Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Toxic_Waster]

Here's what we can do. I will tell you on a given day, that I am waiting in Open...in local space, around any space station you desire....streaming on the internet...and if you can find me you can have some internet cookies! You CAN TRY to hunt people...you have no GUARANTEE that if you are in the same system, at the same time, in the same mode, at the same place, that you will find them! Whether through distance, instancing, or outright manipulation of personal equipment....you will be hard put to see a person.

The game is hihgly prohibitive against PVP....by design. The only way the devs have set up the game to guarantee a reward for doing anything, is through the interaction of groups of people collecting PVE trophies.

There is a large group of people playing under an amazingly well perpetrated illusion, created by the devs, that this is not the case....but if you honestly, and without prejudice, look at the base designs...this is the only way the game is playable across the modes. The only equal way that any player gets rewarded is to play the PVE collection game. Any other part of the game is a cost to all players that participate.

You got it wrong, my friend. The game is not prohibitive agains PVP, but against griefing to minimize the possibility of harassing the same target multiple times. PVP is very well encouraged in the game. The stations even suggest missions where human "Traders/Civilians" are the valid mission targets. So I don't know why you're hung up on the idea that ED does not encourage PVP. It's clearly not the case. I think you should let it go.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

LOL.

So advocating Bounty Hunting then

Still need better tools / mechanics for PvP BH'ing though

Just trying to understand why they're so tense over some quality pew pew.

 

[Jockey79]

You got it wrong, my friend. The game is not prohibitive agains PVP, but against griefing to minimize the possibility of harassing the same target multiple times. PVP is very well encouraged in the game. The stations even suggest missions where human "Traders/Civilians" are the valid mission targets. So I don't know why you're hung up on the idea that ED does not encourage PVP. It's clearly not the case. I think you should let it go.

It doesn't "encourage" PvP at all, it is indifferent to it.

Power Play targets can all be NPCs
Mission targets can all be NPCs

You can Pirate NPCs, Bounty Hunt NPCs, defend your trade ship from NPCs.

There is nothing in game that 100% needs PvP - it is optional.

(Yes NPC piracy needs fixing, but it can still be done)

 

[Cowboy Bats]

What if you ruin the day of another "day ruiner"? Will it make you feel better?

Not in game. No satisfaction in that. I'm a violent person by nature, which is why I largely avoid conflict in games, aside from the always progress never lose variety like Battlfield, COD or Battlefront. I'm allergic to impotent rage, so I avoid it. I'd let guys like Maj pirate me all day if I knew we were having a face to face in the morning. That's just the way I'm wired. So playing a game that invites real conflict with real losses just fills me with rage, and I have no way to reach out and relieve it. That's stress I would rather live without. Could be why I still love pool halls at my age. A fight can always break out with drunks and money involved, but it's not in a forced impotence by internet scenario.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

It doesn't "encourage" PvP at all, it is indifferent to it.

Power Play targets can all be NPCs
Mission targets can all be NPCs

You can Pirate NPCs, Bounty Hunt NPCs, defend your trade ship from NPCs.

There is nothing in game that 100% needs PvP - it is optional.

(Yes NPC piracy needs fixing, but it can still be done)

If the system does not punish for it then the system encourages it. Hasn't it always been the case?

 

[DarkWalker]

I'm not going to engage into GW2 discussion here. All I can say their PVP is their main selling point, PVE in GW2 is secondary and very mediocre in the provided content. When the game was hot I had to wait more than 30 minutes in the queue.

I kinda doubt. At launch, based on the best guesses of the player base and some info leaked during the Beta, the game could handle about 10K players in WvW matches on the US servers, a bit more than that in the EU servers.

(about 100 players from each server per WvW map, with 4 WvW maps, 24 US servers, and 27 EU servers.)

That is why you were getting queues. In a game that sold over two million copies in the first month alone, and that achieved nearly half a million players simultaneous logged in the first week, only about 20K players could be playing the WvW PvP at a time. If even half the players were mainly interested in the PvP, you likely would be seeing queues lasting multiple hours, rather than a mere half hour.

So, it might have been the main selling point for you. But it clearly wasn't for the devs, or they would have greatly increased the capacity of the game's PvP element. GW2 was always a game mainly about its PvE

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Not in game. No satisfaction in that. I'm a violent person by nature, which is why I largely avoid conflict in games, aside from the always progress never lose variety like Battlfield, COD or Battlefront. I'm allergic to impotent rage, so I avoid it. I'd let guys like Maj pirate me all day if I knew we were having a face to face in the morning. That's just the way I'm wired. So playing a game that invites real conflict with real losses just fills me with rage, and I have no way to reach out and relieve it. That's stress I would rather live without. Could be why I still love pool halls at my age. A fight can always break out with drunks and money involved, but it's not in a forced impotence by internet scenario.

So this is your own unique psychological state. Why other gamers should be measured by it?

 

[Roybe]

I kinda doubt. At launch, based on the best guesses of the player base and some info leaked during the Beta, the game could handle about 10K players in WvW matches on the US servers, a bit more than that in the EU servers.

(about 100 players from each server per WvW map, with 4 WvW maps, 24 US servers, and 27 EU servers.)

That is why you were getting queues. In a game that sold over two million copies in the first month alone, and that achieved nearly half a million players simultaneous logged in the first week, only about 20K players could be playing the WvW PvP at a time. If even half the players were mainly interested in the PvP, you likely would be seeing queues lasting multiple hours, rather than a mere half hour.

So, it might have been the main selling point for you. But it clearly wasn't for the devs, or they would have greatly increased the capacity of the game's PvP element. GW2 was always a game mainly about its PvE

WvW isn't PVP...it's PVE.

The segregated PVP is the only 'real' PVP in the game.

 

[Jockey79]

If the system does not punish for it then the system encourages it. Hasn't it always been the case?

Being indifferent to something is not "encouragement"

Also, using a false cause fallacy does not suit you.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Being indifferent to something is not "encouragement"

Also, using a false cause fallacy does not suit you.

I'm applying the laws of the modern society: if there is no state regulation by default it's already encouragement.

To add to this there is the special part of development dedicated to PVP like interdiction, wake scanning, the ability to distinguish human player from NPC, the ability to disable subsystems, masslock and so on. What is it as not the encouragement? Do you think these all were seeded to the game by mistake? Is there any reason why you'd destroy the drive of NPC ship?

 

[DarkWalker]

Just trying to understand why they're so tense over some quality pew pew.

Shooting fish in a barrel isn't quality pew pew. Quite the opposite.

Quality pew pew is when the fight is even, when all sides have a similar chance of winning. When blinking at the wrong time can cost you the victory. That is the kind of PvP I enjoy. Fighting someone that can't fight back, even if the reason he can't fight back is because I successfully ambushed him, well, that is just boring.

 

[Roybe]

If the system does not punish for it then the system encourages it. Hasn't it always been the case?

It does not encourage...it is indifferent...and in most cases costs everyone time and money to get involved with.

BTW, on the PC missions, I believe I was the one that pointed that little wrinkle out somewhere on here! BTW, I am an Open advocate...but there is no point to that argument anymore...and PVP, if not dead currently, will be within a few more months...there are much better games out there that provide the scratch for that itch...and Horizons will make it even harder to find someone to shoot at.

I suggest getting good at arranging PVP (places like Lave are what I am talking about here, as well as getting friends together to shoot each other...where someone declares 'we are the owners and you can come and kick our butts')...or spend a lot of time looking for PC targets randomly and being bored. The former will get boring because you will be shooting the same folks over and over..and the latter...well that 'just is' boring!

 

[Jockey79]

I'm applying the laws of the modern society: if there is no state regulation by default it's already encouragement.

Well, if you want to fall back on real world laws... "state regulations" do not apply, it's a British game, made in England.
So laws like the Harassment Act 1997, Public Order Act 1986, Offences Against the Person Act 1886.

Or we can use the international laws, like 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the framework for the repression of piracy under international law

Shall I go on?

 

[Roybe]

As for all the 'PVP' activities (shooting FSD's, etc.) those are just as valid when trying to Pirate an NPC. Their existence does not 'prove' that PVP is a desired activity...particularly when the devs themselves, in their design papers, said it would be 'rare and meaningful'. Again, PVP is possible...just not highly desired...and definitely not rewarded.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Shooting fish in a barrel isn't quality pew pew. Quite the opposite.

Quality pew pew is when the fight is even, when all sides have a similar chance of winning. When blinking at the wrong time can cost you the victory. That is the kind of PvP I enjoy. Fighting someone that can't fight back, even if the reason he can't fight back is because I successfully ambushed him, well, that is just boring.

I enjoy something different. Even fights assume even destruction for both parties. I don't like dying mainly because I don't like grinding credits. All I want just some fireworks with some salty tears attached to it. I don't accept fights when the opponent is ready for it. It doesn't mean I attack noobies. I'd wait when a damaged anaconda jumps out from CZ and interdict it in vulture to finish it off. This is my kind of fight. I like destroying superior ships in something much smaller, but to do this I must know when to strike. I do not care if it makes me a jerk, griefer or whatever. I don't talk to targets. They do spit out towards me some unpleasantries, but when it happens I know my mission is accomplished.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Well, if you want to fall back on real world laws... "state regulations" do not apply, it's a British game, made in England.
So laws like the Harassment Act 1997, Public Order Act 1986, Offences Against the Person Act 1886.

Or we can use the international laws, like 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the framework for the repression of piracy under international law

Shall I go on?

Yes, you forgot about the manslaughter.

 

[Jockey79]

BTW, on the PC missions, I believe I was the one that pointed that little wrinkle out somewhere on here!

Yes you were, I recall that.
Not sure if it was SOG 2 or 3 though.

You can use those red links in my Sig to find out

 

[Leto Thule]

The financial loss is meaningless. If the player wants to enjoy the social aspect of the game without players like you ruining the experience, he should be allowed that.

The end result of an Open PvE mode would merely be as if every player knew about Mobius (and Mobius himself had infinite time to manage the group). If you have an issue with an Open PvE mode existing, you have an issue with players learning about the Mobius group and being aware that they can choose to remove from their game the unwanted PvP that for many serves only to make the game worse.

I'm glad you are here to tell me who I have issues with.

I don't care if people don't play in open. The point is they don't have to. You want cake/eat too.

 

[Deleted member 102790]

I enjoy something different. Even fights assume even destruction for both parties. I don't like dying mainly because I don't like grinding credits. All I want just some fireworks with some salty tears attached to it. I don't accept fights when the opponent is ready for it. It doesn't mean I attack noobies. I'd wait when a damaged anaconda jumps out from CZ and interdict it in vulture to finish it off. This is my kind of fight. I like destroying superior ships in something much smaller, but to do this I must know when to strike. I do not care if it makes me a jerk, griefer or whatever. I don't talk to targets. They do spit out towards me some unpleasantries, but when it happens I know my mission is accomplished.

I think the not caring about others might be because you are unconsciously scared to use the chat or talk because of fear of rejection/being judged deficient in some way which is covered up by an ego gratifying "win". This seems likely being that you want "salty tears" from the other (wanting a negative reaction from someone who doesn't want to play with you - they show their vulnerability by chatting and you silently are hiding your own).

If not then please explain why it is so so so hard for you to communicate that you actively avoid it every chance you get?

 

[Leto Thule]

They do know how much they have lost - that's easily calculated.

How do you deal with players who don't communicate or drop cargo?

I shoot at them until their shields drop, then fire hatch breakers at their cargo hold. If they attempt to run, I shoot at their drives and then thrusters. If they shoot me, I shoot back.

Not even slightly correct. Everyone already has the ability to avoid pvp. Open PvP is desired because it's the ultimate and final solution to the Mobius workaround. Mobius' numbers prove the desire is sufficient, yet poor mobius has to deal with thousands of members with barely non-existent admin tools. Plus, the only people who know about Mobius are those who visit the forums. It would just be a better system all around if there was an open PvE mode.

ACTUALLY IT IS CORRECT, 100%. People avoid open play to avoid becoming targets. WHY ELSE?????

They sure do! So they dont get their own mode!

 

[Toxic_Waster]

I think the not caring about others might be because you are unconsciously scared to use the chat or talk because of fear of rejection/being judged deficient in some way which is covered up by an ego gratifying "win". This seems likely being that you want "salty tears" from the other (wanting a negative reaction from someone who doesn't want to play with you).

If not then please explain why it is so so so hard for you to communicate that you actively avoid it every chance you get?

I care for them. I would track the potential target and wait for an hour if needed. What is it, but caring?

In my earlier days I tried the orthodox piracy with macros messages. 1 out of 10 complied. I was very polite btw. The credits were so puny I stopped bothering with it. I also need the different ship fitting for this. Now my keybindings are all for combat. I accept high risk engagements and no time to chat in most cases.

As for the psychological factor, I create my own content and come up with my imaginary story. "Tears" are more as the reflex now indicating that things went as intended.

 

[Jockey79]

Yes, you forgot about the manslaughter.

Nope, I didn't.

The laws I listed can all be used without the involved parties ever commiting to PvP after interdiction.

Activating an interdictor on someone can cause distress, so the criteria for Section 5 Public Order Act 1986(if their ship takes damage in the process you have Section 47 Assault, Offences Against the Person Act 1886).
By telling me you're going to harm me (aka, give me cargo or I will [insert threat]....), that is a Section 39 Common Assault, Offences Against the Person Act 1886. (Leading to a 47 (ABH), 20 (GBH with Intent), 18 (GBH) or Murder. Manslaughter is for spur of the moment / accidental cases, premeditated is S20 Assault or Murder - Should the shooting start due to the trader trying to run or the "pirate" not waiting etc....)

And of course the Harassment Act 1997 reads:
[h=3]Prohibition of harassment.[/h](1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

Also, trying to use badly worded American laws to justify actions within a game is a bit weird.
Though it was nice to try and recall all the British Laws, not thought about most of these for a while, good exercise for the mind