So you want to play in Open, eh?

[newman1702]

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.

You know what's funny, he actually did. I'm referring to this:

The Hutton blockade was quite literally an off-the-cuff suggestion by me (yes, blame me for all of it, I have thick skin) as we were bored to tears in-game

The whole thing pretty clearly reads as "we were bored so we went to blow up some defenseless traders who just spent 90 minutes in SC for the lulz". Everything else is shiny packaging for a.. well, you know.

My honest suggestion to CODE from here on now: next time you do this, don't invent all these paper thin excuses and try to present them as "reasons". You see how many people bought those anyway? Next time, just come out and say "we're blockading this CG/system/event because we feel like blowing up some easy targets". Or don't even offer a reason. You won't be liked any more than you are liked now, but at least some people will respect you guys being honest about it.

The discussion whether groups that roleplay as bad guys actually bring something interesting to the universe can be an interesting one no matter which side you're on, as long as it's all kept civil. Just don't come up with these "reasons" a dog wouldn't swallow if you dipped them in meat sauce. All that missed was a laughter track and maybe some Benny Hill music.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I generally don't have any problem with Code (and others) and playing the way they do. There are no rules against this, so those complaining are really appealing to 'The Spirit of Elite' or some other sense of fair play - which may or may not exist. Personally I find blowing Commanders up without warning a low blow and isn't something I would do myself and wouldn't encourage. I'd like to see actions to stop CG's etc. be thought out and viable at least by some sort of explanation. I do think there should be some organisation against Code (and others) by people who like PvP but object to what they do. When I get some time this is something I will take a look at doing. I understand there are groups out there doing just that, but Im guessing it's hard with small numbers. At the moment we only seem to have 'bad guys' but no 'good guys', so the formation of such groups to protect traders would be a good dynamic for the game.

Just my 2p (2c) worth.

 

[Draven Darken]

Some of the OP's suggestions are exactly why I play in Solo. For me, the whole and only point of a game like ED is to play the role of the loner vagabond, alone in the black with his ship as his only friend. I'm not looking to play a cog in a much bigger machine ... I already get more than enough of that from the real world, thank you very much. So the suggestion that, in order to survive in Open, you MUST wing up with friends for protection or else expect to be cannon fodder for the Code or whomever ... well, that is completely not the game experience that I am looking for. If I was, I'd probably have been playing Eve.

One of these days I may indeed get around to trying a private PvE group like Mobius ... but the more I see about this kind of behavior and requirements for effective participation (i.e., as something other than a target dummy) in Open, the more certain I become that I'll never been clicking on that button.

 

[lenna]

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.

I believe that is supposed to be part of their group charter.
---
Providing CODE Members follow an ED209 style of warning before opening fire on players I think they can claim a certain degree of honour was involved. However, as I understand it there were at least some cases of blockaders not adhering to the policy. Whether they were CODE members or not is unknown.

 

[Zaroca]

I think that the only thing this game needs is a little bit of realism in this kind of things. There is ZERO real security in all galaxy. CODE made that on Hutton but they could do it on Archenar, Sol, Cubeo or where they want. So, seeing it in perspective they are above the governments and that is against lore, coherence and the game itself.

I mean, where are the Federation Security Forces? I think the Security Forces should appear, and if they kill them, more and stronger security forces should appear. And if every cop is beaten the Federal Army should appear. Just think in the real world.

Aaand last but not least, I think that the network architecture itself allows this kind of things. If all of us where in the same place (same instance) probably the things were very different. One hundred of G1 Pulse lasers are stronger that an A7 shield. Again think in the real world: maybe a lot of people will assist if one of them is attacked making piracy more real, difficult and fun. With objectives for everyone: for the pirate (steal), for the victim (keep himself alive and/or keep the cargo), for the others on the instance (try to assist the victim ...or the pirate)

//
I know my English is not very good but I hope you could understand what I mean.

Fly safe or run fast (I usually choose this one ;P)

 

[Jockey79]

I believe that is supposed to be part of their group charter.
---
Providing CODE Members follow an ED209 style of warning before opening fire on players I think they can claim a certain degree of honour was involved.

There is no honour in 4 combat ships with excess shield cell banks abuse on each picking on 1 unarmed trader - warning or not.

 

[NeilF]

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

If questionable (weak) mechanics in the core game result in CMDRs leaving OPEN for a GROUP (or SOLO), that to me is a sad reflection of those mechanics!

If some CMDRs truly are not interested in the (added) challenge or risk of playing against other CMDRs in OPEN, then that's of course fine! But for players to seemingly be driven away from OPEN due to the game not policing itself effectively is a sad state of affairs IMHO.

 

[bootsam]

CMDR CZ Zones. Entering it explicitly accepts pvp. Then we can make choices. I think that may be the point of the current 1.4 beta. PVP can then be controlled with no charges of murder. Its war capt.

Piracy, losing the interdiction battle automatically removes cargo from the interdictee to fill the interdictors cargo slots. Both can then be on their way, one happy the other grumbling but with ship intact. Pirate remains in SC and legs it. Trader is dropped from SC into normal space. Submitting to interdiction accepts loss of cargo and drops into normal space with no damage and just has to wait until fsd cools. Resisting and losing loses cargo and some small damage to ship. Pirate does a runner giggling. Resisting and winning interdiction drops pirate into normal space with small amount of damage. Trader remains in SC chortling.

Murders, if you murder a CMDR in Empire/Federation/Alliance space you cannot dock in the space the offence took place. NPC's will shoot on sight and docking attempts enforced vigorously. They will then be confined to anarchies etc i.e. on the fringes of society where they belong. Their bounties and locations will be broadcast and all recent contacts with npc's, cmdrs etc updated for bounty hunters. Only when your bounty has been claimed will they then have their crimes extinguished and be considered 'rehabilitated' and free to enter normal space once more. No kill warrant scan required. Give bounty hunters a good hunt.

 

[lenna]

There is no honour in 4 combat ships with excess shield cell banks abuse on each picking on 1 unarmed trader - warning or not.

True - there is a lot to be said against the way they operate on the whole, but they do allegedly have a charter they are supposed to adhere to. The problem is we can't be certain who is or who is not a member, unless they are open and honest with their membership list (which could result in everyone else blocking them).

 

[JessieColt]

I don't play in open.

The OP post is part of the reason.

I want to play the way *I* want to play, not be forced to play the way someone else wants me to.

Therefore I play in a Group of other like minding users.

Good information though, so +rep to the OP for taking the time to post.

 

[lenna]

If questionable (weak) mechanics in the core game result in CMDRs leaving OPEN for a GROUP (or SOLO), that to me is a sad reflection of those mechanics!

If some CMDRs truly are not interested in the (added) challenge or risk of playing against other CMDRs in OPEN, then that's of course fine! But for players to seemingly be driven away from OPEN due to the game not policing itself effectively is a sad state of affairs IMHO.

I avoid Open for the very simple reason that there are atleast a few in-game sociopaths/psychopaths that populate it and I wish to avoid them. In-game AI policing only partly addresses the underlying concerns... it is far from the whole story. There are at least some like myself that are only interested in Co-op PvE and structured PvP.

 

[EUS]

If I understand the mechanics correctly as discussed back in '13 & '14, if you friend someone, you have a higher chance of being instanced with them, and if you ignore, or block, less of a chance of instancing with them.

Which leads to potential abuse: There's nothing stopping a group of players (PvP) from sending friend requests to individuals (traders), to better the chances of instancing with their targets, and at the same time, blocking bounty hunters, so that defense of the targets/area is more difficult.

What a terrible thing to put into a multiplayer game, especially after introducing wings.

So no, I wouldn't "friend" any, and everyone that requests it, especially if I'm a trader.

 

[Skyrun]

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!

I want to play in Open just not PvP that is why I want a Open PvE.
I think it is wishful thinking to assume that there are mechanics which won't break PvP at all but prevents that a small number of (ruling) bullies reduces the fun of the majority.
I played many PvP space games and I don't know anyone where this is not the case. For sure Elite won't be an exception. That is why I want an Open PvE for all the ones like me which are tired of this sort of playing.

I don't think it is clear that Open PvP will get less CMDRs. I play Solo or group as I don't want to play PvP and many others do like me. I think the change will be that there will be still the same amount in Open PvP but many from Solo/groups will join Open PvE. Or you would prevent CMDRs quitting which don't like PvP and don't like solo anymore and just stop playing.

 

[lonewarrior]

If I understand the mechanics correctly as discussed back in '13 & '14, if you friend someone, you have a higher chance of being instanced with them, and if you ignore, or block, less of a chance of instancing with them.

Which leads to potential abuse: There's nothing stopping a group of players (PvP) from sending friend requests to individuals (traders), to better the chances of instancing with their targets, and at the same time, blocking bounty hunters, so that defense of the targets/area is more difficult.

What a terrible thing to put into a multiplayer game, especially after introducing wings.

So no, I wouldn't "friend" any, and everyone that requests it, especially if I'm a trader.

No it's been confirmed this only blocks communications, I've got people on my friends list who I've never been able to instance with after hours trying to and I've people on my block list I see all the time, I just don't have to put up with their whining and abusive messages anymore

 

[EUS]

No it's been confirmed this only blocks communications, I've got people on my friends lost who I've never been able to instance with and I've people on my block list I see all the time

So this thread is not accurate? Ironman stuff aside.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

 

[NeilF]

I avoid Open for the very simple reason that there are atleast a few in-game sociopaths/psychopaths that populate it and I wish to avoid them. In-game AI policing only partly addresses the underlying concerns... it is far from the whole story. There are at least some like myself that are only interested in Co-op PvE and structured PvP.

That's understandable... And if you want to only take part in PvE that's fine

But what would be nice is if the antics possibly pushing other players out of OPEN could be addressed by some simple (fair) mechanics.

It's entirely right murder should be possible in ED (OPEN), but it should also result in punishment, such that repeated murder should result in a significant penalty/outcome. At the moment, I'd suggest this is definately not the case.

At the same time, we cannot demonise murder to the extent Piracy becomes intenable. Piracy requires the threat of death for those that do not comply. And I'd argue just as we need better mechanics for the game generally policing itself better, we also need better mechanics for Piracy. It's one of the corner stone occupations in the game, yet frankly seems somewhat forgotten and ill-conceived at the moment.

 

[Bacalao]

Face facts people, there are not a lot of Code members. Maybe a max of 20 participated in this at a single time for an hour or two in and instance or two, most of the time it was 10-15 in a single instance.
The fact that this tiny infinitesimal number of players were able to pretty much grind the Hutton Orbital CG to a halt at-will should push everyone to practice combat skills and tactics a lot more. We saw a couple of really good 1v1 combat commanders out there but they weren't enough in numbers and they weren't a match for our completely-legitimate combat tactics.

LOL! Funny story bro.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I don't play in open.

The OP post is part of the reason.

I want to play the way *I* want to play, not be forced to play the way someone else wants me to.

Therefore I play in a Group of other like minding users.

Good information though, so +rep to the OP for taking the time to post.

No one is forcing you to do anything.

 

[lenna]

The "Hutton Incident" along with the previously reported "Sag-A Prowler(s)" are just a couple of prime examples of where FD has allowed a few players to ruin Open play for a lot of other people.
---
PvP Piracy and Murder should not be without consequences - in some cases in-game AI policing forces should be able to deal with it but in cases like the two highlighted above FD need to step into their Size 9s and stomp on the unacceptable behaviour OR do they condone the notionally inevitable (and possible at least equally unacceptable) alternative... player organised lynch mobs targeting specific groups of players in such a way as to be considered Eye-For-An-Eye justice? (and possibly even go beyond that)

 

[NeilF]

CMDR CZ Zones. Entering it explicitly accepts pvp. Then we can make choices. I think that may be the point of the current 1.4 beta. PVP can then be controlled with no charges of murder. Its war capt.

Piracy, losing the interdiction battle automatically removes cargo from the interdictee to fill the interdictors cargo slots. Both can then be on their way, one happy the other grumbling but with ship intact. Pirate remains in SC and legs it. Trader is dropped from SC into normal space. Submitting to interdiction accepts loss of cargo and drops into normal space with no damage and just has to wait until fsd cools. Resisting and losing loses cargo and some small damage to ship. Pirate does a runner giggling. Resisting and winning interdiction drops pirate into normal space with small amount of damage. Trader remains in SC chortling.

Murders, if you murder a CMDR in Empire/Federation/Alliance space you cannot dock in the space the offence took place. NPC's will shoot on sight and docking attempts enforced vigorously. They will then be confined to anarchies etc i.e. on the fringes of society where they belong. Their bounties and locations will be broadcast and all recent contacts with npc's, cmdrs etc updated for bounty hunters. Only when your bounty has been claimed will they then have their crimes extinguished and be considered 'rehabilitated' and free to enter normal space once more. No kill warrant scan required. Give bounty hunters a good hunt.

You know... There's some legs on this I'd suggest!

ie: A method for the person being interdicted to simply "pay up" and be on their way... BUT, given your mechanic, how can it ever end in a fight? ie: The person being interdicted does not want to give up their cargo, and the Pirate wishes to take it... How can pew pew ensue?

BTW - I'd love to see this discussion continue on my dedicate thread about piracy & interdiction? Up to you though - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101696