yeah... now you're really stretching to find analogies that fit your agenda. I'm not buying it, sorry.
Solution for Ganking
- Thread starter Sirlance
- Start date
In my experience from in game chat during Ax battles in open, those gankers don't give a flying """"" about lore, its just trying to get easy kills from ships that cant fight back.
I admit there are one or two folks genuinely doing it for roleplay but they are few and far between.
O7
PVE is fine, a game needs to offer steady, relaxing fun with a challenge if you want it, ED has this balance, PVE wise spot on.
O7
PvE / PvP flag would solve everything - normal people would enjoy the game with other people, G5 Murderboat Wing people would meet only guys willing to be their content, and everybody will get what they deserved.
If that flag affects instancing, then what you actually want is not a flag, but a fourth game mode besides Open, PG and Solo.
LOL! FD killed Powerplays PvE stone dead by somehow making it worse than PP1. C+P is nonsensical, and generally the game is riddled with issues and design flaws. The only bright spot is Thargoid combat, something FD sadly forgot about with PP2s difficulty in places such as strongholds.
Well its now the BGS replacement, and 'the' interaction layer.
What do you mean? You don't know how?
I remember it well, we delay PP2 for a week so one of the partners couldn't kill the NPCs.
It kind of sounded like this.
The actual underpinnings of expansion are great, the problem lies in that PP2 is really just more of the same farming low grade NPCs, and a few more BGS tropes. This is then mixed up awkwardly with silly C+P and inconsistencies.
The biggest flaw was of the almost automatic spawn of PP ships whereever you drop, which I thought FD would fix but keep the PP NPCs vigilance. Sadly this was not the case either, and FD seem to be randomly flipping switches hoping for 'balance'. I also naively thought FD had compromised and kept strongholds spicy but we are left with broken farming.
It's hardly a stretch, it's just what is, and it ties directly into the absurdity of the hyperbolic terms being used to paint 'ganking' as some great crime against players.
I have no idea what you think my agenda is, or why you think you'd be able to identify it, since you seem intent on ignoring the meaning of the words I use to express my opinions.
What gives actions verisimilitude within a given game setting isn't how well it conforms to arbitrary lore, but how well it's supported by the gameplay mechanisms provided.
If Frontier cared about gameplay supporting lore, or vice versa, they'd have built a game whose mechanisms were capable of reflecting the lore, or written lore that could work within the mechanisms they had, but they're shoehorning a narrative into a system that hasn't been equipped to relate it. We have a game that says one thing on the label, but has essentially never been capable of depicting that thing organically.
Piracy is a good example, as is AX itself, or the whole Thargoid narrative, all of which are more out of place than bored CMDRs testing the absurdity of insurance in a post scarcity utopia where things like ship destruction and alien invasion have next to no meaningful consequences.
Even if I we're judging it on the same criteria, I would still think ED's PvE was mostly garbage.
Open PVE? that would be nice
It would certainly be better than most of what's being done or advocated now, depending on how open the non-explicitly-PvE Open was.
I have no idea how this relates to gankers in AX
In your opinion, to me PVE is really good in Elite or the majority of us would not be here, im not interested in PvP.
It would be Open with no PvP, like Mobius
O7
To the players maybe, not to FDev. Mobius (or their moderators) can currently ban anyone from their private groups for any reason or no reason, there is no burden of proof. FDev would not have that luxury.
True but in my ideal world an official Open PVE server would have player to player combat disabled like in other MMOs.
O7
Since this will be a special mode where a player cannot harm another player in any way, there will be no need to ban anyone.
I am personally against this.
I'd like to see gankers or criminals get more hardship in their lives.
For example, we have the NOTOREITY. As soon as I get it (accidentally or on a mission) I fly and sit on a station and the whole galaxy except humans knows about me.
While I have notoriety just paint my square in lilac and already this small step will make the game more correct.
Last edited:
I have no idea how this relates to gankers in AX
I'm saying gankers in AX are the most plausible, probably least offensive, part about the whole AX thing.
Probably why I tend to stay away from AX.
Everything I say is my opinion.
I'm mostly interested in PvP because NPCs are both ephemeral and incompetent.
In direct conflict, I have to deliberately handicap my CMDR, or force him into absurd scenarios, to experience a challenge. In indirect conflict, NPCs just don't exist. I can't intercept them, I can't compete with them logistically or strategically, I sure can't use negotiation or subterfuge against them...95% of what conflict is, NPCs can't even do. There is only a tiny sliver of the spectrum of conflict they are present to take part in and they are bad at that part.
I was talking about the other Open. What rules would Open follow if Open PvE was split off?
But now that it's been brought up how exactly would you disable CMDR on CMDR violence in Open PvE? What is the recourse if griefers show up and start abusing the various mechanisms that are available to harass players?
The same rules as the existing modes
Its a mute point, i doubt Fdev would be able to implement it now, like other MMOs it would have needed to be programmed from the start.
We do however have Solo and PG which give us decent choices to play PVE.
O7
I'd still block pad-blockers, rammers and people who rant about politics.