Planet is planet, same for all who try to land there. Either some skill, or some rather trivial ship build changes. Nevertheless it is ENVIRONMENT, so dealing with it is PVE.So you block >2G planets too?
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
How do you feel about factions & player groups attacking each other via the BGS?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
All part of the game - as every player both experiences and affects the mode shared galaxy, regardless of game mode.
So what's the difference?
No rebuy screen?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Players don't own or control factions - they support them - and, at most, can become allied with them (and any other faction they choose to become allied with). Changes to faction influence don't directly affect the CMDR (noting that the player may be disappointed at an outcome).
Seems like a semantic stretch to justify poor behaviour. Faction support is optional just as direct PvP is, but years of progress can be lost in a matter of weeks. The consequence of indirect PvP can be far worse than even popping an explorer with billions in unsold data. That is the nature of the game. Direct PvP (or at least evading it) is too, the only mode where it is not possible is solo & that's only because there's only one player in any instance
You advocate for a way to prevent the possibility of adversarial interactions, but only directly & not indirectly? This seems inconsistent. For the sake of argument let's overlook that it wouldn't work anyway, what kind of co-op activities do you have in mind? Something like DW2 maybe?
Tharg hunting?Seems like a semantic stretch to justify poor behaviour. Faction support is optional just as direct PvP is, but years of progress can be lost in a matter of weeks. The consequence of indirect PvP can be far worse than even popping an explorer with billions in unsold data. That is the nature of the game. Direct PvP (or at least evading it) is too, the only mode where it is not possible is solo & that's only because there's only one player in any instance
You advocate for a way to prevent the possibility of adversarial interactions, but only directly & not indirectly? This seems inconsistent. For the sake of argument let's overlook that it wouldn't work anyway, what kind of co-op activities do you have in mind? Something like DW2 maybe?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not at all.
Indeed.
In the opinion of some, maybe.
Direct PvP is rather more optional than indirect PvP - as all players affect the shared galaxy whereas not all players choose to play among other players who may be inclined to attack them.Direct PvP (or at least evading it) is too, the only mode where it is not possible is solo & that's only because there's only one player in any instance
It goes back to the very beginning - when Frontier pitched a game design where other players are optional but all players experience and affect the mode shared galaxy.
As to which kinds of co-op activities - everything that the game offers, apart from direct PvP.
Last edited:
Why the negativity on 3D shielded ASPs? Should a player not fly the ship of their choice for fear of the ganker? Another example of restrictions being put on a player by another player.
Steve
Direct PvP only needs two or more players & any one of them to start shooting. Indirect PvP (for the sake of argument faction support) is no different. If you want an easy life you go somewhere quiet, or step it up a bit & increase the chances of all kinds of interactions by going somewhere more popular.
The possibility of negative interactions with others is in intrinsically linked to interaction of any kind. You want to separate them. Now the game does allow people to play only with friends or like minded players exlusively of course, but PvP is not disabled, it's only mutual consent. It's always there as an option, just one you are not doing.
In an open only environment the exact same situation would apply, with the only difference being that to you will be able to meet and (if you choose) interact with more people.
If you wish to meet more people, surely you must be able to see that they may be offended by your actions just as much as you might be offended by (or at least do not want) theirs?
Now of course there are some jerks out there who are easily offended. But the reasonable solution is not to increase the number of jerks by acting like one yourself.
In a bgs conflict, the winner is largely determined by resources & skill, with some luck. It's no different to direct PvP. If you don't want to do one you really shouldn't be doing either. The game does allow this of course, the game allows all kinds of jerks to play
I see that as less of a restriction & more of a choice with consequences. When a player is inexperienced they may not be fully aware of the consequences yet.
It's a meme ship.
It is trivially easy to build a ship to survive most* ganks.
The inconsistence of the rpg crowd ("give me a reason to attack me")
is what I ridicule. People talk about roleplay, but minmax their builds to the (other) extreme,
not caring about "dying" due to rebuy. Every other game incentifies you to keep
your character alive. In valheim you grind for better gear and food to survive for example.
Why is it asked too much in Elite?
*you won't survive every gank in every ship, but 99% are survivable.
And there are some that are offended by seeing a ship less powerful than their's and decide that's a good enough reason to create BOOMS!
Jerkish behaviour as far as I am aware includes ganking, seal clubbing, pad blocking, slot blocking and suicidewinding.
What have I missed?
Steve
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The other difference, and it's a significant one, is that those who choose to break the rules of a Private Group can be ejected from the PG so lose the privilege to play in it.
Indeed - yet some of those that exist already in Open get a free pass from some players who then insist that those affected should change the way they play the game to accommodate them.
Apart from the obvious differences.
According to some, maybe - but their out-of-game rules don't apply to those who don't ascribe to them.
Very, very obviously, it depends on the individual. I've given examples in this thread before. You don't get to choose what someone else finds offensive, I've flipped systems because I didn't like the flight controllers voice. Having a docking computer fitted used to be one (not so much now I believe), a shieldless cutter or T-9 is like a cowpat to a fly for some.
It sure would be nice if people started thinking outside their own playstyle, or even just remembering what's been discussed recently in this thread.
Robert, your point about private groups is what I wanted you to consider, thank you. Admins of a PvE group don't need a reason to ban a player, they can just do it for any reason or no reason. Who would do that for an official open PvE mode?
You keep saying indeed & according to some as if that somehow doesn't mean you accept my opinion, and quibble over semantics that are marginal or already discussed, just not in the post you quoted. I am expressing my opinion, so according to me, the person that wrote the post (obviously).
What obvious differences? Obviously they are not identical in every way (Direct & indirect PvP), for example one has two extra letters
Be specific. Include something about how PvP is enabled in all private groups as far as the game is concerned, I mentioned that recently too.Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The report function would still work in Open-PvE. Enough reports and a CMDR may find that they would be "shadowbanned" from the Open-PvE mode.
Indeed. Just because something has been discussed previously does not mean that it is either agreed or settled. Hence this apparently never ending discussion on decisions that were made years ago. The discussion on particular points does not occur in isolation - other aspects of the discussion need to be borne in mind when evaluating the whole picture.
Players can only set the challenge in direct PvP encounters.What obvious differences? Obviously they are not identical in every way (Direct & indirect PvP), for example one has two extra letters
There's no real need to reiterate the fact that both multi-player game modes are PvP-enabled - as they have been from the outset, just as other players have been entirely optional from the outset, and players in all three game modes have experienced and affected the single shared galaxy state from the outset.
Last edited:
So you (once again) concede that the game already provides all the tools you need. A report function already exists, however TiberiusDuval seems to want the line to be drawn less leniently, and I suspect you would favour that too (ref: yesterday's Trolls discussion). Having enough reports might well give cause to investigate that player, same as currently happens. Whitchhunts are a thing after all & I'm sure you can imagine how that kind of majority rule can be abused without that investigation. A private group admin/owner doesn't need to do any of that (although they might anyway) there is no requirement for recourse.
The idea of an Open PvE mode is unworkable. If it were done in such a basic way that it could be implemented it would be toothless & you may as well just play in Open anyway (or a PG if you have less than 10,000 friends) & use the existing report function, and/or the existing block function to screw up the matchmaking servers.
I am not an open only advocate but the concept at a purely technical level is at least implementable.
The way to deal with the existential threat other players present is to plan for it & practice, avoiding it is always going to be a significant compromise for a socially motivated player (IMO).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not at all. The "players can't interdict players" option is not in place, for one.
In the opinion of some, certainly.
Just because something is possible does not mean that it should be done.
For those who want to pander to those who aren't fun to play among, sure.
It really isnt and the PvP community are justifiably scared to death of one being implemented because it would fast become the most played mode.
The most successful MMOs are those where the environment is mainly PVE with pvp blocked or a separate instance altogether.
O7