Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jordan Cobalt]

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).

Plenty of ways to get someone to kill you. fly with no shields and low health then fly in front to get them to shoot you or ram you. Rapid interdictions hoping to upset them enough to kill. You could challenge them to a fight while hoping they are dumb enough to accept because they don't think that would be against the rules. That's all for intentionally getting someone to kill you.

What if it's genuinely an accident? Players losing 50% of their worth over an accident is pretty harsh. I've killed 2 players on accident before. 1 was an eagle I hit with a PA shot while bounty hunting, the other was a shieldless hauler that i boosted into coming too quickly into a station.

Your fail safe only works if the person killed is honest about it. A griefer will always select option 1) and in my experience even when it's an accident a lot of players will select option 1) just out of anger or a rash judgement call.

Also How will the system work? If i get fired on first can i defend myself and kill the player? Is it only for murder, what if you only go around assaulting players will anything happen?

Any pvp ban system will be very complicated and hard for FD to implement. I'd also imagine there will be a ton of loopholes or ways to game the system. It will require a fair amount of manual oversight. There will be a flood of support tickets for "accidents" or accidents that got players banned and a chunk of money taken from them. I honestly can't see it ever happening. No dmg pve mode will be the only possible way to do it.

 

[Zorronov]

The next time I get killed by some PvPer in open play I'm coming back as a zombie...

 

[Asp Explorer]

Any pvp ban system will be very complicated and hard for FD to implement. I'd also imagine there will be a ton of loopholes or ways to game the system. It will require a fair amount of manual oversight.

This!

Exploitation would be trivial and rampant. FD would probably spend more time arbitrating player disputes than coding the game. I can't see that working out well at all, for anyone.

 

[Cody]

This!

<nods> As I said the other day, I doubt whether an Open PvE mode was ever going to happen.

 

[Mohrgan]

I take it, when FD says nothing. Nothing is going to change. A Co-Op mode on the log in screen would be ideal, if only to let new players know of the option, but as it stands it seems pretty fair. With a little effort, a Co-Op type player can find the environment they are looking for.

I just wish the relationship between the advocates of each mode could learn to accept each other, and just allow everyone to enjoy the game as they like it.

 

[Roybe]

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 ^,^

There COULD be...but once the competitive PvP players move on to CQC...who do you think will be left in Open? Those that are 'nice' about their PvP motives? Maybe...but I doubt it. Most of the 'moral' people will be moving voluntarily to CQC, where they can play to their hearts content against real players, where cheating will be more obvious and more enforceable. All that will leave in Open will be a group of players that will laugh hysterically at the trouble they cause saying 'anything goes because it's Open'. Basically, Open will turn into a PvP cesspool. Not a very good place for PvP averse people....and those are few and far between now.

Why bother creating a new 'mode'...just change the collision modeling and turn off friendly fire and the game will be exactly what should have been designed from the start. PvE contests between PvE players...with everyone equally contributing to the designed interactions within the game..and no one whining any more about 'he killed me'...'they combat logged on me..' or Open is riskier...Private is easy mode.

All the 'problems' that this game has had from its inception repaired and it can be developed with more peace and cordial behavior than what we have now. CQC is win/win for PvP players and PvE players if they remove PvP from the game itself.

Think about this...what do you think would happen to Open if a PvE mode would be opened WITH CQC in place? How many people do you think would actually be left to play in Open...and more importantly, why would they?

 

[relayer]

I just wish the relationship between the advocates of each mode could learn to accept each other, and just allow everyone to enjoy the game as they like it.

This, boiled down, is the position most often tendered by the solo/group side. Yeah, there are personal reasons for playing solo/group. But - play in Open! Make it what you want! But don't force me into a mode I do not enjoy or take away things about the mode I do enjoy. That pretty much accepts everyone. We champion the Modes.

The other side usually begins with taunts, insults and all the other cheap, flashy repertoire of the Forum Warrior. If you need the List, ask Cody. After the name-calling, suggestions are made which would take elements away from solo and group play because it's somehow unfair [reasons].

As far as I am concerned, Open can be whatever it wants to be, and the players are the shapers there. So if it's "a barren, empty wasteland," well, that's what the players have made it. It really isn't my problem. My problem comes when a small, overly-loud minority tries to "force FD's hand" or whatever they think they are trying to do.

 

[Asp Explorer]

As far as I am concerned, Open can be whatever it wants to be, and the players are the shapers there. So if it's "a barren, empty wasteland," well, that's what the players have made it.

But, playing in Purest Pure Open Only and blowing up absolutely everything you see (be it NPC or CMDR) and then shouting "l2p N00B!" at them is the only way to play games these days.

If you don't - there's no risk, there's no emergent gameplay, and worst of all - there is no immersion. Elite will fail as a game and die if it doesn't adhere to these core values established since gaming began - all the way back in 2003 when CoD invented gaming. Before that there were only calculators and graph paper and old men with lines drawn on a board mumbling about stupid stuff called "accumulator" and "pull-up resistor" because they weren't L33T enough to get into a Guild and pwn Atari!

<cough>

Drunks of Sol drink beer! my apologies

 

[Spook]

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.

FDs finance model? I wouldn't be surprised to see basic accounts flogged for a nominal sum eventually, as an enticement to shift full price expansions.

Steam sale = cheap account = throw away ganking sidewinder.

No loss when the account has nothing.

Unfortunately any PVE mode would have to be locked down with mechanics preventing non-consensual interaction (as best they can,) Anything left in the hands of the players won't work IMHO.

 

[Mouse]

There COULD be...but once the competitive PvP players move on to CQC...who do you think will be left in Open? Those that are 'nice' about their PvP motives? Maybe...but I doubt it. Most of the 'moral' people will be moving voluntarily to CQC, where they can play to their hearts content against real players, where cheating will be more obvious and more enforceable. All that will leave in Open will be a group of players that will laugh hysterically at the trouble they cause saying 'anything goes because it's Open'. Basically, Open will turn into a PvP cesspool. Not a very good place for PvP averse people....and those are few and far between now.

Why bother creating a new 'mode'...just change the collision modeling and turn off friendly fire and the game will be exactly what should have been designed from the start. PvE contests between PvE players...with everyone equally contributing to the designed interactions within the game..and no one whining any more about 'he killed me'...'they combat logged on me..' or Open is riskier...Private is easy mode.

All the 'problems' that this game has had from its inception repaired and it can be developed with more peace and cordial behavior than what we have now. CQC is win/win for PvP players and PvE players if they remove PvP from the game itself.

Think about this...what do you think would happen to Open if a PvE mode would be opened WITH CQC in place? How many people do you think would actually be left to play in Open...and more importantly, why would they?

What of people like Jordan.. can't Pirate players even RPly without PVP, pvpers will want more than just a few ships. Are we to ask that all PVPers be canned into the CQC? What gives us the right to ask that ?

 

[relayer]

... all the way back in 2003 when CoD invented gaming. Before that there were only calculators and graph paper and old men with lines drawn on a board mumbling about stupid stuff called "accumulator" and "pull-up resistor" because they weren't L33T enough to get into a Guild and pwn Atari!<cough>

ah, no, my friendly tippler, there was always Rogue

 

[M.E.A.T]

There COULD be...but once the competitive PvP players move on to CQC...who do you think will be left in Open? Those that are 'nice' about their PvP motives? Maybe...but I doubt it. Most of the 'moral' people will be moving voluntarily to CQC, where they can play to their hearts content against real players, where cheating will be more obvious and more enforceable. All that will leave in Open will be a group of players that will laugh hysterically at the trouble they cause saying 'anything goes because it's Open'. Basically, Open will turn into a PvP cesspool. Not a very good place for PvP averse people....and those are few and far between now.

Why bother creating a new 'mode'...just change the collision modeling and turn off friendly fire and the game will be exactly what should have been designed from the start. PvE contests between PvE players...with everyone equally contributing to the designed interactions within the game..and no one whining any more about 'he killed me'...'they combat logged on me..' or Open is riskier...Private is easy mode.

All the 'problems' that this game has had from its inception repaired and it can be developed with more peace and cordial behavior than what we have now. CQC is win/win for PvP players and PvE players if they remove PvP from the game itself.

Think about this...what do you think would happen to Open if a PvE mode would be opened WITH CQC in place? How many people do you think would actually be left to play in Open...and more importantly, why would they?

While i agree that there should not be additional mode, i do not share your fear that Open will become empty because all pvpers will be playing CQC. Sure, at the beginning everyone will jumped into CQC, but it will wear out eventually.

Open PvP gives different type of thrill that CQC will never be able to provide.

 

[Mouse]

While i agree that there should not be additional mode, i do not share your fear that Open will become empty because all pvpers will be playing CQC. Sure, at the beginning everyone will jumped into CQC, but it will wear out eventually.

Open PvP gives different type of thrill that CQC will never be able to provide.

I agree it will even out, I do'nt agree that there should not be an aditional mob

 

[ianw]

It will be interesting to see how CQC affects things.

The majority of players are still - probably - people that bought the game before CQC was announced.

I can see purely combat oriented players going for it more than most but I still can't see that many people that bought an open world space game moving over entirely to CQC.

I think most will dabble to a greater or lesser degree - the chance to be top of the league will be a huge pull for some no doubt - but I reckon most will continue the main game in whatever mode they play.

I can see CQC attracting CQC only new players though.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

There is also the point to consider that CQC will be a more level playing field and will rely on even number contests and player skill.
-
Some pvpers will be very happy about this... some may not?
-
If a player's idea of fun is overpowering a weaker opponent through force of numbers rather than skill, CQC may be the last thing they want to do, especially if it retains your CMDR name on any leader boards...-
-
"Fearless gank squadder CMDR Ruinzy0rg4m3" sitting with a 0-10 record is not going to help his ego (sweeping generalisation I know)

 

[Jockey79]

There is also the point to consider that CQC will be a more level playing field and will rely on even number contests and player skill.
-
Some pvpers will be very happy about this... some may not?
-
If a player's idea of fun is overpowering a weaker opponent through force of numbers rather than skill, CQC may be the last thing they want to do, especially if it retains your CMDR name on any leader boards...-
-
"Fearless gank squadder CMDR Ruinzy0rg4m3" sitting with a 0-10 record is not going to help his ego (sweeping generalisation I know)

I'm looking forward to CQC due to the level playing field and the "no cost" deaths, so even if I suck at it, it won't cost me a penny and if my team wins I'll earn money to spend in the main game.
That being said, I'd not thought about the leaderboards and any lasting information. That is rather amusing now you bring it up, plus I think you are right - some folks will avoid CQC for that very reason.

 

[willowfan]

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).

I think what is meant is to get the victim to be the cause of their own grief. ie the "griefer" is killed, the "victim" gets banned/fined for causing the death.

 

[DarkWalker]

Unfortunately any PVE mode would have to be locked down with mechanics preventing non-consensual interaction (as best they can,) Anything left in the hands of the players won't work IMHO.

My basic suggestions would be to invert the weapon damage. If one player hits another in PvE open, the attacker's shield/hull/systems are damaged instead (preferably with a huge warning flashing on the screen telling what is happening) while the target walks away scot-free. This also means that intentionally attempting to get another player to fire upon you would just result in the tricked player losing a bit of shield or hull, which is perfectly acceptable.

Gamey, I know. But a PvE mode is intrinsically gamey by nature, so I don't really see a downside.

 

[M.E.A.T]

I dont follow this thread everyday, but why are you guys talking about PvE mode? Did that thread (Open PvE or something) got merged with this mega thread?

 

[Jockey79]

I dont follow this thread everyday, but why are you guys talking about PvE mode? Did that thread (Open PvE or something) got merged with this mega thread?

Some people managed to derail the Open PvE thread.
The main thread became locked, so the people talking about it continued the conversation here.