Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[The Wallet Inspector]

Just to add my 2 pennies:

I have been in open since Beta, but for the moment I am now playing solo, after being take out twice in one evening for no reason and no benefit to the Commander/s that attacked me. I had no cargo, had no bounty on me, was not aligned with a power and was not challenged. Plain and simple both times it was done just for 'fun', now I have been targeted many time and sometime destroyed but most of the time it was when I had a bounty on me or I refused to hand over cargo and I have no problem with that. But when there is no benefit in attacking another ship it breaks the game for me. I have plenty of creds to replace my ship so the risk is not a factor, it really is that to me it spoils the immersion when 2/3 ships go out of their way to attack an empty ship for which they will get not rep/creds or other reward that just does not make sense and is also why I do not play open PVE groups as there you will get a Comdr pirate attacking an NPC hauler loaded with silver and ignore the PC type 6 stuffed full of platinum. So there you are I am sticking to Solo for the time being .

"I have been in open since Beta, but for the moment I am now playing solo, after being take out twice in one evening for no reason and no benefit to the Commander/s that attacked me. I had no cargo, had no bounty on me, was not aligned with a power and was not challenged. Plain and simple both times it was done just for 'fun'"

Well that was the reason you seek I suspect. Also, as I pointed out in my previous post, they could have been destroying traders as part of their RP. I outlined a situation where cargo may not be relevant. Playing Solo is fine though, all the game modes are equally valid. Being destroyed is part of the game, and I do not personally see it as an immersion breaker. NPC's also attack when I have no cargo, and they do not seem to respond to my hails..

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

If you read my post again you'll notice I didn't use the word "griefer" - to me it's a pointless word because it means different things to different people - I said PKing. I come at it from a fun point of view as I said. That type of combat requires a victim - a lot of people don't like playing victim so I think there should be greater consequences for making someone a victim - it's a game after all and it's meant to be fun for all parties. I understand it's entirely legitimate gameplay I just don't think it's setup right. I'm not saying you're wrong it's just my opinion.



Seems reasonable to me - same set of rules.



I know they punish combat loggers with shadowplay - what I meant was they aren't able to do anything in game to control it from a technical point of view. I'm know people are aware anything can happen in open - or should be - but that isn't the same as consent. Again I'm not saying you are "wrong" I'm just stating my opinion and giving the reasons for it.

"If you read my post again you'll notice I didn't use the word "griefer"

Of course you did not, I did not say you did, it was just a question I was asking.

" it's a game after all and it's meant to be fun for all parties"

This is somewhat true, but not all people like all games, so many have fell short of the mark of appealing to "all parties". It is not just an issue with FDEV, but one (i think) that all media has to deal with. In the end, the game contains drug references. I cannot imagine "all parties" are okay with that. But FDEV are and so am I

" Again I know people are aware anything can happen in open but that isn't the same as consent."

Maybe it is not, but either way, we are talking about a mode in which it appears consent is not required after you click Open Play. Someone can still get you (assuming you do not wish to log off). Perhaps it is harsh to punish a player who does not want to fight another player, but it is the attitude they take. I am with them on it. I know not EVERYONE is aware what can happen in Open play, or that their consent can be violated (again though, I have no problem with this in the context of ED), so perhaps a "trigger warning" explaining players can interdict them against their consent, would help solve things.

 

[Vorxian]

"The issue with random PKing is that it requires a victim - and often the victim is unwilling. FD appear to be okay with this as they show no indication of a willingness or ability to deal with it anymore than they do with combat logging."

They do punish loggers with external means, by shadow-banning them. They do not punish people who PK. Many of the people in Open are aware though, and have a choice not to play in it. Those that are not, well I suggested they put a warning next to it to avoid any more confusion. I like Open as it is, and go in knowing I may be destroyed by players, just as I may be destroyed by NPC's in ANY mode.

- - - Updated - - -


"And to be fair - I should acknowledge that some people enjoy playing victim."

It is not about being a victim, sometimes I win the fights as well, and escape

Agree with all of that as well, for those that want to be the victim, and for those that like to be in open for the 'excitement' it works extremely well, and the content, players that create this 'emergent stuff' grats for making the open environment what you want it to be.

For those that would like open, but have a softer approach to direct PvP, and prefer an OPEN server where player 'friendly fire' does no damage to human controlled players would work in everyones favor; and allow ALL open players in this mode to experience the game the way they want it to be.... Role Played to be more towards space exploration, and PvE events in collaborating and joining up with fellow players, than be forced to avoid and shy away from anything with a hollow box.

It's actually a superb suggestion, on both accounts. OPEN and PVE OPEN.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Agree with all of that as well, for those that want to be the victim, and for those that like to be in open for the 'excitement' it works extremely well, and the content, players that create this 'emergent stuff' grats for making the open environment what you want it to be.

For those that would like open, but have a softer approach to direct PvP, and prefer an OPEN server where player 'friendly fire' does no damage to human controlled players would work in everyones favor; and allow ALL open players in this mode to experience the game the way they want it to be.... Role Played to be more towards space exploration, and PvE events in collaborating and joining up with fellow players, than be forced to avoid and shy away from anything with a hollow box.

It's actually a superb suggestion, on both accounts. OPEN and PVE OPEN.

YEah well I was opposed to it, I like the fact that some of the people in Open do not really want to be interdicted, it makes the Galaxy more vibrant (for me). I don't think anyone is "forced" to do anything in this game though, there are lots of approaches to take to a hollow box. For instance, first thing I do is scan. If they are on another power, it has ENEMY attached, so then I attack. Sometimes they escape, sometimes they log( I report this using the ingame tool), sometomes I die and sometimes I win. For me it is the most fun ever on the PC

There are many third party tools to help players organise themselves into private groups so they can play in an even more unique manner, free from having to compromise with other players, but they can still be attacked against their consent by other NPC's. I don't have a problem dealing with them, but that is just me.

 

[ianw]

" it's a game after all and it's meant to be fun for all parties"

This is somewhat true, but not all people like all games, so many have fell short of the mark of appealing to "all parties". It is not just an issue with FDEV, but one (i think) that all media has to deal with. In the end, the game contains drug references. I cannot imagine "all parties" are okay with that. But FDEV are and so am I

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. My point was about unequal combat by virtue of hugely unequal ships/loadouts or numbers often not being fun for those on the losing side. Again it's an opinion.

I have absolutely no idea how you get from there to drug references which the media and FD have to deal with - as an aside I have absolutely no problem with - if it helps? :S

Do you think I object to "murder" - or ship destruction to be more accurate - on some sort or moral grounds? I don't - it's a game. I'm talking about whether people find some of it's game mechanics fun.

 

[Cody]

Damn quotes!

 

[ianw]

Damn quotes!

Sorry Cody - can I quote you on that?

 

[Cody]

It ain't just the quotes themselves - they seem to be getting mixed with answers here, which makes it worse!

 

[ianw]

It ain't just the quotes themselves - they seem to be getting mixed with answers here, which makes it worse!

I know - some people don't seem to know how to break a quote up with tags to keep the answers separate.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. My point was about unequal combat by virtue of hugely unequal ships/loadouts or numbers often not being fun for those on the losing side. Again it's an opinion.

I have absolutely no idea how you get from there to drug references which the media and FD have to deal with - as an aside I have absolutely no problem with - if it helps? :S

Do you think I object to "murder" - or ship destruction to be more accurate - on some sort or moral grounds? I don't - it's a game. I'm talking about whether people find some of it's game mechanics fun.

"I'm not sure what you're trying to say there."

I am saying it is unlikely the game will ever be fun for ALL parties, hope this clarifies things.

"I have absolutely no idea how you get from there to drug references which the media and FD have to deal with - as an aside I have absolutely no problem with - if it helps? "

I am using it as en example about how not ALL parties may agree with the content of the game and find it fun. I do not think this is difficult to understand. I did not mention "The Media" either, but my point still stands...


"Do you think I object to "murder" - or ship destruction to be more accurate - on some sort or moral grounds? I don't - it's a game. I'm talking about whether people find some of it's game mechanics fun."

Lots of people find those mechanics fun. There are many threads on this forum where people are espousing the virtues of RP murder and piracy, and the fun dynamic way it makes the galaxy. Brookes himself even referred to the code respectfully as "Opposition", and I agree with that sentiment. I think the mechanics ARE fun...but I have to add, that is just the opinion of myself and some others on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

I know - some people don't seem to know how to break a quote up with tags to keep the answers separate.

I highlight your text in bold, but also provide the full quote so i cannot be accused of taking anyone out of context Anyway, I am just engaging in honest debate, and wonder why so many people who claim to have ignored me are still making comments about me in this fashion. I would prefer to stick to the topics

 

[ianw]

Agree with all of that as well, for those that want to be the victim, and for those that like to be in open for the 'excitement' it works extremely well, and the content, players that create this 'emergent stuff' grats for making the open environment what you want it to be.

For those that would like open, but have a softer approach to direct PvP, and prefer an OPEN server where player 'friendly fire' does no damage to human controlled players would work in everyones favor; and allow ALL open players in this mode to experience the game the way they want it to be.... Role Played to be more towards space exploration, and PvE events in collaborating and joining up with fellow players, than be forced to avoid and shy away from anything with a hollow box.

It's actually a superb suggestion, on both accounts. OPEN and PVE OPEN.

It's been made many times - I think it would be great for people that like to play in open to meet people but would prefer not to be party to the getting stomped just because gameplay as the stompee.

As we see though some of the stompers object to losing weaker unwilling targets of opportunity.

Personally I'd stay in the stomping galaxy because I know how to avoid it - unless all my friends ended up in the other galaxy. I can see why others would leave wholesale though.

I can also see it's extremely unlikely to get changed.

At least we have CQC coming for PVP on a much fairer footing.

 

[Seonid]

I highlight your text in bold, but also provide the full quote so i cannot be accused of taking anyone out of context

Using quote tags achieves exactly the same aim but without the confusion doesn't it?

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Using quote tags achieves exactly the same aim but without the confusion doesn't it?

Maybe, I like the way I do it though. As I said, the block at the top provides the original context. Either way, it seems offtopic to me..

- - - Updated - - -

It's been made many times - I think it would be great for people that like to play in open to meet people but would prefer not to be party to the getting stomped just because gameplay as the stompee.

As we see though some of the stompers object to losing weaker unwilling targets of opportunity.

Personally I'd stay in the stomping galaxy because I know how to avoid it - unless all my friends ended up in the other galaxy. I can see why others would leave wholesale though.

I can also see it's extremely unlikely to get changed.

At least we have CQC coming for PVP on a much fairer footing.

Yeah CQC is an amazing addition to the game.

 

[Vorxian]

Do you think I object to "murder" - or ship destruction to be more accurate - on some sort or moral grounds? I don't - it's a game. I'm talking about whether people find some of it's game mechanics fun.

I think you're absolutely spot on. 'Murder' is subjective. "I could murder a Sandwich about now" implies ones desire to combat ones hunger possibly. Sandwich and murder being an allowed phrase since a sandwich cannot be murdered in any event.

Whilst you cannot actually murder pixels on screen, the phrasing remains coherent due to the fact that pixels can not be directly murdered by you.. However, those pixels may have value to third parties, the user may have an intrinsic attachment to the pixels, therefore the owner or representative of said pixels will have an emotional reaction as a consequence. That emotional representation can be negative, or it may be positive according to the mind set and mentality of the owner / representative at that time, and can and will alter depending on mood.

SO, in effect you do not object to the 'murder' per say, but rather you have humility towards the effect of losing said pixels to the representative of the pixel owner; if they find the scenario to the loss an undesirable experience.

Basically if someone has an emotional attachment to their ship and it was lost in a negative or 'unwanted' way, then it will ultimately lead to game mechanics NOT being fun, and for that reason I rep you good sir. I got there in the end!


PVE OPEN would allow everyone, according to their mood, experience OPEN in whatever shape they find appealing at the time.

 

[ianw]

I think you're absolutely spot on. 'Murder' is subjective. "I could murder a Sandwich about now" implies ones desire to combat ones hunger possibly. Sandwich and murder being an allowed phrase since a sandwich cannot be murdered in any event.

Whilst you cannot actually murder pixels on screen, the phrasing remains coherent due to the fact that pixels can not be directly murdered by you.. However, those pixels may have value to third parties, the user may have an intrinsic attachment to the pixels, therefore the owner or representative of said pixels will have an emotional reaction as a consequence. That emotional representation can be negative, or it may be positive according to the mind set and mentality of the owner / representative at that time, and can and will alter depending on mood.

SO, in effect you do not object to the 'murder' per say, but rather you have humility towards the effect of losing said pixels to the representative of the pixel owner; if they find the scenario to the loss an undesirable experience.

Basically if someone has an emotional attachment to their ship and it was lost in a negative or 'unwanted' way, then it will ultimately lead to game mechanics NOT being fun, and for that reason I rep you good sir. I got there in the end!


PVE OPEN would allow everyone, according to their mood, experience OPEN in whatever shape they find appealing at the time.

People certainly do get attached to their "stuff" and I think some people approach online gaming as they would a real life encounter with someone - with all the usual niceties that go with that. I guess I'm like that. I still like a good scrap in game though but in truth I'm not happy starting one unless it's in a no holds barred CZ and now CQC. But I enjoy combat if someone else starts it win or lose as long as I'm not hopelessly outnumbered.

Then it just becomes pointless me - the outcome is a forgone conclusion and therefore seems dull. I'd feel the same if I was completely overwhelming an opponent I'd break off - no fun for me it's totally one-sided in my favour either.

The most enjoyable combat I had recently was a one on one in CQC - the guy just beat me in the end but it was a lot of fun right to the end.

Others seem to see online interaction differently in an anything goes way - and like to roleplay I guess we're all just different.

Reference the murder thing I was thinking more about the in game thing - I think we're supposed to be being launched in an escape pod so in game our character isn't killed - just the ship is destroyed.

 

[march topcat]

Leave it as it is. It's perfect like this. That's all I have to say.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Leave it as it is. It's perfect like this. That's all I have to say.

Have some rep This is why I have been arguing against the suggestions that Open be removed all together.

 

[ianw]

Leave it as it is. It's perfect like this. That's all I have to say.

Believe it or not that's what many of the regular posters in this thread support - including me - leaving the modes and mode switching as is which is the topic of the thread.

We've gone kind off topic though from time to time...

 

[Cody]

Believe it or not that's what many of the regular posters in this thread support...

<nods> Indeed!

 

[Jockey79]

Believe it or not that's what many of the regular posters in this thread support - including me - leaving the modes and mode switching as is which is the topic of the thread.

We've gone kind off topic though from time to time...

I used to want to keep things the same, but as the issue is plainly limited to open mode and the attitude shown by some open advocates, removing open solves a lot of problems.