Why is being a "prey" of a pirate in open a bad game design...

[Tividar]

You're denying a playful RP interaction worth about 30 seconds of "work" shooting a rock amongst many others and calling me anti-social? My word.

I'm not calling you anything... But are you seriously describing piracy as not anti-social? Long-term pattern of, disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others??? Its a game, so if you want to play a pirate, you be you, but the career path is fundamentally sociopathic. Just to be clear: I am not saying people who like to RP pirates are sociopaths. I am saying people who like to RP pirates like to RP sociopathic behavoirs. (e.g. I'm not a sociopath, I just play one on TV). What kind of Brave New World are we in anyway?

 

[StewartScott]

Well, there is nothing bad with killing people who went to open. Since it's open. And not the problem discussed in this thread as well . As it's not about "pirates/gankers baaaaaad", but about "Hum, being a prey of the pirate is really not fun and may make some people really stick to solo/pg's, also making them tell others that open is filled with demons trying to suck their souls out of their anacondas.
Also one may see some new pilots being angry at someone, who killed them for "no reason" . That is of course a matter of perspecitve, obviously.

Yikes actually you're right I meant that post to go to another discussion not this one, but alas 'the reason' is as the usual 'because they can'. ;-)

 

[menasure]

i'm actually amased ... it's my second week and although i'm not particularly looking for player groups i've never had more than 10 player contacts in a day while playing in 'open' so i actually hope that 'someone' shoots me down for once, it's just not the same when some NPC does it

 

[wrmiller]

You're denying a playful RP interaction worth about 30 seconds of "work" shooting a rock amongst many others and calling me anti-social? My word.

So go shoot a rock and leave people alone...

 

[Tikanderoga]

I can totally resonate with OP.

Even if you fly away, what stops the pirate from waiting of simply coming back and make you jump away again?

And some don't even RP or ask, they just open fire while you are there, min(d)ing your own business with your pants cargo hatch down and it would take you a few precious seconds to just turn around to start with in your clumsy mining ship, while getting pelted by an agile assailant.

Besides, a pirate is nothing but a bully - they demand YOUR stuff, or threaten with violence.
You keep mining away, they get your hard work and come back later for more. And as the "prey", you become nothing but a dairy cow to be milked over and over again.

And that's why I don't play in open.
I've read enough in the chats of griefers and gankers doing their rounds to stay clear of Open for as long as this game will exist until PvP becomes optional in open.

 

[Kelster87]

Piracy is and always has been part of the Elite universe, did you think ED was going to be different?

And don't equate piracy with anything else, it does your argument no good. Don't like piracy by other players? Fine, play in Solo. But don't come and female dog moan about it being in Open when you don't play there. The majority of players play in open, as per FDev's own statement, and it seems we Open players are mostly happy enough with the way things are - maybe piracy could do with better payouts..The C&P system certainly needs some work, but I suspect a proper fix would cause mountains of salt.

And, frankly, if you get 'sploded by a Pirate, I've got to question your choices.. A max range jump in my exploration or mission/cargo Python tends to get me beyond being followed. A balanced loadout is important. I plan for contingencies, whether they are convenient or not. For example, my Explorer loadout doesn't include an ADC, but includes a shield, SRV hanger and a cargo rack. The first 2 are essential, the 3rd not so much, but all reduce my jump range and exploration potential..

Criminals exist in the real world, some of them probably even play ED, why would or should the ingame world be any different?

 

[Deleted member 182079]

So by extension Frontier are sociopaths for enabling both player and NPC pirates in their computer game? What a ridiculous argument.

I think some people here take things way to seriously.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You're denying a playful RP interaction worth about 30 seconds of "work" shooting a rock amongst many others and calling me anti-social? My word.

One player's "playful RP interaction" that is forced on another player can be considered to be anti-social - it depends on how the target feels about it, not the attacker (as the attacker consciously chose to do it even if they didn't know how the target would react).

The estimate of the "worth" of the interaction, i.e. "30 seconds of work" seems low - is that 3t of commodities? What about when the target doesn't play along and is destroyed - is that "their fault" because they would not obey the instructions of another player?

Just because one player wants to do something doesn't mean that another player does, even if the game allows it - nor does it mean that they have to play along with what another player wants.

 

[Viscera]

One player's "playful RP interaction" that is forced on another player can be considered to be anti-social - it depends on how the target feels about it, not the attacker (as the attacker consciously chose to do it even if they didn't know how the target would react).

The estimate of the "worth" of the interaction, i.e. "30 seconds of work" seems low - is that 3t of commodities? What about when the target doesn't play along and is destroyed - is that "their fault" because they would not obey the instructions of another player?

Just because one player wants to do something doesn't mean that another player does, even if the game allows it - nor does it mean that they have to play along with what another player wants.

What a load of tosh.

If that player does not want interaction with another player, they simply have to click on SOLO or join a player group that forbids it.

They have no place to complain if they chose to play in OPEN.

It expressly states you may get attacked by players in the handy hints it pops up as you are logging into OPEN play, so dont make out it is an uninformed choice, or events that unfold in it are forced upon them.

So what that player wants is decided when they select their mode of play.

They make the choice there, not the players they encounter.

 

[Kelster87]

One player's "playful RP interaction" that is forced on another player can be considered to be anti-social - it depends on how the target feels about it, not the attacker (as the attacker consciously chose to do it even if they didn't know how the target would react).

The estimate of the "worth" of the interaction, i.e. "30 seconds of work" seems low - is that 3t of commodities? What about when the target doesn't play along and is destroyed - is that "their fault" because they would not obey the instructions of another player?

And you couldn't just run away? Or is your ship loadout insufficient?

Just because one player wants to do something doesn't mean that another player does, even if the game allows it - nor does it mean that they have to play along with what another player wants.

Want to play in the galaxy? Then either play the game warts and all or go play something else.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What a load of tosh.

If that player does not want interaction with another player, they simply have to click on SOLO or join a player group that forbids it.

They have no place to complain if they chose to play in OPEN.

It expressly states you may get attacked by players in the handy hints it pops up as you are logging into OPEN play, so dont make out it is an uninformed choice.

So what tbat player wants is decided when they select their mode of play. They make the choice there, not the players they encounter.

Not wanting confrontational interactions with other players is not the same as not wanting to interact.

Solo is one choice - however it lacks the ability for co-operative play.

Private Groups are another choice - but they are not advertised in the launcher (so it's challenging to find one with a large population that suits ones play-style) and they have a limited population (20,000 members on PC, 1,000 members on consoles).

Only Open has an unlimited population, therefore, for the player who doesn't particularly enjoy PvP but wants to meet other players for co-operative play, it's a compromise mode.

While we are, of course, told that one may get attacked by players in Open, that does not mean that any player needs to stick around in an encounter they don't want to, or ever instance with the attacker again.

The situation could be significantly improved if Frontier were to add an Open-PvE mode to the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And you couldn't just run away? Or is your ship loadout insufficient?

Ships optimised for different roles have massively different survivability in an attack. Having to compromise the build to account for unwanted encounters is a burden placed on ships optimised for non-combat roles - combat ships don't have to compromise in that regard.

Want to play in the galaxy? Then either play the game warts and all or go play something else.

All players play in the galaxy - regardless of game mode. That some players aren't fun to play with pretty much ensures that Solo and Private groups will always be populated.

 

[Melanthes]

The situation could be significantly improved if Frontier were to add an Open-PvE mode to the game.

Why should they? The incessant whining on the forums by a minor part of the player base?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why should they? The incessant whining on the forums by a minor part of the player base?

Apparently Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP, even if Sandro indicated that the majority of players play in Open.

 

[MadSinUN]

Private Groups are another choice - but they are not advertised

Why then cut "Open mode" instead of starting a PG ad? This is probably the only game in my memory in which I face such an unprecedented and global protection of Pve players.
I'm not a Pvp player, I don't attack anyone first, but I can't even count on punishing my abuser (if it happens). If I ask a bounty hunter to catch my assailant, I can't expect the punishment to be meted out to the criminal. Because he just "may not want this kind of gameplay" he just wants to play a game where he will kill, and they will not be able to kill him.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why then cut "Open mode" instead of starting a PG ad?

Is there a suggestion that Open mode should be removed?

The majority of players don't use the forums - so advertising here doesn't reach everyone.

 

[Melanthes]

Apparently Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP, even if Sandro indicated that the majority of players play in Open.

As long as we don't know what that means, it is futile to use it as an argument. I haven't shot a player last week, just NPCs, doesn't mean I don't do PvP. The only information we have is that most players willingly "risk" open mode.

 

[MadSinUN]

Is there a suggestion that Open mode should be removed?

The majority of players don't use the forums - so advertising here doesn't reach everyone.

I didn't mean "Delete" although in this situation it would be fair. I mean that they remove part of the honest "open mode" for the sake of Pve players. You can use more than just forums for advertising. An honest solo and co-op mode with a shared galaxy would be less annoying than an undeveloped " open mode"

 

[Robert Maynard]

As long as we don't know what that means, it is futile to use it as an argument. I haven't shot a player last week, just NPCs, doesn't mean I don't do PvP. The only information we have is that most players willingly "risk" open mode.

We don't even know how many of the majority mentioned by Sandro play in Open all the time.

Then there's the delightful inaccuracy of the use of English language - the assumption is that according to Sandro's statement, players in Open outnumbered players in Solo and Private Groups combined which would be a majority. However, when talking about more than two options, the word "majority" is very often used when "plurality" is the word that should be selected - so Sandro could just have meant that there were more players in Open than either Solo or Private Groups but not more than Solo and Private Groups combined. He didn't choose to make his statement unambiguous by using the word "combined" in relation to the relative populations of Solo and Private Groups in relation to Open - so the ambiguity remains.

Then there's the fact that the statement was over two years ago - it may have changed since then, or not. Same with the awareness that only a minority of players get involved in PvP - it may have changed, or not.

 

[MarkAusten]

As long as we don't know what that means, it is futile to use it as an argument. I haven't shot a player last week, just NPCs, doesn't mean I don't do PvP. The only information we have is that most players willingly "risk" open mode.

Incorrect. As I recall the quote was a "small majority" which is a long way from being "most".

But my memory could be wrong.