Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Cheese Helmet]

It's not an appeal to authority as evidence from the authority in question has been posted.

Yes - this is not a game where players need to tolerate PvP at all - by design - and every player bought it on that basis.

And I argue that the way they've implemented that design has directly contributed the games staleness, and larger design flaws.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Galaxy is a big place. But if faced with adversity you can't immediately overcome there's nothing wrong with regrouping and trying something else. You shouldn't be able to overcome any and every single situation to the point it can be ignored

What should, or should not, be the case with the challenge posed by the game is Frontier's decision.

 

[tolm]

Here’s some thoughts ...

• Make the standard NPCs in Anarchy systems genuinely really terrifying. I’m talking “best of the best” PvP player level scary.
• Make them always win interdictions so you have to fight them if they come after you.
• Increase the likelihood you will get interdicted to like 75% unless you jump out within 30 seconds of entering
• Increase payouts for missions delivering to Anarchy systems by 100%
• Ensure stations always have missions going to non-Anarchy systems too.
• Give all players currently residing in an Anarchy system a grace period to relocate somewhere else and a “free ship transfer voucher” for each ship they own.
• All of this, in Open, Private Group and Solo.

Now hardcore players have a proper challenge commensurate to their awesome talents whilst the principle of equality of modes is maintained and folks that want to avoid other players still can.

Only downside is that non-combat players would have to get a lot more careful about Anarchy systems but I personally - despite not being a great combat pilot - would be okay with that. In some respects, those Anarchy systems would then become a “training ground” for PvP which might not be a bad thing ...

 

[Robert Maynard]

And I argue that the way they've implemented that design has directly contributed the games staleness, and larger design flaws.

Of course - naturally, other opinions vary.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Galaxy is a big place. But if faced with adversity you can't immediately overcome there's nothing wrong with regrouping and trying something else. You shouldn't be able to overcome any and every single situation to the point it can be ignored

Why not?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Imagine if FD had initially made the game have only one mode, and then people came to the forums for years demanding that FD create separate modes....

I think the shoe would be on the other foot

Imagine all the shared mode defenders saying "FD created the game with a shared mode" - like some sort of inverse Robert Maynard.

I'm sure they would, and they would be right as well.

If I were to post on the Eve forum the same sentiment as I post here, I also would be told to like it or leave it.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

What should, or should not, be the case with the challenge posed by the game is Frontier's decision.

And the current decision has caused it's features with massive potential to fall flat on their face.

Fundamental evidence of room for needed improvement.


Man you love to appeal to authority.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'm sure they would, and they would be right as well.

If I were to post on the Eve forum the same sentiment as I post here, I also would be told to like it or leave it.

Exactly.

There again, if i wanted single player EvE, i'd just stare at a blank excel sheet

 

[Robert Maynard]

And the current decision has caused it's features with massive potential to fall flat on their face.

One player's "massive potential" is another player's "nope - I would not like that".

Fundamental evidence of room for needed improvement.

IYO, OOV.

Man you love to appeal to authority.

Facts are handy that way.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Man you love to appeal to authority.

And you wouldn't be doing the same if the situation was reversed? You wouldn't use the dev's decision to support your position?

 

[Robert Maynard]

And you wouldn't be doing the same if the situation was reversed? You wouldn't use the dev's decision to support your position?

It's already used in the debates around players getting destroyed in Open - selective acceptance of aspects of Frontier's design is a thing.

 

[Old Duck]

I guess you haven't played much apart from looking at your target reticule when it comes to interaction with other players...

Your choice I suppose

IMO, griefers are both bored and boring, and they feel a compulsion to force that boringness on everyone else. Imagine if instead they chose sides and fought each other instead of worrying about the rest of us.

Now we true pirates, we're a colorful lot who hopefully add a bit of fun, suspense, and challenge to the galaxy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sidenote Public Service Message!

Just because someone disagrees with your idea of improvements, that doesn't mean that person doesn't want improvements.

Your idea of improvements os not the only idea of improvements. Other flavours are available.

Thanks for your participation

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Why not?

Because then there's no progression, no sense of risk, no meaningful interaction between the player and the sandbox, and all the game mechanics would be completely pointless. The way gameplay loops work is that you are presented with a problem, and the given options on how to solve that problem, if you remove the existence of the problem, the options are redundant.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sidenote Pulic Service Message!

Just because someone disagrees with your idea of improvements, that doesn't mean that person doesn't want improvements.

Your idea of improvements are not the only ideas of improvements. Other flavours are available.

Thanks for your participation

Indeed - being opposed to specific change does not mean that all possible change is opposed.

 

[tolm]

IMO, griefers are both bored and boring, and they feel a compulsion to force that boringness on everyone else. Imagine if instead they chose sides and fought each other instead of worrying about the rest of us.

Now we true pirates, we're a colorful lot who hopefully add a bit of fun, suspense, and challenge to the galaxy.

How would you take to new weapons being added that would only disable, not destroy ships? Wondering if that would help players be confident that the “pirate” was genuinely not looking to destroy them?

 

[Cheese Helmet]

You shouldn't use the words "you should" so excessively. Meanwhile it gets a certain condescending undertone.

I speak how I speak. I use direct language to the affirmative, I have no issue explaining my speaking style, but I'm not changing it.

 

[Vandaahl]

IMO, griefers are both bored and boring...

Tut tut... 18 pages into this tread and we haven't had a single definition of griefing yet. My ex mother in law was griefing me, and she wasn't even flying a space ship.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Because then there's no progression, no sense of risk, no meaningful interaction between the player and the sandbox, and all the game mechanics would be completely pointless. The way gameplay loops work is that you are presented with a problem, and the given options on how to solve that problem, if you remove the existence of the problem, the options are redundant.

You were busy telling another player how his game should be....

Perhaps one should consider their choice of descriptors...

Or are you one who considers politeness to be "Passive aggressive"?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I speak how I speak. I use direct language to the affirmative, I have no issue explaining my speaking style, but I'm not changing it.

but I'm not changing it yet*