To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?

Ettanin

E
Robert Maynard said:
Some members of the PG would "fabricate" PvP opportunities in CZs by deliberately waiting until the other player(s) in the CZ had selected a side before they would pick the opposing side.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and a good loophole for sealclubbers to hunt down new players who by chance found Mobius with impunity. That's one of the reasons this was changed.
 
Last edited:

Sylveria

Sylveria
ethelred said:
I know initially Mobius had PvP allowed in CZ, so perhaps a flag wouldn't be what they wanted.

Not sure why that was dropped - probably because of shenanigans.
Click to expand...

Indeed, as you've correctly pointed out here, there may be circumstances which determine a different ruleset- which is why no single PG should be "the" focus that dictates a player's ability to play the game.

No offense to the group Mobius, but either there's a 100% agreement with a group's rules, or there isn't- and either way each player has the ability to create their own if they're in disagreement. That's a GOOD thing.

That means a single setting that affects the entire group dictates whether or not something is allowed, again not leaving it up to admins to "manage" the players, but manage the "group", which is what they're supposed to be doing.

If players have "disputes" amongst themselves, they can take it to Open- where all is possible.
 
Last edited:

ethelred

ethelred
Sylveria said:
Indeed, as you've correctly pointed out here, there may be circumstances which determine a different ruleset- which is why no single PG should be "the" focus that dictates a player's ability to play the game.

No offense to the group Mobius, but either there's a 100% agreement with a group's rules, or there isn't- and either way each player has the ability to create their own if they're in disagreement. That's a GOOD thing.

That means a single setting that affects the entire group dictates whether or not something is allowed, again not leaving it up to admins to "manage" the players, but manage the "group", which is what they're supposed to be doing.
Click to expand...

I like this idea, but from a realistic perspective I think a group like this would have to be self-sufficient.

That said, better admin tools would also need Dev time and obvs I don't know if that would > or < what would be needed to turn player damage off
 

Sylveria

Sylveria
ethelred said:
I don't know if that would > or < what would be needed to turn player damage off
Click to expand...
Yep, "would be needed" or even "could be possible", given the game's mechanics and systems.

As with the UI customization, if it's some archaic coding that's tied in preventing such allowance, this needs to be communicated to players. That way they can make their own personal choices as to whether this is the game for them, so we don't see the issue constantly being raised. That's part of why this always comes back around to these threads popping up, too- no clear communication from Frontier not only as to intent, but also what's even remotely possible in the future. Then you had someone like Sandro constantly baiting players with an announcement of intent, only for it to fall completely flat (remember the PowerPlay changes, etc.?)

How long did it take them to communicate to players that they couldn't just simply add in color customization for the UI, for example?
 

Sylveria

Sylveria
IMO it's because they still want to "have their cake and eat it, too" when it comes to the entirety of the playerbase.

They are purposely unclear because to set expectations accordingly would mean people wouldn't be hanging around the game waiting for changes, but they'd move onto other things instead. They're essentially playing on both sides of the fence.
  • If it's a game limitation that prevents them from making such a change, it should be communicated.
  • If it's a developer design intention that prevents them from making such a change it should be communicated.
People have been "hanging around" waiting for changes which DB himself is clearly on record stating would happen in regard to development... one of which just recently made possible (Odyssey, Space Feet, etc.) and during that whole time they hadn't communicated a damned thing. So for years, we had players debating in the forums over "developer intent" on Space Feet, etc. "Elite Dangerous is about spaceships, not FPS!!!" and so forth.

This whole situation is absolutely NUTS.
 
Last edited:

ethelred

ethelred
Hard to argue with.

If I was in charge (I'm not) I would have taken the NMS approach and got the base game up to snuff (ofc there are a million things in that) before spending any time on spacelegs.

For reference that would include:-

1. Optional PvE group without limits
2. NPC Crew and NPC Wingrmen
3. A difference in feel depending on govt type and security level.

Amongst others...
 

Sylveria

Sylveria
Apparently, the decision to spend time on Space Legs was all due to not missing out on all that revenue from the FPS crowd.

Again, we're coming back to pandering- instead of having a clear design intention path from the outset. Makes me wonder if those in charge have been spitballing a whiteboard with each monthly team meeting based on what Marketing is telling them is "trendy", rather than spending time and resources on the playerbase who've already purchased their product.

I can just see it now.... "Well boys, Fortnite is trendy, so we need to include FPS elements in the game pronto!"
 

TiberiusDuval

T
Bigmaec said:
That would not prevent ganking as the time to kill bad ships is so ridiculously low you're dead before I even clicked on the galmap to navigate to your position even if I wanted to help you. And if you've build your ship competently, you can already escape trivially easy*, making it only a lure for more combat oriented "white knights". Most gankers would welcome that.

* except in very very special circumstances like being in supercruise drop range of a whole ganker wing with frags / TC and groms, and not doing anything about it like bailing out early in supercruise.

This.
But as always it's ESPECIALLY about punishing the player - who doesn't break any rules currently - that is shooting other players who don't want that in a game of shooting other players. It's essentially a revenge fantasy 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Pay what you break model. THAT will work.
 

[VR] Bac Ho

[VR] Bac Ho
ethelred said:
Hard to argue with.

If I was in charge (I'm not) I would have taken the NMS approach and got the base game up to snuff (ofc there are a million things in that) before spending any time on spacelegs.

For reference that would include:-

1. Optional PvE group without limits
2. NPC Crew and NPC Wingrmen
3. A difference in feel depending on govt type and security level.

Amongst others...
Click to expand...
100% with you on this, just those 3 features would improve the game unbelievably.
 

Sylveria

Sylveria
[VR] Bac Ho said:
So funny :ROFLMAO: but unfortunately probably correct.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see Frontier Developments prove me wrong here by clearly communicating with the player base as to their intentions.

I'll bet if they're paying bonuses were based on regularly reported solicited feedback from players, rather than projected forecasting of sales they'd be much clearer.

They need to perform a restructure of the company where development isn't tucked under marketing. There needs to be a clear development path that doesn't change with "marketing trends", but rather fulfills the game according to the original purpose and intent.
 

Vyrose

Vyrose
Yeah, i would play more often on Open if i could get some ganking prevention or some solution for it. I actually started to play this game on open, that's where I met my friends that i still play with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom