding....)

That is why we need Open PvE. There would be many nice events and competitions there as griefers have less possibilites to harm the event.
In Open not many want to organize such an event on a specific place as griefers are flying to such events like flies to a light.
I like competitions but not like what you want: a competition between traders and fighters.
I like fair play.


And I don't like following someones self-made rules just because he is in a better ship with better weapons or better skill. That is why I don't play open.

 

[lenna]

Nope, there should of course be a sliding scale of security depending on how close to core worlds you are.

At the moment I feeel no "safer" in an Anarchy system than I do in Sol or Achenar.

Law enforcement should be VERY visible in high sec worlds and be VERY prone to call in heavy reinforcement because their patrol cars (Eagles/Viper) cant match an Anaconda battle tank.

I am talking about FD's policing of player behaviour as opposed to in-game AI behaviour... I thought that was obvious but I apologise if it was not.
---
However, I do agree in-game AI policing behaviours need to be tweaked.
---
Military Interdictions by friendly militaries for example seem inappropriate.

 

[smiths121]

PvP is quite rare and limited to "gate" locations such as CGs. Hutton seemed quite meaningful to many give the threads and demands for changes in the game. Trade CGs are challenging, as you simply cannot take a ship that is not designed to run a blockade to a blockade, even then you are going to lose a few over the life of the CG - making Hutton doubly tricky. I know this from Khaka during Lough times, and the blockaders were working under much stricter rules of engagement than Code at Hutton (ok there was this one guy.....).

To the OP, thank you for your list, I knew most of it, but then I get to do PvP testin in beta! I do think you came across unnecessarily supercilious though - but hey you are a naughty pirate! I just think coming across like that will not appeal to people other than those that already engage you. I personally will continue playing in open, adding to my knowledge with your tips - so thanks again. PvP is a tool to me much like taking a mission or trading. I am sure one day there will be a meaningful reason for me to use PvP with CODE on the other side, hope I and my friends can stop you being bored and bring you down a peg or 2 (which I am guessing is what you crave)!

Simon

Except no, it's not. Open is principally a PvE environment, whether PvPers like it or not. That's not an opinion, it's fact, by design. PvP is permitted, but it's PvP in a PvE-based environment. Yes, getting attacked is a possibility, even a high probability in some places. Even DBOBE said way back that PvP was intended to be rare and meaningful. Given the number of systems it occurs in, it is probably rare (technically), but in cases such as the Hutton CG it is anything but meaningful for most (except for those perpetrating the blockade attempt I guess). But that's not the problem - the problem remains that the consequences for a major crime like 'murder' are all but nonexistent. Unprovoked attacks are to be expected in open, no argument there. Unprovoked attacks on clean CMDRs with little or no consequences (within supposedly policed space) for the attacker are not.

 

[Naranek]

(NOTE: the following public service announcement is Nonya's opinion only and is not an official communication from Code itself) […]

must have missed you, went to hutton without problems, just a couple of friendly chatty cmdrs there.

i've got a question for you though: do you play the cqc beta? and/or will you play it (as code) once it's released officially? i'm enjoying it immensely, and to me it seems that's the only way to test and prove your skills in pvp combat in an objective way, since (as you said yourself) there are so many gameplay mechanics exploits in the regular game (let alone scenarios like a wing of combat ships interdicting a lone freighter etc).

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

PvP is quite rare and limited to "gate" locations such as CGs. Hutton seemed quite meaningful to many give the threads and demands for changes in the game.

<snip>

What happened at Hutton was more CvS - Club versus Seal.

 

[AveMe]

too long for quote

+rep.
sometimes i think complainers wants give-me-1000000000cr button.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

must have missed you, went to hutton without problems, just a couple of friendly chatty cmdrs there.

i've got a question for you though: do you play the cqc beta? and/or will you play it (as code) once it's released officially? i'm enjoying it immensely, and to me it seems that's the only way to test and prove your skills in pvp combat in an objective way, since (as you said yourself) there are so many gameplay mechanics exploits in the regular game (let alone scenarios like a wing of combat ships interdicting a lone freighter etc).

Gentlemen Piracy.

"You, me, CQC, now. You win, you get away, I win, I get 50% of the cargo."

 

[vindicator jones]

Admit it OP, the whole blockade of Hutton was purely for getting kills on poorly defended traders.. Not the claims you made, because everyone sees past the bull.

Regardless of that, the problem wasnt the pirating.. the problem was the interdict and shoot without even giving terms policy that was running rampant. Giving threats in supercruise is NOT enough... a lot of players are not watching their screens for the full 1hour and 20 mins travel time, so they might miss those messages. If you had told players to dump cargo or system jump AFTER interdicting them, then there would be far less backlash... But I think this was done on purpose.. giving warnings only in supercruise gives the false pretense of warning other ships to leave, and then an excuse to blow them up immediately after interdicting them.

I will agree, Organization was key to your little escapade, but even an organized griefing session, is still griefing... To those pirates that did give warnings after interdiction, then I will tip my hat to you for doing the right thing in that instance at least.

Codes effort in this situation is most likely going to push more unwinged players into solo mode, which really is only going to mean less traders for you to pirate.. So, yeah.. great effort mate.. we should be encouraging players into open, not pushing them into solo.. Think about what your doing.. seriously..

 

[NeilF]

That is why we need Open PvE. There would be many nice events and competitions there as griefers have less possibilites to harm the event.
In Open not many want to organize such an event on a specific place as griefers are flying to such events like flies to a light.
I like competitions but not like what you want: a competition between traders and fighters.
I like fair play.


And I don't like following someones self-made rules just because he is in a better ship with better weapons or better skill. That is why I don't play open.

No, we just need some better (more considered) mechanics in the game so it can better police itself. The last thing we want to remove more and more CMDRs from the OPEN environment, even if they are doing things we don't like.

What we want are mechanics that gives criminal activity (eg: murder) a more appropriate set of outcomes within the game. ie: More security forces around the individual(s) instance(s). More logical decisions on when a platform or station should fire or take other action...

For example, individuals simply turning up day after day at Hutton ramming CMDRs to death while the platform, day after day, ignored these same individuals committing the same type of murder over and over... The game needs to simply police (handle) stuff like this better...

The environment & its mechanics need to be made more diverse and deeper, not nerfed down to make it simply safer for no (real) reason. If you don't want to play in OPEN that's fine of course, but many other people do and I suspect would love to see more and more diverse mechanics to allow players to experience more and more variety of scenarios. And ideally for emergent gameplay to come about so they can engineer their own scenarios with the game embracing it rather than buckling!

 

[lenna]

No, we just need some better (more considered) mechanics in the game so it can better police itself. The last thing we want to remove more and more CMDRs from the OPEN environment, even if they are doing things we don't like.

Actually, we probably need BOTH.

The environment & its mechanics need to be made more diverse and deeper, not nerfed down to make it simply safer for no reason.

Adding an Official FD policed version of Mobius (Open PvE) is not nerfing anything.

 

[ianw]

Gentlemen Piracy.

"You, me, CQC, now. You win, you get away, I win, I get 50% of the cargo."

That could work - if they'd only introduce a 1 v 1 challenge mode.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

By the way, it's all fun and games pointing and laughing at CODE, but I feel there needs to be a little credit where it's due.

There is at least 1 instance I am aware of that CODE made a refund towards a pilot who was shot down near Hutton without warning. I feel that's a very decent thing to do, since they didn't have to.

Ok, now we can proceed with the pointing and laughing