That's already the case. Open PvE adds nothing we can't already do.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
That's already the case. Open PvE adds nothing we can't already do.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It would stop players being able to interdict other players, for one thing.
Makes trolling others way much harder.
It would make players complacent & easier to 'troll'.
Picture Deciat, Open PvE mode. You happily cruise all 2000ls to the engineers base instead of learning to be attentive, and when you arrive at the destination you get 'trolled' & let's say blown up. What's the net gain for the player hoping to avoid troublemakers? Seems like it just wasted a bit more time for each unsuccessful trip. What's the benefit?
Open PvE isn't a practical solution to anything. It's just an ideal to work towards, not an achievable goal. The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
An Open-PvE mode where a player can destroy another player would be defective and need to be fixed.
Fact is that with current laissez faire approach there is certain troll population. But lowest hanging fruit is get a murderboat, interdict and pixels go boom lol.
Other ways need certain set up. And are up to mistakes. Like say you try to suicidewinder me. Good luck with that, I use autodocker, while it may overspeed some times, it is also get out of jail free card.
You may have overlooked the last line of my post (that you quoted)
So mailslot blocking would be fine I guess?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not at all - as an Open-PvE mode would remove the ganker mini-game, in terms of interdictions and attacking their targets.You may have overlooked the last line of my post (that you quoted)
It would be as welcome as it is at the moment - and dealt with in the same manner.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Of course they will - just because PvP player damage was removed, there are other sources of damage.
If people would build to survive PvP, they wouldn't
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
No need to go that far, or compromise the ship unnecessarily (in terms of its optimisation for its non-combat role), to significantly reduce the probability of being destroyed.If people would build to survive PvP, they wouldn't
How do you feel about compromising the ship necessarily? Because that really is as much as I do. I don't min/max, or if I do (I have a 792t Trade Cutter for example, I use it for loading & unloading my carrier. It still has reactive Armour) I accept I'm taking a risk & in some circumstances it is vulnerable.
Oh right, not one should compromise their jumprange by a lightyear or two
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
For the PvE game - no bother at all.
Simply to survive the unwanted attacks of players who often face little / no risk in the encounter - not interested, as their gameplay offering is not appealing.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Depends on what an acceptable compromise is.Oh right, not one should compromise their jumprange by a lightyear or two
Survival should be acceptable, no?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed. Still not interested in providing content for those who preferentially select players as targets though.
So you block >2G planets too?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That's the thing - PvE is the same in all game modes (arguably easier in the multi-player modes if winged up) - it's a part of all of our game.So you block >2G planets too?
Picking the appropriate tool for the job is part of the PvE game too.