Judging by the misunderstanding in just this thread, I'd say that we do.
Why is being a "prey" of a pirate in open a bad game design...
- Thread starter Alsteif
- Start date
I piece of my reply went missing there. I can only assume you have visited a lot of high sell systems in open, as it’s pretty difficult otherwise to find someone to get attacked by.
I flew PvP patrols of Eravate for some time. I participated in the Rise to Power CG's in open. I have nothing to prove. Especially to some rando on the interweb. Just what is your implication here? If I don;t rise to a certain level of experience you would seek to dismiss my point? Even if it is correct? If you don;t see my experience as valid, you can make it not true? Find a new topic.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Apologies - I should have responded directly to that section.
I agree, of course, that not everyone likes everything that everyone else does. Which seems to be at the core of the topic of the thread.
That the only way to play purely co-operatively is in either of the PvP-enabled game multi-player modes is, in my opinion, poor game design. Many MMO offer both PvP and PvE servers and/or offer some form of PvP flagging.
Those who prefer co-operative PvE have to make a compromise choice of which PvP enabled game mode to play in if they wish to play in multi-player at all.
Of course a PvE Private Group can select its members with care to reduce the likelihood of PvP attack - it's certainly no guarantee as there have been cases where players break the out-of-game rules they agreed to when joining the PG - most notably recently in the Fleetcom PG where players joined it with the specific intent of disrupting Distant Worlds 2. Thankfully something good came from that occurrence - Frontier introduced a session kick for any player kicked from a PG if they were playing in the PG at the time, limiting the potential of such "incursions" in future. Private Groups are further limited by the membership cap - meaning that Open is the only game mode with an unlimited population.
How is this thread even still going? What is the point of being stupid, is a moronic question. Ask your maker, or find the meaning of life on your own arbitrary terms.
Yes, I have been interdicted by a competent pirate during one play session five years ago and lost two ships total. And had I dropped my cargo he would have let me go, but I was testing myself just as much as he was.
TL;DR: Unwatched
Yes, I have been interdicted by a competent pirate during one play session five years ago and lost two ships total. And had I dropped my cargo he would have let me go, but I was testing myself just as much as he was.
TL;DR: Unwatched
Last edited:
There is a misunderstanding: I was just saying that to find so many cmdrs you must have been spending a lot of time in systems with a lot of cmdrs, that’s all. I certainly wasn’t doubting your credentials as a player. My point is that if you avoid the known hotspots for cmdrs you can easily play regularly for a year without ever being interdicted by another player. I also accept and identify with your feeling that ganking is ‘boring’, I would call it lame or lazy myself. Perhaps a lot of ganking comes from a combination of lack of imagination on the part of the players, but also frontier, who don’t appear to want to encourage role play pvp conflict.
You're wrong about this. I didn't make value judgements on anyones else gameplay. I started the paragraph by saying why I found certain things interesting, then proceeded to give examples of what I find interesting and add some nuance. I would guess that maybe you read my "the entire thing is a lot more boring" as "if you don't find this interesting you are boring". That's not what I said, and it's not what I meant. I don't think someone have to state every single line "I think..." - the context make it clear that I'm talking about my experience of what I find interesting. I then said that if someone was just interested in grinding while doing something else, it's probably not interesting to them to have to pay more attention to the game. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't find that good game design. I think that good game design allow you to feel engaged to the game, and if you are engaged in the game, you wouldn't be able to do something else at the same time, not very well anyhow. That doesn't mean that there's anything negative when someone wants to do this. I just don't happen to think it's great game design.
Would I be right in saying that what you consider poor game design isn't the piracy act, but that the poor game design is that there is no choice for the players who want to be excluded from player actions in an (unlimited) multiplayer environment?
If that's what you mean, I would agree with that. Many other games have PvE and PvP servers. I don't know how we could implement that right now without some massive changes to the core game which will split the playerbase (for example should PvE and PvP share same universe? There's some hard lines to draw on what's PvP and PvE with PP and BGS, and I'm sure there are many other complicated topics, such as CZ that could also split the playerbase). I do think that the threat of piracy/ganking is a good game loop and as such good game design, but I can completely understand why not all players enjoy that risk.
Lots of players enjoy playing together, lots don't want to interact and lots want to play with friends only.
If you don't want to pirated by players, select a different mode - presumably mobius is still going as a private group.
The open / group / solo mode system is something that FD have got right with this game.
If you don't want to pirated by players, select a different mode - presumably mobius is still going as a private group.
The open / group / solo mode system is something that FD have got right with this game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Mixing those seeking a PvE experience with those seeking a PvP experience is the mistake, in my opinion.
Indeed.
Given that the game already offers each player the possibility to completely remove in-the-same-instance PvP from their game, in Solo (and in Private Groups where they can actually trust the other members not to engage in it), while still experiencing and affecting the shared galaxy, I don't see any compelling need to change the fact that all players affect a single shared galaxy if an Open-PvE game mode were to be added to the available choice of game modes. By creating a separate mode players in the PvE mode would not meet the players in existing Open.
The simplest hard line would be "no PvP in Open-PvE" - even in Powerplay, CZs, etc. - anything else would not be a PvE game mode, in my opinion. If some would find that to be jarring and contrary to their preferred type of gameplay there would still be existing Open to play in.
It's an obvious attraction for some players just as it is an off-putting and unwelcome experience for some others.
To those that want PVE mode: Frontier has something very close indeed that fits all player styles - Private Groups. The only thing you need to do is campaign to get the player number limit raised - good luck (no sarcasm intended).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
One of the other problems with Private Groups, for players seeking PvE, is that they are PvP enabled, just like Open.
A certain amount could be done, however, to mitigate PvP in Private Groups with the introduction of a few relatively simple rules - and the introduction of PG rules in general could potentially benefit both PvP and PvE Private Groups:
For PvP:
A certain amount could be done, however, to mitigate PvP in Private Groups with the introduction of a few relatively simple rules - and the introduction of PG rules in general could potentially benefit both PvP and PvE Private Groups:
For PvP:
- Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
- Increase menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
- Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
- Disable weapon healing effects? [yes/no]
- Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
- Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]
- Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]
- Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
- Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
- Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
- Kick player from PG on attacking another player and session Kick? [yes/no]
- Kick player from PG on destroying another player and session kick? [yes/no]
- Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]
- Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.
Last edited:
Not played in open in mining but are there mercenaries out there that look out for mining ships for a few units of whatever as payment for protection? I enjoy looking after that NPC miner that's being attacked by pirates. My reward is the bounty on the criminal but a few units from the NPC after saving his full cargo hold would be appreciated.
Quite a few of the piracy squadrons would offer protection from gankers or other pirates for a price, and there are bounty hunter/anti ganker groups as well.
This one is a very good idea in my opinion.
""Open Pve" and " Open Pvp "will be better if they are combined in one" Open mode "using a permanent (In this case, "Permanent" means that this choice will be linked to the account.), voluntary choice of game style before entering"Open mode". This will not divide the players . Players will also be able to fully interact with other players on a non-combat level. Everything will remain without significant changes except that players who choose the Pve style of play will never be able to attack other players, but they themselves will remain invulnerable to player attacks. And players who choose the Pvp style of the game will be able to conduct full-fledged combat operations with the same Pvp players without restrictions. For example, a gunker will be forced to choose the " Pvp "style for playing in "Open mode", but in this case he will not be able to avoid the attack of a bounty hunter or a player playing the role of a police officer, that is, a fair punishment for a crime.
Also, pve players should not change the ability to change the game mode to solo or PG. For players who have chosen the Pvp style for open mode, you need to enter some restrictions for changing the mode. For example: a Pvp Player cannot change mode while in the same instance with another player. It is better to expand this area to the size of a star system, or allow such a regime change only in anarchy systems. Exit to the menu with a time delay to leave unchanged for all, but the player "Open Pvp" will not be able to change the game mode after entering the menu if the exit to the menu was made during the battle or the presence of other players in the conditional zone. The player "Open Pvp" will be able to fully change the mode by returning to" Open mode " and if all the conditions for the absence of other players and fighting are met, the player of the Pvp will change the game mode without hindrance.
When implementing such game mechanics, those players who do not want to be a victim /target will be able to fully satisfy their desire without changing their style and mode of play. Pvp players in this case will not be deprived of a full-fledged, random battle with Pvp players. I am sure that players who are not engaged in combat but prefer to be in danger from the possibility of attacks by other bandits will be enough that the gameplay of the pirate was also implemented.
Also, pve players should not change the ability to change the game mode to solo or PG. For players who have chosen the Pvp style for open mode, you need to enter some restrictions for changing the mode. For example: a Pvp Player cannot change mode while in the same instance with another player. It is better to expand this area to the size of a star system, or allow such a regime change only in anarchy systems. Exit to the menu with a time delay to leave unchanged for all, but the player "Open Pvp" will not be able to change the game mode after entering the menu if the exit to the menu was made during the battle or the presence of other players in the conditional zone. The player "Open Pvp" will be able to fully change the mode by returning to" Open mode " and if all the conditions for the absence of other players and fighting are met, the player of the Pvp will change the game mode without hindrance.
When implementing such game mechanics, those players who do not want to be a victim /target will be able to fully satisfy their desire without changing their style and mode of play. Pvp players in this case will not be deprived of a full-fledged, random battle with Pvp players. I am sure that players who are not engaged in combat but prefer to be in danger from the possibility of attacks by other bandits will be enough that the gameplay of the pirate was also implemented.
Last edited:
I would rather this than the open-pve mode with separate instances, but I still think a few tweaks to the C&P system and economy would encourage people who want to see players but don’t want to ‘fight’ into open. The more rules and regulations the more suffocation it gets, and we know how much players love to get round the rules. That doesn’t mean I want to destroy solo or PGs, they would still be available.
I fully support revision of C&P and the economy. And these changes can perfectly complement my proposal.
Unfortunately not. This has been discussed before but the gist of it is that whilst the method you suggest would prevent direct attach from unwanted pirate (as far as PVE pilots are concerned) it does nothing to prevent indirect attach such as pad blocking, triggering station attacks and such like. Separation of the two proposed modes would, however limit, if not prevent this.
A separate "Open Pve" also does not exclude the possibility of blocking landing sites and launching attacks at stations. And today's mechanics also do not exclude this. 100% this only excludes " solo mode". What will prevent a bully from going into "Open Pve" mode and blocking your landing pad?
And it seems to me that the problem of blocking landing sites and calling an attack on the station should be solved with other changes.
If this has been discussed before, there is nothing to prevent you from reviewing some of the points and discussing this concept again. Marked " corrected and updated"
Last edited:
Nothing would prevent this except being thrown out of the mode and restricted from re-entry, something that could not happen if the modes were combined. As they say, "Once is an accident. Twice is a coincident. But three times is enemy action", three strikes and you're out, so to speak. Now, the "bully" only has to get anotther account and do it again but after three times they are out again. Eventually either the "bully" is going to get tired of throwing away money or FDev put in a permanent ban. Still, with separated modes the "bully" has to work hard and eventually spend money to achieve their aims whereas in the combined mode anyone can do this any time they like and there is no downside on the part of the "bully".
It seems to me that in a separated mode situation the chances of PVP action accidental or intended would be greatly reduced whereas in the combined mode it would not. And coupled with RM's 'moved to a separate instance timeout feature' would go a long way to easing the concerns.
Still, the thought does occur to me that your proposed solution effectively separates players out into two 'virtual' modes anyway. After all, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. Or in th modern vernacular, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.