Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Dave1235]

For me, a PVE mode, should not allow friendly fire, or ramming. If all you want is open with a gentleman's agreement, why bother? That's what groups are for.
As for the "rules" you recommend, how can someone pay "the debt" if they can't undock to earn money?

While I hate to use the word immersion, I do not think magic shields are the answer.

If the person breaking the rules gets booted permanently, the victim gets fully reimbursed it would be fine.

As for paying the debt that's easy, sell the current ship and buy a sidey if they have to. Might sound a little harsh but if people deliberately break the rules after agreeing to them, tough luck. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Also I doubt it would happen often after the first few "I quit FD sucks for enforcing the rules" threads.

Someone checking a box saying they have read and understand the rules and punishments that FD will enforce is not really a gentleman's agreement, more like an EULA.

As to why bother, I use all modes and have Mobius for PVE, >90% of the games owners are not even registered on the forum, why should they not have the same option to play PVE if they want to, the only way to reach these people is via the game launcher.

 

[Daffan]

I once had someone submit their CV detailing their WOW characters with full statistics. I cannot even begin to imagine how anyone could have thought that was a good idea.

Applying to Blizzard or CCP requires you to have vested interest in their games and a past experience with them. Imagine that, just like two of their senior game designers (CCP) were hired from the player base and a 3rd for the community management position (Not exactly sure on his position actually)

Two of the lead game designers for World of Warcraft in 2004 were in the 2 highest level guilds in Everquest.

One thing can be said, people who play games have a better idea of balancing them - But for your story i have no real idea what company you work at, other than Smug Central or an ISP company with all your peer blocking repeat posts you used to do.

 

[Roland2]

While I hate to use the word immersion, I do not think magic shields are the answer.

If the person breaking the rules gets booted permanently, the victim gets fully reimbursed it would be fine.

As for paying the debt that's easy, sell the current ship and buy a sidey if they have to. Might sound a little harsh but if people deliberately break the rules after agreeing to them, tough luck. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Also I doubt it would happen often after the first few "I quit FD sucks for enforcing the rules" threads.

Someone checking a box saying they have read and understand the rules and punishments that FD will enforce is not really a gentleman's agreement, more like an EULA.

As to why bother, I use all modes and have Mobius for PVE, >90% of the games owners are not even registered on the forum, why should they not have the same option to play PVE if they want to, the only way to reach these people is via the game launcher.

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.

 

[DarkWalker]

No you don't! You do not refute that at all! You feel that Direct PvP must be consensual....Indirect PvP doesn't need anyone's consent, right? The fact that someone can affect the BGS or PowerPlay or a CG between sides..is OK!

You got me in one thing: for the sake of argumentation I'm speaking about some things as if they were either true or false, when there are actually multiple gradations.

Indirect PvP, in the way CGs and PowerPlay do it, while involving every player, has minimal influence on a player that chooses to not take part; perhaps a bonus gained or lost, not much more. So, I don't quite see it as being forced to take part.

I would also state if a person chooses to be in Open they have given their consent for Direct PvP. Right?

Yep, there is some consent here. And, while not exactly explicit, it's close enough for me because, if the player doesn't want to be involved with the PvP, he is able to switch to Solo or Group modes and do everything he could in Open without opening himself up for PvP. But without the ability to freely switch modes I would never consider logging into Open as consenting to PvP, the same way I don't consider logging into one of WoW's PvP realms as consenting to world PvP.

---

LOL! I must admit, looking back at my old CVs (I keep a copy of all of them even after I update) under the skills section of my 1st CV I did have "ability to pour the perfect pint of beer!"

(I had been working in a pub for 12 months).

At the time it seemed a valid skill to have on ones CV, but considering I was applying for jobs in research laboratories, looking back I am thinking not so much

Actually, if the research dealt with chemicals, I would greatly value cooks and bartenders. There is some overlap in the skills and working with food preparation and serving often teaches proper respect for the equipment and for following recipes.

 

[Jockey79]

.... I would also state if a person chooses to be in Open they have given their consent for Direct PvP. Right? ....

I would say, to this one point - as the game stands, it is not an informed choice / consent.
There is nothing on the main menu to state that Open mode is giving consent to direct confrontational PvP, it just gives you options without any information.

So as it stands, I would disagree with Open = consent, as nothing informs a player to what each mode is and choice between PvP and PvE.

 

[bootsam]

I still have 'swarve, sophisticated and debonair' on my CV since graduation in 98.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

I'm not directly opposed to a pve mode, I only don't want to see open suffer further fragmentation. Just putting that out there in the interest of full disclosure.

That said, realistically speaking the only way a pve mode could work is, with no player weapon or ram damage. We can't even get fd to police combat logging, or actual cheaters with an iron fist. When they do get banned it's only a week or 2.

Even with an automated system in place banning anyone killing, there will still be plenty of griefing. You don't need to kill people to grief. There would also be an exploit of getting others to kill you to ban them. It'll be a mess and fd haven't proven they'd be able to police it.

 

[Roybe]

I would say, to this one point - as the game stands, it is not an informed choice / consent.
There is nothing on the main menu to state that Open mode is giving consent to direct confrontational PvP, it just gives you options without any information.

So as it stands, I would disagree with Open = consent, as nothing informs a player to what each mode is and choice between PvP and PvE.

In legalese: Ignorance is not an excuse for action. Although I see the point...I give no sympathy to those that choose improperly....in other words, if you make a choice out of ignorance....you have to expect to learn something about that choice.

And google search would answer any and all questions as well as a quick read through the rule book supplied with the game.

 

[Roybe]

Why should PVP remain in Open with the release of CQC?

In the discussion of a PvE only mode, it became clear to me that PvP will not only be an unnecessary part of gameplay in Open...it would only be there for the enjoyment of those that find 'salty tears of frustration and anger' delicious...or the horrifying 'griefer'.

Why? Because, simply stating it, the 'good/honorable' PvP players will move to CQC. (defining good/honorable as those that truly want a balanced match up where skill and tactics matter) CQC will do this better than Open will...and with the probability that there will be a decent extrinsic reward, relative to the lack of extrinsic reward within Open itself.

I understand that the galaxy is Dangerous and that people currently have the ability to kill anyone they wish..but with the opening of CQC, there will be higher percentages of non-consensual PvP and fewer consensual fights which will lead to a further depopulation of Open for most players.

This should be obvious, particularly to those that feel pvp in Open is currently 'wrong, immoral, unfair, bothersome, etc.'

I enjoy playing with others and do not mind the interruption of game play to people hellbent on killing PC's. The occasional cost of a ship loss is to be expected...however, I realize that I am in a very minority position and that most people do not appreciate the work and patience this type of play requires. I would suggest that the vast majority dislike this occurrence passionately. With an increasing probability that each time this occurs it will be a poor experience (although it might happen less frequently)...why hurt the game further by subjecting people to it. One bad experience is multiplied forty fold for every good experience that occurs (generally, 1 person will tell 40 people of a bad experience, where a good experience is only discussed once in the same amount of time).

So, explain to me, and everyone, why PvP should remain in Open, when it is barely tolerated currently, has caused more problems that its worth in the current game...and will only cause more problems when the moral PvP players leave for CQC?

 

[Imperial Guard]

The should simply have given players a career choice at the beginning

SOLO or OPEN PLAY

Players starting off in SOLO can switch up to OPEN MODE at any time.

However..
Once a player has selected OPEN PLAY mode, there is no going back.
Warning,.. are you sure y/n?

i.e The only way to play SOLO after switching up to OPEN would be to start a NEW Commander from scratch.

 

[Jockey79]

...
And google search would answer any and all questions as well as a quick read through the rule book supplied with the game.

Hold on a sec.

One of the things I keep getting thrown at me when I refer people to my Wall of Information is. why should people have to research the game?
Every time I bring up that information I get told again and again, no one should have to spend hours reading up on a game.
So in that same vein, if a PvPer should be able to jump right in without any knowledge, so should a PvE player.

A distinct and clear warning on the main menu, stating that Open is a PvP zone and by joining you give consent to be shot at, is all it needs.
Perhaps a 2nd info box with a list of known PvE groups, to be helpful. Or a large message pointing people to a web page with information on the modes.

But I'm sorry, if PvPers and griefers can use ignorance as an excuse, so can PvE players.

Right now, there is no such thing as "consent" for PvP - as no one can make an informed choice from within the games menu system.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

So, explain to me, and everyone, why PvP should remain in Open, when it is barely tolerated currently, has caused more problems that its worth in the current game...and will only cause more problems when the moral PvP players leave for CQC?

You really can't see why pvp in the main galaxy will be preferable to call of dangerous: Elite warfare? PvP isn't one size fits all, there's different types of pvp. I really can't see cqc ever driving away many real bounty hunters or pirates from open. I would expect it to have the opposite effect that you stated. It will drive away the some killers, the players that can't find anyone to fight fairly so they kill anyone that moves.

 

[Roybe]

You really can't see why pvp in the main galaxy will be preferable to call of dangerous: Elite warfare? PvP isn't one size fits all, there's different types of pvp. I really can't see cqc ever driving away many real bounty hunters or pirates from open. I would expect it to have the opposite effect that you stated. It will drive away the some killers, the players that can't find anyone to fight fairly so they kill anyone that moves.

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 be a 'remain to be seen' issue...however, from other games I have played...this is the logical outcome.

 

[ianw]

It's not often I agree with Jordan. But regarding PVP remaining in open after CQC I most certainly do.

 

[Roybe]

Hold on a sec.

One of the things I keep getting thrown at me when I refer people to my Wall of Information is. why should people have to research the game?
Every time I bring up that information I get told again and again, no one should have to spend hours reading up on a game.
So in that same vein, if a PvPer should be able to jump right in without any knowledge, so should a PvE player.

A distinct and clear warning on the main menu, stating that Open is a PvP zone and by joining you give consent to be shot at, is all it needs.
Perhaps a 2nd info box with a list of known PvE groups, to be helpful. Or a large message pointing people to a web page with information on the modes.

But I'm sorry, if PvPers and griefers can use ignorance as an excuse, so can PvE players.

Right now, there is no such thing as "consent" for PvP - as no one can make an informed choice from within the games menu system.

Well Jockey, this issue does not fly for either side...I agree. However, if you buy a game and do not read the rule book as to how it is played...that is on the owner of the game....and the outcomes, good or bad for that player are thiers to deal with.

The only time consent is not given, is the first time someone enters Open and dies at the hand of another player....after that it is an informed consent any time they enter Open. So the noob killers are doing the game a service by teaching those that did not read their instruction manual what Open is about, right? >

 

[Jockey79]

.... call of dangerous: Elite warfare? .....

Ok, this almost made me crash my new ship. That is awesome!
I also should stop reading the forums while trying to dock, lol.

 

[Roybe]

It's not often I agree with Jordan. But regarding PVP remaining in open after CQC I most certainly do.

Why should it (other than the devs will leave it there because it's easier to do that than change the game)?

Indirect PvP is the supported game design. Direct PvP is intrinsically rewarding for those that want to kill others....with subsets made up of players whose self rewards are either for fair fights or griefing....any other subsets you can think of? Those that desire fair fights will play in CQC...because they do not have to search for players to fight...and they will make credits while doing it...neither of which occurs within Open itself. That just leaves those behind that want to destroy PC's because they get a kick out of the misery they cause.

The point I am making is basically, if you do not like Open now...you will hate it after CQC. If you like it...you will probably come to hate it, as the PvP interactions you will have, will be more of the crass..'LTP Noob' curse fests that we all love and support.

 

[Jockey79]

Well Jockey, this issue does not fly for either side...I agree. However, if you buy a game and do not read the rule book as to how it is played...that is on the owner of the game....and the outcomes, good or bad for that player are thiers to deal with.

The only time consent is not given, is the first time someone enters Open and dies at the hand of another player....after that it is an informed consent any time they enter Open. So the noob killers are doing the game a service by teaching those that did not read their instruction manual what Open is about, right? >

I agree that any side of that should know better (retired Constable, I've told enough people ignorance is no defence).

I've been known to play a game that a friend has recommended to me and not do any reading up on it, then been disappointed afterwards (I'm looking at SW:TOR right now). But I only ever blamed myself for that one.

I've been in threads with people complaining that they were killed in open, and my response was simple - why didn't you research the game before playing it? (Never had an answer to that btw). So I do wholeheartedly agree with the main point. I just hope some folks (this does not include you as you've not done it anyway) understand how the argument in defense of poor behaviour can also be used to defend the victims, plus be used to lobby for changes to the game (as in = why should only one side have to read up and not the other? - line of reasoning.)

I would not go as far as saying noob killers do a service, but I will concede that a few people were encouraged to do some reading because of them

 

[OldSalt]

The should simply have given players a career choice at the beginning

SOLO or OPEN PLAY

Players starting off in SOLO can switch up to OPEN MODE at any time.

However..
Once a player has selected OPEN PLAY mode, there is no going back.
Warning,.. are you sure y/n?

i.e The only way to play SOLO after switching up to OPEN would be to start a NEW Commander from scratch.

I can see where your name came from. Why ? I live in a part of the world where especially at certain times of the year my connection is often 'iffy' at best. Your suggestion would mean if I wanted to play solo to get around that I could start from scratch or....start from scratch, or not play.

 

[ianw]

@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.

ETA for further clarification. When I say I choose whether I want pvp I mean whether to avoid or not. I haven't attacked anyone since launch.