Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[atak2]

You seem to be skipping pages, so here you go;



As "most of the ships you encounter will be AIs" was part of the main design - the game should be balanced towards PvE.
PvP is "supposed" to be rare and meaningful - not plentiful and pointless.

So no, I've not got the game wrong - Mobius is how the game was envisioned and sold, a co-op game.

Discourage! Not ban - and the Crime update is coming to deal with that.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not necessarily true, mainly because it doesn't adequately explain what Open is, or isn't, but let's agree for the sake of argument. Okay, by entering Open I am consenting to PvP. I might expect the risk of being caught by a pirate, or, if I've committed crimes I can expect to be attacked by Bounty Hunters or security forces. I am not consenting to meaningless, out of context PvP. I don't expect some random Python to suddenly attack me for no reason and with no dialogue. I don't expect some other player to attempt to prevent me from taking part in a Community Goal just because they decided to. And if they do and I go to Solo to allow me the opportunity to take part in a part of the game that I am equally entitled to, I don't expect those other players to tell me I am not allowed or that I should be locked into one mode or I should get less reward. Nowhere did I consent to that.

Player ships have guns. That gives them a trigger to hold down to shoot. If they pull that trigger they should expect consequences from the Crime update for doing so but should not be disallowed because SteveLaw doesn't feel like it today.

 

[SteveLaw]

Player ships have guns. That gives them a trigger to hold down to shoot. If they pull that trigger they should expect consequences from the Crime update for doing so but should not be disallowed because SteveLaw doesn't feel like it today.

And this is when you probably find the discussion generally starts to degenerate, right? Right about the time that you start targeting the person, not the point? It's not my vision of the game is David Braben's. Go and argue with him.

 

[Jockey79]

Here you go, argue with the main man himself.

[video]http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=1h12m18s[/video]

The next 3 minutes of video should put things into perspective.

 

[atak2]

And this is when you probably find the discussion generally starts to degenerate, right? Right about the time that you start targeting the person, not the point? It's not my vision of the game is David Braben's. Go and argue with him.

Here is the dev's vision concerning Crime consequences the devs posted today:

Hello Commander JeffRyan!

I think we'll have to wait and see what kind of impact these crime changes have, as they're quite significant. Also, the idea is not to prevent attacks (there is an adversarial element to this game) but to make the consequences appropriate.

 

[SteveLaw]

Here is the dev's vision concerning Crime consequences the devs posted today:

Exactly. There is an adversarial element to the game, it's not an adversarial game. Even there though you could argue that it refers to NPCs more than PCs.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Here is the dev's vision concerning Crime consequences the devs posted today:

Its an interesting point. In what is somewhat of a simulation what do YOU think the consequences for mindless murder or ship destruction be in high security space?

 

[atak2]

Exactly. There is an adversarial element to the game, it's not an adversarial game.

I think Open covers that nicely with the upcoming Crime update.

- - - Updated - - -

Its an interesting point. In what is somewhat of a simulation what do YOU think the consequences for mindless murder or ship destruction be in high security space?

Large bounty. Chased out of high security space (or destroyed) by police. High chance on coming back into high security space that the police make a beeline for you if anyone finds the fugative ships wanted status.

 

[Jockey79]

I think Open covers that nicely with the upcoming Crime update.

We will see how it plays out.

But all those people that have gone missing from Open, to Solo and Groups won't be back unless mindless killing is put in it's place properly.

 

[SteveLaw]

I think Open covers that nicely with the upcoming Crime update.

I was disappointed tbh, it needs better, more appropriate security response, but we'll see how it goes. I really hope it solves all the problems and everyone can play together. I somehow doubt it though.

 

[atak2]

We will see how it plays out.

But all those people that have gone missing from Open, to Solo and Groups won't be back unless mindless killing is put in it's place properly.

For both our sakes I hope it does diminish. My point is the option to mindlessly kill, however slight a chance should be allowed by the game mechanics.

 

[Dave1235]

Here you go, argue with the main man himself.

[video]http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=1h12m18s[/url]

The next 3 minutes of video should put things into perspective.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that one. Very interesting, lets hope FD get back on track sooner rather then later.

 

[atak2]

I was disappointed tbh, it needs better, more appropriate security response, but we'll see how it goes. I really hope it solves all the problems and everyone can play together. I somehow doubt it though.

I hope so too. I would not actually be adverse to higher bounties than today stated to be honest.

 

[Roybe]

I was disappointed tbh, it needs better, more appropriate security response, but we'll see how it goes. I really hope it solves all the problems and everyone can play together. I somehow doubt it though.

I agree, but also feel the same way. Somewhere a message was delivered in a less than clear manner, or is muddied by the continued direction the development of this game is going, that is causing a lot of problems with the definition of what and how this game is supposed to be played.

I have my thoughts, that have been borne out over the last 3-4 months, while others opinions seem to be losing ground...however, there is a long way to go in the development of this game.

I have stated many times, I'm along for the ride, however the game develops. I believe most are. Anyway, back to the PvP that is 'foruming'! ;P

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

You seem to be skipping pages, so here you go;



As "most of the ships you encounter will be AIs" was part of the main design - the game should be balanced towards PvE.
PvP is "supposed" to be rare and meaningful - not plentiful and pointless.

So no, I've not got the game wrong - Mobius is how the game was envisioned and sold, a co-op game.

Is this not already the case? Unless you go to high traffic area (lave, lestti or CG systems) the number of npcs you see, will massively outnumber the cmdrs. SoIt's already pretty rare, despite what the forums will have you believe.

As for meaningful, well while the rebuy is kinda small its still nothing to sneeze at. So while you may not find meaning in pvp it doesn't mean it's meaningless. Mobius has no pvp. It's nonexistent, Not rare or meaningful, so that wasn't the vision either.

 

[fademist]

Is this not already the case? Unless you go to high traffic area (lave, lestti or CG systems) the number of npcs you see, will massively outnumber the cmdrs. SoIt's already pretty rare, despite what the forums will have you believe.

As for meaningful, well while the rebuy is kinda small its still nothing to sneeze at. So while you may not find meaning in pvp it doesn't mean it's meaningless. Mobius has no pvp. It's nonexistent, Not rare or meaningful, so that wasn't the vision either.

they have some times ;p

 

[Jockey79]

.....Mobius has no pvp. It's nonexistent, Not rare or meaningful, so that wasn't the vision either.

Completely wrong - so goes to show you've never played as part of the group or just resort to telling lies about it to push your agenda.

Mobius Group Rules clearly state, in any combat zone, once you have picked a side - you become eligible as a PvP target to another player who is in the same combat zone working for the opposing faction/side.
Some Mobius members go to combat zones looking for PvP specifically.

So, while not exactly like DBs vision for ED yet - Mobius Group is a lot closer to that vision, than dozens of people in open sitting outside Lave - ramming players to death/ using dumbfire missiles/ abusing point defense systems to cause stations to PK other players and so on (all of which you can watch on YouTube by those doing it - they love recording their "fun").

So please fact check BEFORE telling a Mobius Group member how the Mobius Group works.
What next, going to tell Mobius himself how his group works?

 

[Roybe]

Completely wrong - so goes to show you've never played as part of the group or just resort to telling lies about it to push your agenda.

Mobius Group Rules clearly state, in any combat zone, once you have picked a side - you become eligible as a PvP target to another player who is in the same combat zone working for the opposing faction/side.
Some Mobius members go to combat zones looking for PvP specifically.

So, while not exactly like DBs vision for ED yet - Mobius Group is a lot closer to that vision, than dozens of people in open sitting outside Lave - ramming players to death/ using dumbfire missiles/ abusing point defense systems to cause stations to PK other players and so on (all of which you can watch on YouTube by those doing it - they love recording their "fun").

So please fact check BEFORE telling a Mobius Group member how the Mobius Group works.
What next, going to tell Mobius himself how his group works?

However, this is not how Open was designed to work. Mobius has no control over what people actually do within the group, other than remove them if they break the gentleman's agreement. This becomes problematic as the group has reached a size that Mobius does not know everyone within it. Added to his growing administration problems, he also is responsible for investigations, punishment, etc. to those that do not abide by the stated rules. Determining who did what in a case of 'he said, she said' is not my idea of fun gameplay.

Open has no gentleman's agreement on rules of play. Only people's suppostions and expectations of what they think will happen. Supposing or expecting that PvP happens because of some rule set, is not why PvP happens in Open. Open IS DBOBES vision of a 'cutthroat' galaxy, just as the private modes provide a sanctuary for those that do not want to be subjected to the violence and freedom that is provided in Open.

 

[Distance]

My comments about the "crime" update should be alarming to solo/pve players. FD have stuck wings on a horse and called it a duck. It's still a horse regardless what FD tell me . . .

The recent crime update doesn't actually do anything to stop crime. All it does is harm solo/pve players whilst not addressing any of the issues open players have asked for. It might stop the odd player rampaging but they can drop to solo for a week and then pay it off so it's pointless.

All the recent changes are purely designed to stop griefers ramming in open (at like one station, lave) and to stop bounty farmers and credit sellers in open who would farm the bounties in solo/group due to the mode switching.

Why aren't you kicking off about it? The people going to be harmed are solo/pve players who go too fast in to a station or accidentally shoot a clean ship in a res. Neither of the changes do anything to fix the problems in open or the problems with crime in general over all of the modes.

The open pvp crowd are wanting higher security response in all sectors of space except anarchy, higher bounties for murder (player or npc), wing beacon fixes (shield exploit, trade warp), interdiction cooldown and masslock tweaks and some kind of fix or punishment for combat loggers and exploiters.

Right now the only difference this "crime" update makes is if I want to pirate or kill players I have to make sure I docked at an anarchy station in case I die. I can go and kill a T9 player filled with palladium (15mil cost) and I still only get a 6 grand bounty which I still don't need to pay off. It's ludicrous! One of the most well known pirates in open is quitting over this. Yes pirates want consequences, we already lost Derath last month, how many more will follow?

If you think any of the above changes I suggested ruin the game for solo/pve vs fd's recent changes then you need to go read them again. The only changes that "might" affect solo/pve have been separate cgs.

If you guys didn't shoot down every open/pvp discussion on the forums maybe FD would have seen more of these issues and acted on them instead of a bunch of "fixes" that will do nothing for the game but harm solo/pve players in the long run.

 

[Herik]

However, this is not how Open was designed to work. Mobius has no control over what people actually do within the group, other than remove them if they break the gentleman's agreement. This becomes problematic as the group has reached a size that Mobius does not know everyone within it. Added to his growing administration problems, he also is responsible for investigations, punishment, etc. to those that do not abide by the stated rules. Determining who did what in a case of 'he said, she said' is not my idea of fun gameplay.

Open has no gentleman's agreement on rules of play. Only people's suppostions and expectations of what they think will happen. Supposing or expecting that PvP happens because of some rule set, is not why PvP happens in Open. Open IS DBOBES vision of a 'cutthroat' galaxy, just as the private modes provide a sanctuary for those that do not want to be subjected to the violence and freedom that is provided in Open.

Wrong on 'No gentlemen's agreement'. The group clearly states what is expected in the group and when. Regarding the size, people communicate with each other if there are social problems; and administering this is fine.

- - - Updated - - -

My comments about the "crime" update should be alarming to solo/pve players. FD have stuck wings on a horse and called it a duck. It's still a horse regardless what FD tell me . . .

The recent crime update doesn't actually do anything to stop crime. All it does is harm solo/pve players whilst not addressing any of the issues open players have asked for. It might stop the odd player rampaging but they can drop to solo for a week and then pay it off so it's pointless.

All the recent changes are purely designed to stop griefers ramming in open (at like one station, lave) and to stop bounty farmers and credit sellers in open who would farm the bounties in solo/group due to the mode switching.

Why aren't you kicking off about it? The people going to be harmed are solo/pve players who go too fast in to a station or accidentally shoot a clean ship in a res. Neither of the changes do anything to fix the problems in open or the problems with crime in general over all of the modes.

The open pvp crowd are wanting higher security response in all sectors of space except anarchy, higher bounties for murder (player or npc), wing beacon fixes (shield exploit, trade warp), interdiction cooldown and masslock tweaks and some kind of fix or punishment for combat loggers and exploiters.

Right now the only difference this "crime" update makes is if I want to pirate or kill players I have to make sure I docked at an anarchy station in case I die. I can go and kill a T9 player filled with palladium (15mil cost) and I still only get a 6 grand bounty which I still don't need to pay off. It's ludicrous! One of the most well known pirates in open is quitting over this. Yes pirates want consequences, we already lost Derath last month, how many more will follow?

If you think any of the above changes I suggested ruin the game for solo/pve vs fd's recent changes then you need to go read them again. The only changes that "might" affect solo/pve have been separate cgs.

If you guys didn't shoot down every open/pvp discussion on the forums maybe FD would have seen more of these issues and acted on them instead of a bunch of "fixes" that will do nothing for the game but harm solo/pve players in the long run.

Solo player here. Not a concern.

 

[Distance]

Wrong on 'No gentlemen's agreement'. The group clearly states what is expected in the group and when. Regarding the size, people communicate with each other if there are social problems; and administering this is fine.

- - - Updated - - -



Solo player here. Not a concern.

Lol did you read it . . .