Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jordan Cobalt]

I believe that those that want fair fights will leave Open for the immediate contact, and profitable, arenas in CQC....only griefers will be in Open...increasing the misery of those that play in Open. This will not lead to good things for the players in the game. Obvioulsy, this will a 'remain to be seen' issue...however, from other games I have played...this is the logical outcome.

I'm of the belief that not all random killers are tear farmers. Judging from personal experience, the few killers I know, they kill because they can't find any fair fights. Imo this could help reduce pvp without reason, while hopefully keeping pvp with a reason.

 

[Roybe]

I'm of the belief that not all random killers are tear farmers. Judging from personal experience, the few killers I know, they kill because they can't find any fair fights. Imo this could help reduce pvp without reason, while hopefully keeping pvp with a reason.

What would that reason be...and is it acceptable to those that want Open and not be bothered?

- - - Updated - - -

@Roybe, can't quote as I'm on a mob.

I like open as it is now . I can choose whether I want PvP or not as it suits me.

I will also play CQC for for a more controlled environment.

And you're right they will continue to allow pvp in open after CQC launches, as they should.

It is probably not good that I laughed at you being 'on a mob' in the gaming sense...LOL

Although the devs will choose to leave PvP in because of 'our game our way' or 'we can't be bothered to change it'...it will not diminish the calls for Open PvE going forward. This will become a huge issue to the community for a good while because the quality of Open will decrease, increasing the demand of those that do not want to be bothered by 'immoral PvP players'.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

What would that reason be...and is it acceptable to those that want Open and not be bothered?

The main reasons being, bounty hunting, piracy, and power play or other RP reasons. Basically I meant any reason other than "you're a fellow human and I want to kill you".

 

[Roybe]

The main reasons being, bounty hunting, piracy, and power play or other RP reasons. Basically any reason other than "you're a fellow human amd I want to kill you".

Obviously, the RP reasoning will be used for killing other players...but those are not acceptable now...why should they be more acceptable at a later date. <shrug>

It always comes down to 'You are a PC and I want to kill you...or hurt you...or make you lose something (time or in game credits).

 

[ianw]

@Roybe again (still in mob mode )

I also agree with a PVE option at login. Though I probably wouldn't use it.

But I doubt that will happen either fwiw.

 

[Roybe]

@Roybe again (still in mob mode )

I also agree with a PVE option at login. Though I probably wouldn't use it.

But I doubt that will happen either fwiw.

Rather than that, IMHO, it would be better just to make the whole game PvE.

It would be more likely to make Open PvE rather than a new Mode. Less work, easier design, more probability.

I am also sure that neither will ever happen...however, if there is a discussion to be had on this...the choice of another 'mode' would hurt the game more than it would help it (at least IMHO). Mobius has shown there is a huge population that would enjoy Open a lot more if PvP was removed...my suggestion would be that any time after CQC releases would be opportune.

 

[Dave1235]

As for magic shields, I was thinking more of an IFF system that wouldn't allow firing at friendlies at all, PC or NPC.

To the "victim" what you call the agreement doesn't matter.

For me, there are always consequences when people are involved. Assuming you loose nothing as indicated by Roberts proposal, where do you re-spawn? Where you died, so the at can kill you again? Or at your last station, which could be several light years, and days away from where you died? I agree these are doable compromises, but not always incidental.

For me personalty, I would still stay in solo, since, in this game, PvP of any type during "normal" game play, is too much PvP for me.

Maybe a button in the rebuy screen where you get 2 options on death in PVE mode, button 1 = PK'r and player instantly re-spawns in the same place without loss and the PK'r gets kicked back to Open or shadow ban server, button 2 = accident and forgives the kill, you respawn at the last station as normal, no one gets kicked but you lose bonds etc like normal.

I know it won't work for everyone but I did say "I wouldn't be too bothered" getting the odd PK'r kill me in PVE mode, if the consequences were severe enough, and I think 50% or total assets and a PVE ban should be severe enough to put most griefers off trying.

Or as others have suggested add a PVE button in the menu that points people to the private PVE groups if they click on it, that would be a good start IMHO, and I do empathize with "PvP of any type during "normal" game play, is too much PvP for me.".

 

[ianw]

@Roybe, Well I think there is huge population that likes open as it is and will just use CQC for a laugh now and again. Like me.

I couldn't play only CQC, i would find it boring.

 

[Mouse]

Because you are still depending on players agreeing to not pk. You are not preventing it. Penalties/punishment do not stop bad behavior, if it did, the world would be a much safer place.
So for some of those who decided to switch to solo due to an unpleasant experience in open, PVE open would not be an option, since solo mode would still be the only way to ensure the unpleasantness doesn't happen again.

I disagree.. mainly because look at Mobius.. he's had it going for a year now or so... how many have broken the rules and been kicked? 6 or so? Out of 11000

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Obviously, the RP reasoning will be used for killing other players...but those are not acceptable now...should they be more acceptable at a later date. <shrug>

It always comes down to 'You are a PC and I want to kill you...or hurt you...or make you lose something (time or in game credits).

I didn't say they will be more acceptable in the future, I was saying the same reasons people pvp in the main galaxy now, will be the same after cqc minus killing because they can't find anyone to duel.

You're forgetting reasons like, "I want your cargo, bounty, to stop undermining my power, fortifying your own power" or "I dont like feds, imps, alliance, community goal and I'm going to stop you". all those will continue to happen even after cqc.

 

[Mouse]

Rather than that, IMHO, it would be better just to make the whole game PvE.

It would be more likely to make Open PvE rather than a new Mode. Less work, easier design, more probability.

I am also sure that neither will ever happen...however, if there is a discussion to be had on this...the choice of another 'mode' would hurt the game more than it would help it (at least IMHO). Mobius has shown there is a huge population that would enjoy Open a lot more if PvP was removed...my suggestion would be that any time after CQC releases would be opportune.

Robe, not every pvp is a call of duty type, why should they be forced into CQC? There can be good pvp in open, Jordan has proved that. Just because I and others don't like PVP or certain types of it. Why should Open be stripped of it? Because it isn't PVP how you think it should be?

Making a new mode isn't a huge amount of work.

Edit : Ninja'd by Jordan ^,^

 

[Cowboy Bats]

That said, realistically speaking the only way a pve mode could work is, with no player weapon or ram damage.

You're right there. That would be the only way to really make it work. I'm torn on the open pve thing. I really don't have a strong preference as I've learned to love solo, and don't even sign into groups anymore, so it really doesn't effect me. The part of me that does like the idea, is probably born of the tremendous animosity that's developed between open players and solo players. I've never seen this kind of back and forth vitriol over pve vs pvp before. If MMO pvp types have always had such a strong hatred for those who prefer solo games, I've never known about it.

 

[Jockey79]

..... I've never seen this kind of back and forth vitriol over pve vs pvp before. If MMO pvp types have always had such a strong hatred for those who prefer solo games, I've never known about it.

Oh I've seen this before.
The Star Trek Online boards when a balance pass is done and some uber PvE nuke everything weapon gets a right old nerf bat hit.
The PvE players scream blue murder, the PvP players justify the nerf, the PvE players call them names, the PvP players return the names.
Threads get locked, people get the naughty step.

EVE Online forums at one point was the worst I've ever seen between the 2 groups, no clue what it is like now.

Firefall forums has a bit of back and forth going between the PvE and PvP crowds, but R5 seem to just ignore the PvP crowd from what I've seen.
But the R5 team are a bit odd compared to other Dev teams - I've seen them tell someone where to shove a moaning post (over an exploit getting fixed), the best bit is the community manager who did that - was the STO CM for a while and gave me a ban for doing the same thing on the STO boards just before he left!

In my opinion PvP crowds are great for finding out what works and what is broken / overpowered in a game. I think they do add to the value of each game so it is not just something you buy a big gun and lay waste to everything in 5 seconds flat - however some PvE players want just that, mix that with the PvPers who don't get / understand any form of PvE at all - you get these threads and situations, regardless of the game. Good ideas for either side get buried under the piles of hate from both extremist groups, while the moderate PvE / PvP players get caught up in it as well.

 

[Julissa Silver]

You're right there. That would be the only way to really make it work. I'm torn on the open pve thing. I really don't have a strong preference as I've learned to love solo, and don't even sign into groups anymore, so it really doesn't effect me. The part of me that does like the idea, is probably born of the tremendous animosity that's developed between open players and solo players. I've never seen this kind of back and forth vitriol over pve vs pvp before. If MMO pvp types have always had such a strong hatred for those who prefer solo games, I've never known about it.

PvPers inevitably want the world (game) to revolve around, be balanced by and exist to serve them. PvEers tend to think that it should revolve around, be balanced by and exist to serve PvE content instead. Usually, these two camps argue because their wishes clash and they want the developer time spent on more fun things for them to do rather than fun things that they have no interest in consuming.

With most games there are 'worlds', different servers, worlds, shards, call them whatever you will, but there's space to cater to the different groups and room to permit consenting players to do just about anything they want. This makes the debate, ultimately just about developer attention and not the survival of their mode. With Elite, and the unique, singular galaxy, it is seen to be about the survival of their chosen play style. S'my take on why it's so bitterly fought over here. Being forced into open would kill the PvE mode for a lot of players, while being forced out of open/into a PvE mode kills the PvP and griefer crowds fun.

In the end, it's down to player choice, hence why the modes work so well for so many people. I don't see anything ever being taken away from these modes, only possibly added to them.

 

[Roland2]

I disagree.. mainly because look at Mobius.. he's had it going for a year now or so... how many have broken the rules and been kicked? 6 or so? Out of 11000

Yet even in Mobius, there have been people killed by PvP without consent. Which is why I haven't joined Mobius, or any other group.

I know, 6 or so out of 10,000+ doesn't seam like a lot, but it only takes one to ruin someones game.

 

[Dave1235]

I disagree.. mainly because look at Mobius.. he's had it going for a year now or so... how many have broken the rules and been kicked? 6 or so? Out of 11000

I understand why some think it would be a gank magnet and why Roland prefers the IFF model, to me it makes more sense than magic shields too, that said Mobius has been going for a year with ~ 6 bans.

FD should do it, the choice (and yes it is a choice, just like choosing a mode at login) to invade PVE, pick it and lose 50% of your wealth, that should stop even the most determined.

It would also be very amusing to read "their" description of why they decided to quit rather than deal with the consequences of their actions.

The Mods might need to open a new mega thread "ED sux cos it bans griefer's!11!!1!1!", or maybe not, after the first dozen the rest that were thinking about it might reconsider. Always the optimist, well sometimes anyway. But you gotta admit the forums would be full of "emergent" posts

 

[Mouse]

Yet even in Mobius, there have been people killed by PvP without consent. Which is why I haven't joined Mobius, or any other group.

I know, 6 or so out of 10,000+ doesn't seam like a lot, but it only takes one to ruin someones game.

that is your choice and i'm not going to fault you for it.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand why some think it would be a gank magnet and why Roland prefers the IFF model, to me it makes more sense than magic shields too, that said Mobius has been going for a year with ~ 6 bans.

FD should do it, the choice (and yes it is a choice, just like choosing a mode at login) to invade PVE, pick it and lose 50% of your wealth, that should stop even the most determined.

It would also be very amusing to read "their" description of why they decided to quit rather than deal with the consequences of their actions.

The Mods might need to open a new mega thread "ED sux cos it bans griefer's!11!!1!1!", or maybe not, after the first dozen the rest that were thinking about it might reconsider. Always the optimist, well sometimes anyway. But you gotta admit the forums would be full of "emergent" posts

would be nice if they lost everything.. then suddenly they may know how others feel..

 

[Dave1235]

that is your choice and i'm not going to fault you for it.

- - - Updated - - -

I do like Rolands ideas about IFF, its a new slant on it to me and I need to give it some thought, OFC I prefer my version but his is a compromise that is worth considering.


would be nice if they lost everything.. then suddenly they may know how others feel..

Well "everything" might be a bit much, I picked 50% as its scalable and enough (I think) to dissuade most people that were thinking about it.

Take a softer line bro, "hearts and minds etc" (roflpmsl), at least leave them with a sidey and 10k CR, some times you are heartless

OK we can make 50% change to 75% or 90%, damn it Mouse you are making me become a bad man! . Stop it now!, seriously if you carry on I am reporting you to Iron Mouse! <borrows a chortle>

But yes, FD really could mimic Mobius (or link it in the menu, if they can save Mobius many hours of clicking to accept people), if FD did it properly with a EULA type tick box & info for all modes other than solo explaining each mode then open PVE will be just fine on a trust / ban basis, and if its not we get to giggle at all the new threads from gankers that just lost half their wealth removed, win, win situation!

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

I understand why some think it would be a gank magnet and why Roland prefers the IFF model, to me it makes more sense than magic shields too, that said Mobius has been going for a year with ~ 6 bans.

FD should do it, the choice (and yes it is a choice, just like choosing a mode at login) to invade PVE, pick it and lose 50% of your wealth, that should stop even the most determined.

It would also be very amusing to read "their" description of why they decided to quit rather than deal with the consequences of their actions.

The Mods might need to open a new mega thread "ED sux cos it bans griefer's!11!!1!1!", or maybe not, after the first dozen the rest that were thinking about it might reconsider. Always the optimist, well sometimes anyway. But you gotta admit the forums would be full of "emergent" posts

Wouldn't that just make the holy grail of griefing, getting another player to kill you in pve mode?

Getting FD to take 50% of their wealth is waaaay better and more efficient than just killing them so they lose 5%+cargo.

 

[Dave1235]

Wouldn't that just make the holy grail of griefing, getting another player to kill you in pve mode?

Getting FD to take 50% of their wealth is waaaay better and more efficient than just killing them so they lose 5%+cargo.

How could you get someone to kill you?

It would only affect PVE in regard to the ban / fine and I am sure FD could work it out, FD know who fired first and who killed who, add 2 options in the rebuy screen 1) yes it was a griefer, 2) no it was an accident, as a fail safe, job done.

Sorry I might have missed something, its late and been a long day, but I can't see the "holy grail of griefing" there. Please elaborate a little and I will come back to you tomorrow with a fresh mind, well I hope to anyway ;o).