Go to bed. It's past 2 in the morning!!!
You're keeping me up with all that keyboard tapping.
You're keeping me up with all that keyboard tapping.
Last edited:
- Status
As a former fighter pilot, I'm getting a kick out of this thread.
Just where, I will not say.I'm not 26 anymore. I have arthritis, bad eyes, and a limited tolerance for suffering more than the real world has to offer me in negative experiences.
So, I vote with my cash and time on which games I want to play.
I choose to be destroyed by honest, psychopathic, NPC's.
And, with 14 insurance claims due to said NPC's, and no combat logging for me in Solo, I don't think I can be accused of not playing the game fairly... - - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Indeed. Tragedy Of The Commons.
Yes, Yes, and Yes. It's about the money.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Better start working on that time machine.
Just look back to the sandbox in the kindergarten. Same thing.
[sarcasm]Now, you know the secret to the terms "sandbox game."[/sarcasm]
Last edited:
Really, a normal person? Here?
Prove it
I can't believe it took this long for *that* to come out.
Duly +1'd
Being dull and shallow myself, it could be a good thing to have Solo, and my own private group.
I know
Step 1: go back in time and prevent Adobe.
Step 2: prevent wedding.
Step 3: utilize adequate protective measures when consorting with females in barracks.
Done.
Who said anything about hate?
First things first, stop associating PVP with ganks. It really isnt the same thing. I dont gank.
But, it is a valid question. Let me attempt to explain without violating any rules....
So, a "carebear" does not describe a PVE player. It describes ANY player that wants to play ANY game with no risk involved. You could make the argument that some types of gankers ARE carebears, as he is attacking newbies with something he cannot possibly lose unless he makes a grievous mistake. The "hallmark", so to speak, of any "carebear", is the wish to have the game adapt to them, not the other way around. Im gonna get flamed for this, so let me provide an example:
EVE:
Carebears would usually be associated with highsec industry or mission runners. They refuse to take the 100% infallible actions to avoid being ganked, but instead, keep petitioning for stronger nerfs to the gank mechanics. Unwilling to simply adapt to counter. Ill point out that in EVE, industrial players are 100% REQUIRED for the game to function, as the economy is entirely player driven. (EDIT: Player driven meaning that ALL weapons, ammo, ships, equipment, shields, armor, tools, etc are BUILT from scratch by materials gathered by miners, researched and built by industrialists, and sold on the market and transported around the galaxy by traders.) So it would be very, very bad to "hate" them. The difference between someone who doesnt want to pvp and a "carebear", is that the person who simply wants to avoid the conflict takes actions to avoid the conflict. The carebear continues on path of destruction and complains when destruction occurs, blaming all others but himself.
That is obviously going to be slightly different from the meaning in this game. The core concept is the expectation for the game to change to suit the needs of them, instead of using the tools at hand. Be it mode switching or just plain fighting back.
With that being said, I dont really think I would define most of the posters here in that category. Everyone wants to play the game for the reasons they bought it for. It just so happens mine conflicts with yours, so dont expect me to roll over while you guys try to nix me out of a job. I am aware you dont wanna fight. You are aware I want you to. So use the tools at your disposal... but dont take away mine.
Last edited:
I'm back ^,^ and wow.. many pages over the last few hours.
I find the "examples" given for things that prove PVP was meant are all things that are extremely useful for PVE and not things strictly for PVP at all.
And I really wonder why the fear of an Open PVE mode.. claims of it "killing" open or someone's playstyle and such are extremely unfounded.. It would be like another player group cept where people cannot shoot each other.. cause sadly even in PVE groups.. you get jerks who want to dominate people just because they can and their "victims" won't be expecting it.
The only reason I can assume there would be so much hostility is because it would be advertised. People would know about a PVE mode.. so apparently some feel that with a loss of the ignorance of PVE specific groups that force people looking for interaction into Open it would mean Open becomes barren which is not the case and it wouldn't "splinter the community more" as some falsely claim. It would instead bring many of the PVE private groups together and make it so people do not have to rely on someone to make a private group to have PVE. And if you think a Open-PVE mode would splinter the community.. why are you not protesting every new private group that is made?
If you fear your profession would die because you think more people would go into a open pve mode than you should take a look at your profession. If forcing your version of PVP on others that don't want it is your profession.. then you have a problem to begin with.
Also whoever said that people consent to PVP by signing the EULA .. please find the specific reference otherwise that is a rather presumptuous and false argument.
I find the "examples" given for things that prove PVP was meant are all things that are extremely useful for PVE and not things strictly for PVP at all.
And I really wonder why the fear of an Open PVE mode.. claims of it "killing" open or someone's playstyle and such are extremely unfounded.. It would be like another player group cept where people cannot shoot each other.. cause sadly even in PVE groups.. you get jerks who want to dominate people just because they can and their "victims" won't be expecting it.
The only reason I can assume there would be so much hostility is because it would be advertised. People would know about a PVE mode.. so apparently some feel that with a loss of the ignorance of PVE specific groups that force people looking for interaction into Open it would mean Open becomes barren which is not the case and it wouldn't "splinter the community more" as some falsely claim. It would instead bring many of the PVE private groups together and make it so people do not have to rely on someone to make a private group to have PVE. And if you think a Open-PVE mode would splinter the community.. why are you not protesting every new private group that is made?
If you fear your profession would die because you think more people would go into a open pve mode than you should take a look at your profession. If forcing your version of PVP on others that don't want it is your profession.. then you have a problem to begin with.
Also whoever said that people consent to PVP by signing the EULA .. please find the specific reference otherwise that is a rather presumptuous and false argument.
Of course you do. You dont like PVP. You will never change your viewpoint.
First off, I am not hostile with anyone. Secondly, you already have a PVE only mode. Its called solo/group. I also dont "have a problem to begin with". What exactly does that mean?
As for the EULA... sigh. Youll always see some space-lawyer quoting lines from the EULA. But any EULA is designed to protect the company that owns the IP, and at BEST (for that guys case) states something like "you cannot hold FD accountable for actions in game blah blah". Its for lawyers and corporations, the only part for players is the part where it tells you what you can do with the IP you purchased, and the limits on money you can make with it as far as public showing yada yada.
Oy vey. Robert, can we start Thread #4 now, please? It's bedtime for this one.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Playgrounds at recess. And High School.
Leto why do you keep assuming that everyone is talking specifically to you? You are not the only one here "defending" your version of pvp..
As for your first comment.. when did I say I didn't like pvp? I cannot do PVP.. I used to, what I don't like is those who masquerade around saying they PVP but they do nothing of the sort.. Dominating or utterly overpowering others who have no chance to fight back is NOT pvp.. and I am against that. Yet just because I do not like that does in no way invalidate my comment that that the tools that others claim are "pvp" tools are instead game mechanics that PVPers like to use and not meant for PVP but for the game in general. As for never changing viewpoints may I suggest a mirror..
I am sorry.. but I believe you are wrong.. "I" do not have a PVE only mode.. look at it like this.
Solo = CQC: You have a single player PVE mode and a team based pure PVP mode that balance each other out
Groups: Groups are the catch all mode.. can be either PVP or PVE depending on the creator's wishes, but PVP cannot be disabled.. gentleman's agreement only.
Open PVP = Open..um...: There is no balancing for the social part of ED.. if you want to be social you either have to accept PVP, or search through the catch all of groups to find a PVE group that has people actively working to keep PVPers out.
So no, I do not have a PVE mode.. I currently have a stop gap in a group I love and do everything I can to support.
And I dont' think you made the comment that you signed up for PVP by signing the EULA, but who ever said it was false.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Still remember some of those incidents.. kinds can be ruthless little monsters sometimes.
Well if that's the case, then the label is misused as I would say that any easy majority of calls to change the game to suit a player type have been from the open only crowd. I haven't seen a single suggestion to remove open that was made in earnest, but I could show you a dozen more in this incarnation of this thread alone where a poster is seriously calling for the removal of solo and groups.
Fair enough, I apologize.
PVP means player versus player (just stating the obvious). So in all reality, you are technically PVP'ing if you run trade goods. That is, if the game still adapts to what others are doing with trade routes, etc. It may not be violent, but its still attempting to make the better income than the other guy. I think many people confuse "PVP" with "Honorable 1 on 1 combat" or "fair fight". CQC is more like this, with combat being contained and relatively balanced. And thats the reason it doesnt appeal to guys like me. Its contained. I didnt FIND it... and maybe if it werent a wholly different mode option and was somehow integrated into the main client, id be more accommodating to it. But the tools that everyone is referencing are clearly built for BOTH methods of play. Ill look for that mirror as well, because yes that describes me too.
I couldnt have said it better myself.
So what is wrong with that? Its a community you helped build, and I wouldnt dream of attempting to take it or subvert it. Why isnt what you have good enough to meet your needs for gameplay?
I know you didnt. I was just replying to that. I hate EULA monkeys.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
And I disagree with those people who want to remove solo and group play. Many people purchased the game expecting those modes, and thats the reason I want the game to stay the way it is. I love open mode, but by no means would I say I am "open only". Whats good for me isnt good for everyone and I accept that, I just dont want to be disregarded when it comes to opinion time on "do we need another mode". And yes, the label is most certainly misused.
Last edited:
Well we disagree on PVP.. you think dominating someone is pvp, I disagree.. and The problem with Private groups.. if the one who created it leaves or something happens.. for groups where requests to join are on.. no one new can join, no one in who breaks the rules can be kicked.. the group is utterly reliant on the creator and leader of the group.. which is a single point of failure issue.. asking for a PVE version of open so that people have a valid choice between pvp and pve is not subverting Mobius. I can still be a Member of Mobius and play there or in Open - PVE just as people play there and play in Hutton Truckers or Open or Solo... they are not subverting by playing in other modes..
We do indeed disagree. I dont view it as my "domination" of another player. I simply am playing the game the way I want.
I get your point with the group tools. So if mobieus went AFK there would be 15k players stuck in limbo. Point taken. Although I would argue that for ANY MMO, you run the same risk with corporate/guild banks, management, etc. Perhaps that is a better way to suggest we head in the direction of? Toolsets for group management?
Whilst this is very true, the exact same applies to those who log out in 15 seconds, blow themselves up, play on a connection too poor to even properly receive your packets, or even decide they are bored and go play something else instead just as you are going to interdict them. They are all simply playing the way they want.
- Status