Ah, you mean this?
[video=youtube;_LIDz4zJZ7Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LIDz4zJZ7Y[/video]
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
Ah, you mean this?
[video=youtube;_LIDz4zJZ7Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LIDz4zJZ7Y[/video]
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In this case, I'm the one on the offensive. Interdicting agents and logistics ships. Player ships who've joined Hudson in this case are usually one or the other. There IS the indirect benefit of stopping them running missions or earning money or whatever but I find that a hard argument to make to someone I've just caused to rebuy. They know I got nothing direct from it.
My problem is I'm not heartless. If there was a reward I could at least point 'I was earning merits'. As I am doing by killing the NPCs and undermining his control systems.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It seems that you want the game to provide a reward to justify the ship destruction (by inference - if the game rewards it, it must be OK) and thus assuage any guilt.
Damnit ST quit undermining my argument.
If you are in their territory you are on the offensive, naturally. But in your territory you are defending. If your character has ethics and doesn't like killing others on the offensive then stick to defensive or non-combat activities.
However "I only killed him to earn merits" is entirely heartless.
Honestly, just play Solo, all of these problems just go away.
Simply put, yes. For people playing in Open there's no reason why that shouldn't be the case. There's a double choice going on here. 1) You've chosen to play in Open where there are risks of PvP encounters and 2) You've chosen to join a faction where there are risks of PvP encounters. So in one sense that guilt is already lessened.
But the opposite player knows that there's no reward for it and thus think I'm doing it for the hell of it.
- - - Updated - - -
Honestly, just play Solo, all of these problems just go away.
I am right now, but it doesn't feel right.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There may be no reward but there is still a reason - the other player has pledged to an opposing Power.
Oh no, I was killing him for my Space Khaleesi. But a system-reward does make it easier knowing there was at least some practical reason.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A reward does not provide reason - the reason is already there - the reward is just that, a reward, an encouragement to perform the action.
I agree to a point. It's been a while since we argued Robert.
What I don't understand is the resistance to this. It takes nothing away from those who want to play Solo or in Groups.
Last edited:
I agree to a point. It's been a while since we argued Robert.
What I don't understand is the resistance to this. It takes nothing away from those who want to play Solo or in Groups.
Debating is fun.
However, offering counter-arguments is not necessarily resistance. If you say "A has to happen because B is true" then pointing out that "B" actually isn't true, isn't saying that "A" shouldn't happen. Perhaps A should happen, but not because of B. Essentially it doesn't make any difference what we say here, Frontier will continue to do what they want. They seem to have abandoned this topic a long time ago.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I agree to a point. It's been a while since we argued Robert.
What I don't understand is the resistance to this. It takes nothing away from those who want to play Solo or in Groups.
Indeed Mr. Ryan, indeed....
If there is a reward for killing players then it will probably happen more often - not all players seek PvP - therefore, increasing the likelihood of being killed in Open, because it rewards the killer, may have an adverse effect on the population of less combative players in Open.
In the same way that the FSD delay on submission to interdiction is a trivial change to make that has not been made (possibly to allow ships a chance to flee), changing the game so that there would be a reward for killing players as part of PP would be a trivial change - I expect that Frontier have their reasons.
Last edited:
Indeed Mr. Ryan, indeed....
If there is a reward for killing players then it will probably happen more often - not all players seek PvP - therefore, increasing the likelihood of being killed in Open, because it rewards the killer, may have an adverse effect on the population of less combative players in Open.
In the same way that the FSD delay on submission to interdiction is a trivial change to make that has not been made (possibly to allow ships a chance to flee), changing the game so that there would be a reward for killing players as part of PP would be a trivial change - I expect that Frontier have their reasons.
Agreed - FD seem to be trying to walk the fine line between different play styles - that way every play style gets to take a hit for the team!
Indeed Mr. Ryan, indeed....
If there is a reward for killing players then it will probably happen more often - not all players seek PvP - therefore, increasing the likelihood of being killed in Open, because it rewards the killer, may have an adverse effect on the population of less combative players in Open.
In the same way that the FSD delay on submission to interdiction is a trivial change to make that has not been made (possibly to allow ships a chance to flee), changing the game so that there would be a reward for killing players as part of PP would be a trivial change - I expect that Frontier have their reasons.
Agreed though as I argued earlier playing in Open AND joining a faction you're aware that you're now the enemy of other players.
I've stated before that I'd like to see contextualised PvP encouraged. This is PvP that makes sense storywise. By encouraging it and giving those who seek PvP a place to throw their urges inside the story could help reduce random PvP.
Of course CQC will give them one way, but this makes sense as another.
- - - Updated - - -
Agreed as well. One of the fun things about being me is I stand right on the line. Fervent anti-griefer but thinks PvP has its place. So I'm keen to maintain the balance and would still argue for harsher punishments for PvP. I really should be hostile to the Federation at this point, I'm attacking THE PRESIDENT'S SHIPS. Instead I can dock at any one of several of Sol's Stations as a friendly...
The other night though I did have to leg-it to Eranin when some players started to react to my camping of Nanomamammam. That was fun.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Joining a faction does, of course, open a player up to Powerplay related PvP in Open - as I said, the issue that Frontier are dealing with is walking the line between "possible but unrewarding and therefore less common" and "possible and rewarding (in terms of CC) and therefore more common".
I can see you from where I'm standing....
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
OK, so it's a completely stand alone game. Fair enough.
And what about maybe racing as well as combat?
I do hope the main game gets some sort of co-ordinated PvP arena/mechanic added though. Luckily we sort of have this via Powerplay with Military Strike Zones, but it's not ideal, and could be better suited if something was specifically designed for the task.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
With the announcement of CQC I would not expect an arena to be incorporated within E: D as it already exists outwith the main game. We'll need to see how Powerplay develops.
Also, from the same article:
and
Last edited:
Aww that's a little disappointing, I was hoping for some kind of rewards bleeding over into the game.
Also the conformation of lack of cross platform play is disappointing, although expected. I was kind of hoping for more players to be matched in open with.
- Status