Seriously, what's the point in open play?

[TiberiusDuval]

I suppose the risk is not accomplishing your goal because someone stood in your way.


Neither do I. But in that case, we're not talking about you winning a conflict by avoiding the ganker. It's different when you're participating in a battle that affects the outcome of a conflict and secures victory against other players, and they are unable to hinder you in any way. That's the part I think is broken, not avoiding the ganker.

It's weird. ED is such a mishmash of hybrid systems that it's kinda difficult to explain what well-constructed alternatives to its systems might actually be.

Well BGS was never meant to be "game" itself, it became one when people understood how it works out. So basically lots of unintended consequences. Plus then there is another thing, many players, myself included do not "play" the background system. I choose places with certain set of criteria, logistically easy (station near star), has good paying missions, maybe some hazres nearby. I do not care if my business either helps or hinders somebody's sand castle building. I'm just minding my business, and if it affects system state, well so be it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I just think it's hilarious that there are people who play this game who think they've actually achieved something by winning battles without being in Open. It's pretty craven. Like I've said, I don't care if people use Solo or PG to avoid PvP... but using them to win battles against people who are actually prepared to put their ships on the line is, well, cowardly.

I recognize that the systems allows for this. I recognize that some people aren't up for fighting. But those people really should be prevented from working against those who are genuinely up for a fight; the people who are willing to engineer their ships, sharpen their combat capabilities, and go down in flames if and when the battle turns against them. Those people are, if nothing else, honorable enough to risk something. Sadly, ED isn't designed to accommodate their lack of aversion to risk.

Just because some players want to engage in PvP in a game where PvP is optional does not mean that anyone else needs to take their desires into account.

Those in opposition to those who wish to use PvP as part of PvE game features that don't require PvP in any way bought the same game, with the same rules, as those who want to use PvP - a game where those who wish to engage in PvP are entirely optional.

.... and engaging in PvP, in a game with an immortal space pixie as an avatar, does not make one "brave" in the slightest - even if some players seem to base their opinions of others based on which game mode they play in when playing the game by the rules.

Partial acceptance of the game rules by some players has been obvious for years, i.e. they readily accept that players can shoot at anything they instance with, including other players. That they then have issues with other rules, i.e. players in all game modes affecting mode shared game features, players being able to block other players, use of menu exit at any time being permissible, is neither here nor there - we all play by those same rules, even if some players don't accept them.

 

[Shabine]

Just because some players want to engage in PvP in a game where PvP is optional does not mean that anyone else needs to take their desires into account.

Which is why ED should have some form of PvP-exclusive gameplay that actually rewards the activity itself in a meaningful way and doesn't spill over into what PvE players are doing. CQC was meant to be this, but instead of being an interesting and rewarding PvP playground, it ended up as an abandoned fighter combat arena feature.

Those in opposition to those who wish to use PvP as part of PvE game features that don't require PvP in any way bought the same game, with the same rules, as those who want to use PvP - a game where those who wish to engage in PvP are entirely optional.

We agree on this.

.... and engaging in PvP, in a game with an immortal space pixie as an avatar, does not make one "brave" in the slightest - even if some players seem to base their opinions of others based on which game mode they play in when playing the game by the rules.

Fine. Forget about bravery and cowardice. How about challenge instead. There is no challenge in space trucking to victory in what is ostensibly a multiplayer battle in Solo mode. Again, it's scoring goals on an empty net. That's what makes it a joke.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is why ED should have some form of PvP-exclusive gameplay that actually rewards the activity itself in a meaningful way and doesn't spill over into what PvE players are doing. CQC was meant to be this, but instead of being an interesting and rewarding PvP playground, it ended up as an abandoned fighter combat arena feature.

In the opinion of a subset of the player-base, certainly.

The usual methods adopted by those seeking PvP-exclusive gameplay involve proposing / suggesting / demanding that either existing game features be completely PvP-gated so that they can only be affected in Open or heavily penalising the effects of players in Solo and Private Groups on those features - effectively removing existing base game content from players who don't want to engage in PvP, in a game sold to all where PvP is an optional extra. Unsurprising then that those proposals meet with opposition.

We agree on this.

Yet:

Fine. Forget about bravery and cowardice. How about challenge instead. There is no challenge in space trucking to victory in what is ostensibly a multiplayer battle in Solo mode. Again, it's scoring goals on an empty net. That's what makes it a joke.

The notion that some consider player actions in a video game to require "bravery" is, frankly, laughable - more so as we are often told by those who like to blow up player ships that "it's just pixels".

Players don't set the challenge for other players in a game where other players are optional, even in situations where one side wants to increase the challenge using PvP - Frontier sets the PvE challenge posed by the game which is faced by players in all three game modes.

.... and the idea that a player in a G5 meta-murderboat actually faces much in the way of challenge from players in general is questionable, to a degree, as players don't all fly ships so optimised to reduce risk to the CMDR nor optimised to deliver damage and fully half of players are at or below median skill - therefore the subset of players, even in Open, who would actually pose a challenge to them is relatively small. So when the issue of challenge is raised by those who choose to fly G5 murderboats it smacks of "challenge for thee but not for me".

 

[Shabine]

In the opinion of a subset of the player-base, certainly.

You keep saying this as though it needs clarification. Every category of behavior and gameplay focus in ED is a "subset of the player-base". I'm not sure what pointing this out does other than highlight that there is a subset of the player-base to cater to.

Players don't set the challenge for other players in a game where other players are optional - Frontier sets the PvE challenge posed by the gam which is faced by players in all three game modes.

Again, we know this. I'm criticizing the stupidity of a system that allows conflict goals to be met in an uncompetitive mode.

.... and the idea that a player in a G5 meta-murderboat actually faces much in the way of challenge from players in general is questionable, to a degree, as players don't all fly ships so optimised to reduce risk to the CMDR nor optimised to deliver damage and fully half of players are at or below median skill - therefore the subset of players, even in Open, who would actually pose a challenge to them is relatively small. So when the issue of challenge is raised by those who choose to fly G5 murderboats it smacks of "challenge for thee but not for me".

Why do you lean so hard on the generalization that everyone in ED is either in a G5 murderboat or a helpless guppy? And again, the problem is that G5 murderboats are all dressed up with nowhere to go. ED relegates them to optional, avoidable, unrewarded gameplay. PvPers find their own fun because they have no choice. If you're looking for a reason gankers haunt Deciat and force countless new players into permanent hiding, this would be it. What else have they got?

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

I am not Robert, but my guess is he keeps reiterating those facts because those who want to gate base game features begind PvP or tell people to "git gud or go solo" very often claim to speak "for the community". Which they don't.

 

[Shabine]

I am not Robert, but my guess is he keeps reiterating those facts because those who want to gate base game features begind PvP or tell people to "git gud or go solo" very often claim to speak "for the community". Which they don't.

If you could quote where I said that I "speak for the community", that would be excellent. I've never spoken for anyone other than myself. The only thing I've tried to point out here is that ED's gankers are merely the byproduct of a system that neither rewards PvPers for engaging one another over objectives, nor does its open world do anything to dissuade gankers from doing what they do.

It's a problem that can be fixed, but never was and likely never will be, because it's somewhat built into the foundations of the game. It would require a concerted development effort to end the reign of the Deciat ganker.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You keep saying this as though it needs clarification. Every category of behavior and gameplay focus in ED is a "subset of the player-base". I'm not sure what pointing this out does other than highlight that there is a subset of the player-base to cater to.

Simply that, regardless of personal playstyle preferences, we all bought a game where PvP is not dominant in any way - even if some players can't accept that. That's not a game problem.

Again, we know this. I'm criticizing the stupidity of a system that allows conflict goals to be met in an uncompetitive mode.

It's not stupid from a PvE player's perspective - as they have no interest or inclination in engaging in PvP. For some players it's clear that they'd like to be able to force PvP into the gameplay of others - for other players PvP represents a tedious and predictable waste of game time that they choose not to engage in while affecting mode shared game features.

Why do you lean so hard on the generalization that everyone in ED is either in a G5 murderboat or a helpless guppy? And again, the problem is that G5 murderboats are all dressed up with nowhere to go. ED relegates them to optional, avoidable, unrewarded gameplay.

.... because that's how it goes down, some of the time at least, e.g. Deciat, CG systems, etc..

That some players spend so much time refining their G5 builds is to be expected, for PvP or PvE - it makes the game easier. The lack of a PvP-dominant in-game feature is not a problem for all players - and, unless carefully designed, a PvP-dominant feature would very likely affect those who could not affect it from their chosen game mode.

PvPers find their own fun because they have no choice. If you're looking for a reason gankers haunt Deciat and force countless new players into permanent hiding, this would be it. What else have they got?

Every player is in control of their CMDR - they all have a choice. To try to justify the behaviour of some players because "they have no choice" is as laughable as the notion of bravery.

 

[Shabine]

Simply that, regardless of personal playstyle preferences, we all bought a game where PvP is not dominant in any way - even if some players can't accept that. That's not a game problem.

I never said it was dominant or should be. I said it's pointless and shouldn't be.

It's not stupid from a PvE player's perspective - as they have no interest or inclination in engaging in PvP.

What difference would it make to them if a PvP-gated feature was introduced? They don't PvP, so how would this affect them?

For some players it's clear that they'd like to be able to force PvP into the gameplay of others

Or have some mechanism that allows them to complete exclusively against other PvPers that had meaningful rewards.

The lack of a PvP-dominant in-game feature is not a problem for all players

The lack of any real PvP feature is why gankers do what they do. The reason they plague PvE players and force them out of Open is because shooting other people for shooting purposes is really all they can do. So they do it.

Every player is in control of their CMDR - they all have a choice. To try to justify the behaviour of some players because "they have no choice" is as laughable as the notion of bravery.

You say "justify" as though you were talking about an assault on a street. They don't need some high-minded justification for their behavior. They're shooting people in a video game. And you talk about this game's "rules". Well, its rules allow gankers to drive people out of Open because they have nothing else to do. Its rules allow someone to blast your unarmed DBX out of the sky for absolutely no reason.

That's what we all signed up for. Right?

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

If you could quote where I said that I "speak for the community", that would be excellent. I've never spoken for anyone other than myself.

Not saying you did. Just that quite a lot of those who propose PvP gating like to convey this aura of "everyone wants it". So it is kind of a good thing to point out that not eveyone does. So Robert does this, because someone has to do it .

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I recognize that the systems allows for this. I recognize that some people aren't up for fighting. But those people really should be prevented from working against those who are genuinely up for a fight; the people who are willing to engineer their ships, sharpen their combat capabilities, and go down in flames if and when the battle turns against them. Those people are, if nothing else, honorable enough to risk something. Sadly, ED isn't designed to accommodate their lack of aversion to risk.

loads of games cater for the kind of competetive PvP you are hoping for..... Elite is built around competitive PvE . Personally i think you have the entire notion of the game the wrong way around.
Elite Dangerous is a competetive PvE game....... with the option of PvP added as an extra for those who want it but ultimately PvP isnt what the game is balanced around.

if you look at it that way, and it was marketed as that way right at the start, then the way it is made makes sense.

Had more PvP orientated players backed at a suitable level to have had a voice right at the start perhaps FD would have had a rethink had they of thought the majority of the player base wanted more directly competetive game. David Braben himself admitted that many players would consider him a carebear due to what interested him in game.

since then i think players could legitimately argue that Frontier have attempted to market this game to various play styles - some of which are like oil and water - but at its core the competative multiplayer side of Elite Dangerous was, and always has been a competetive PvE game with an optional extra of PvP for those who want it. basically who can fill PvE buckets the fastest.

you can PvP for roleplay reasons, but the game does not encourage it and indeed lore wise iirc the Pilots Federation frowns on it much like made men in the mafia are not supposed to kill other made men (possibly my own head cannon there ).. that does make sense however given it is them who carries the insurance bill.

now could FD add in extra stuff just for PvP players, sure, and so long as it was not unicorn stuff i personally would be fine with it..... how about an extra mission template which only appeared in open to kill a pilots federation member....... their ID is currently unknown but we believe they are somewhere around the XYZ system.

once a few players have taken on that mission (so dont take the mission if not interested) and they fly to the system, the game attempts to put htem in the same instance and which case 2 players get a mission update with their corresponding tags given to each other........ should a player disconnect from that point on they are considered to have lost, the loser takes a penalty, the winner gets paid.

 

[Shabine]

Elite is built around competitive PvE . Personally i think you have the entire notion of the game the wrong way around.

I'm not arguing what ED is or should be. I'm pointing out why people engage in pointless PvP here. It's because PvP has no point. So those who engage in it do so pointlessly. And we wonder where the gankers come from. It isn't delinquency. It's aimlessness.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'm not arguing what ED is or should be. I'm pointing out why people engage in pointless PvP here. It's because PvP has no point. So those who engage in it do so pointlessly. And we wonder where the gankers come from. It isn't delinquency. It's aimlessness.

perhaps true for some players... but the truth is even in actual PvP games which are all about PvP, a subset of players still choose to game a meta, or use glitches / downright cheat. Personally i believe some players just like doing it because they can, and even IF Elite offered proper PvP they would still continue to do what they do (for instance wall glitching, spawn camping, aim bots, lagging a game out etc etc in battlefield is one i used to see a lot)

(indeed elite does offer proper PvP. a player can just go to a combat zone for instance and join the opposing side of other players, and yet some players still like to go there, and either not sign up, or sign up and attack their own team.... just so they can get the alpha strike on them.

note i am absolutely not accusing you of this........
historically some of elites more vocal "pvpers" were caught by FD cheating by glitching out the engineering process to give themselves ships which no other player was ever likely to legitimately get. Whilst FD did eventually take their toys off them and gave them a short ban (far too soft imo) it took way to long..... these players were very vocal here and externally esp about cowards hiding from them as well as telling them to gid gud etc.

personally i just have no interest in sharing my limited game time with such players...

 

[Robert Maynard]

I never said it was dominant or should be. I said it's pointless and shouldn't be.

What sort of impact could PvP have that did not mean that it was dominant within the feature that it affected, especially given the complaints about players who don't PvP affecting game features?

What difference would it make to them if a PvP-gated feature was introduced? They don't PvP, so how would this affect them?

The difference would arise if the galaxy was affected by the PvP-gated feature in any way that would affect their gameplay, the galaxy we all affect and share.

Or have some mechanism that allows them to complete exclusively against other PvPers that had meaningful rewards.

That's very likely not enough for those who want to dominate other players / groups using PvP in existing game features.

.... and Frontier learnt early that players can't be trusted to earn rewards designed for contested encounters - as some players will always seek to gain the rewards uncontested if it is at all possible to do so.

The lack of any real PvP feature is why gankers do what they do. The reason they plague PvE players and force them out of Open is because shooting other people for shooting purposes is really all they can do. So they do it.

Introducing a PvP required feature in the game would not stop gankers from doing what they do - to think otherwise would be, at best, naive.

You say "justify" as though you were talking about an assault on a street. They don't need some high-minded justification for their behavior. They're shooting people in a video game. And you talk about this game's "rules". Well, its rules allow gankers to drive people out of Open because they have nothing else to do. Its rules allow someone to blast your unarmed DBX out of the sky for absolutely no reason.

If the gankers are getting a free pass as they operate within the rules then so should those others who also play by the rules of the game - unless a double standard is in play?

Gankers have been giving the sage advice "git gud or go solo" since the game was launched. Perhaps unsurprisingly some players have taken that advice and have chosen to eschew Open some or all of the time.

Gankers are indeed working within the rules - which is why change proposals that would force players to play in Open to engage in one or more existing game features meet with opposition - as not all players want to play the ganker minigame.

That's what we all signed up for. Right?

Indeed we did - and the modes work as designed in that respect.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Why do you lean so hard on the generalization that everyone in ED is either in a G5 murderboat or a helpless guppy? And again, the problem is that G5 murderboats are all dressed up with nowhere to go. ED relegates them to optional, avoidable, unrewarded gameplay. PvPers find their own fun because they have no choice. If you're looking for a reason gankers haunt Deciat and force countless new players into permanent hiding, this would be it. What else have they got?

Who knows, it's years I just read posts about beating the open play with such a total no-sense and one way behaviour.


Just to bring here another example of how convoluted are the opinions on this sub regarding the boo-ohhooo open play PvP etc, I have a super recent fact (FACT not fried air) on how the ED game gains the ground when playing in open... as a powerplay group, we have to deal quite a lot with local PMFs, in particular the ones which are not favourable to our power (meh mechanic, but that's it...).

One of such PMFs we're monitoring [no name] started to expand a little to much around one of our controlled bubbles and so we had to dampen their growth to avoid harmful consequences... hence we checked on Inara, no way, no discord etc. Such situations may result in a total waste of time at BGS "competition" as one side (the PMF) cluelessly grinds INF against the other (powerplay group). So yesterday I did send Mrs. Diavoli (my young daughter, who btw is booohooo PvP murderhobo open play only since day 1) with a fully fitted combat PvP FDL to their home system.

Her RoE was like "dont' kill everything that moves / return fire if there's any hostility", she camped for a while in SC but was empty... she sent some messages in the system chat like o7o7o7 etc but no reply. As she needed fuel she decided to dock at one station... and tah-dah, she spotted 3 of the PMF commanders docked there in hauling ships. Since RoE was clear, she stayed for one minute out of the mailbox, sending greetings asked the CMDRs that we needed a parlay to their leaders and then docked.

All options were on the table... I mean, if one PMF doesn't like a specific powerplay group they could just say "fk off, I mind my business" and for such evenience of course we had a couple of PvP wings ready to be deployed in case of hostility. But 5 minutes later, one of their leaders contacted us and we solved the whole situation "diplomatically" with no harm for anyone and kudos for the PMF players who were in open play even if minding their business in non-combat ready ships.

By clickling on solo/PG game modes, all of that wouldn't be possible. Think about that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

By clickling on solo/PG game modes, all of that wouldn't be possible. Think about that.

Which ignores the fact that System Chat is pan-modal and the message would have been "heard" in Open from Solo and / or Private Group.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Which ignores the fact that System Chat is pan-modal and the message would have been "heard" in Open from Solo and / or Private Group.

Totally useless in that case (as they didn't see it)... and as in most cases, given it's not permanent and most of times tabbed away (= when you read it, is too late).

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Totally useless in that case (as they didn't see it)... and as in most cases, given it's not permanent and most of times tabbed away (= when you read it, is too late).

So the issue there is with the frankly awful chat dialogue in the game..... and on that you have my full support..... in VR it is even more broken than on a screen as well.

 

[Hellrider]

I'm not arguing what ED is or should be. I'm pointing out why people engage in pointless PvP here. It's because PvP has no point. So those who engage in it do so pointlessly. And we wonder where the gankers come from. It isn't delinquency. It's aimlessness.

I know, that is can be shocking news, but some people play for fun, not for grinding inf, credit or bounty numbers. So no, it isn't pointless.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

.... and engaging in PvP, in a game with an immortal space pixie as an avatar, does not make one "brave" in the slightest

This is a common red herring. The reason people find it faintly ridiculous why others "hide" in solo is that flying in open is simply a natural and rational move for them given the competitive activity they're engaged in, and the thinness of the consequences that can be inflicted on you while playing a game, requiring no bravery. When you do something that you feel is a normal behaviour, and encounter someone who shrinks in horror from achieving the same basic standard, citing the existence of some boogey man that makes it impossible for them (but somehow it's easy and normal for you), it is possible, even likely, you might think that person lacking. It can feel like they are not returning a basic courtesy. FWIW.