Seriously, what's the point in open play?

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I did many cycles of PP in Open, Fortifying many, many systems, destroying system resistance forces at violent protests etc without ever coming across another commander, i may as well have been in Solo.

So... you're saying if powerplay was made open-only then it'd have no impact whatsoever on the commanders who normally fly in solo? Damn, then let's do it!

(A little secret though, for those of us not flying for a small power with no enemies, and pilots who don't largely do only fortification, it's a whole different story)

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is a common red herring.

In the opinion of some, who may feel that their preferred play-style confers some sense of superiority over those who don't engage in it - all when playing a video game for fun.

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.

It's faintly ridiculous to suggest that players in Solo are "hiding" - given that we're all told to "play your own way" and that does not need any player to even consider what other players want out of the game, nor present ones CMDR in Open to be shot at by those who like to do so.

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.

Unwanted PvP is not a "boogey man", a term used to seek to attempt to undermine the fact that it does happen. That players who eschew it are presumed to "shrink in horror" is a rather overblown dramatisation of a simple "nope, that's not fun" decision. Then there's the assumption that there's a "basic standard" to be achieved - seemingly with regard to playing among those who would engage them in an entirely optional game activity that has no bearing on the PvE game.

When one sits inside one subset of the player-base it's not uncommon for those inside it to "other" those who don't sit in the same subset or share the same gameplay preferences regarding optional play-styles that the game offers.

All that players who are disinclined to engage in PvP are lacking is a preference for PvP - and no-one needs to even tolerate PvP to play and enjoy this game.

It can feel like they are not returning a basic courtesy. FWIW.

In that they don't present themselves as unwilling targets for unwanted forced player interactions it's perhaps not surprising that that is the case - because those who assume that the way they play is "the way" that the game should be played don't offer the same basic courtesy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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).

True, noting that, even if contact is made those contacted have no requirement to negotiate, or even believe, those who communicate with them.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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.

for me its not about bogeymen or shrinking in horror.... and indeed i do play in open for some things..... its just i find (some) players 4th wall breaking and not enjoyable. i play for enjoyment not a job, and not to put too fine a point on it, it isnt my job to provide fun for other players, that is the games job and if it is not doing that for people then that is the fault of the game not the players..

i am sure many are great and indeed i have found some who are just that..... but my experiences in open have often been pretty rubbish. just recently in a system being over run by an alien menace trying to presumably wipe out mankind i was attacked by meta pvp ships ... i had no chance of engaging them as i was geared up for defending a human base under attack (and indeed the thargoids would happily have killed these players given half a chance. so it isnt like the game supports a pro xeno stance)

one specifically who managed to "catch" me i had zero chance in the interdiction minigame (i kept the blob centre screen in the blue and still lost) and on the other hand the player could not kill me - maybe had (s)he been in a wing they could have - so i just flew circles around them for a min or so without even deploying weapoins (more to learn how strong my ship was against them before flying away. they were trying to start the interdiction dance again but i was able to dodge them and get to the combat zone with other players at which point it seemed they did not seem keen to pvp when outnumbered.... i cant think why

at no point was i afraid.............. it just wasnt enjoyable, it wasnt something that would do anything productive game wise and it totally destroyed the 4th wall..... so generally i prefer a PG which has for me the benefits of open but not the downsides

(but that said in general all my thargoid stuff is done in open just for player numbers)

 

[Rebel Yell]

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.

Unfortunately the game doesn't provide any permanent way to communicate between groups... a wide range of players e.g. lone wolves, explorers etc. don't care of course as they don't need it, but when the meta-game shifts from the space sim to "role-play, polics and diplomacy" (something which is often [ab]used even by FDEVs in their so called "lore"-play) the dialogue becomes relevant and we use every possible way to communicate.

I know, it's not the best one... 9/10 CMDRs don't read the local/direct chat even when they're going to be robbed.

 

[Rebel Yell]

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.

It's all about fun, which is very subjective tho

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's all about fun, which is very subjective tho

This is the at the heart of all of these discussions.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

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.


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?

There is a lot of else to do. Trade stuff, missions, mining, exploration. It is their own problem if anything they can think of involves shooting usually below par opponent. Usually way below par. Many of those types are themselves very reluctant to engage opponent that can cause actual risk of blowing up...

 

[Brrokk]

There is a lot of else to do. Trade stuff, missions, mining, exploration. It is their own problem if anything they can think of involves shooting usually below par opponent. Usually way below par. Many of those types are themselves very reluctant to engage opponent that can cause actual risk of blowing up...

The choice of Deciat shows the real motivation.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

The choice of Deciat shows the real motivation.

Surely it is the challenge the types of player you encounter in Decviat pose, no?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

In the opinion of some, who may feel that their preferred play-style confers some sense of superiority over those who don't engage in it - all when playing a video game for fun.

This seems like a distortion of the point of view, which is commonly enough held, that I was presenting.

It's faintly ridiculous to suggest that players in Solo are "hiding" - given that we're all told to "play your own way" and that does not need any player to even consider what other players want out of the game, nor present ones CMDR in Open to be shot at by those who like to do so.

I put "hiding" in quotes. There can be lots of reasons for mode choice. That fear/bravery are involved can be a mistaken assumption in the same way that psychopathy is often considered involved in the undertaking of pew-pew.

Unwanted PvP is not a "boogey man", a term used to seek to attempt to undermine the fact that it does happen. That players who eschew it are presumed to "shrink in horror" is a rather overblown dramatisation of a simple "nope, that's not fun" decision. Then there's the assumption that there's a "basic standard" to be achieved - seemingly with regard to playing among those who would engage them in an entirely optional game activity that has no bearing on the PvE game.

The risk of PvP and it's consequences are vastly overblown by those who seek to explain their eschewing of open mode in terms of it, not least in this forum. Hence, "boogey man".

When one sits inside one subset of the player-base it's not uncommon for those inside it to "other" those who don't sit in the same subset or share the same gameplay preferences regarding optional play-styles that the game offers.

For sure, not least by posters such as the OP, or indeed yourself and most of those upvoting your posts, I'd say.

All that players who are disinclined to engage in PvP are lacking is a preference for PvP - and no-one needs to even tolerate PvP to play and enjoy this game.

I think we're talking about the reasons that may be behind that preference.

present themselves as unwilling targets for unwanted forced player interactions

Boogey man incarnate. You'll have to de-salad the original point for a response, for I am a bear of little brain.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This seems like a distortion of the point of view, which is commonly enough held, that I was presenting.

In the opinion of some, no doubt.

I put "hiding" in quotes. There can be lots of reasons for mode choice. That fear/bravery are involved can be a mistaken assumption in the same way that psychopathy is often considered involved in the undertaking of pew-pew.

Quite.

The risk of PvP and it's consequences are vastly overblown by those who seek to explain their eschewing of open mode in terms of it, not least in this forum. Hence, "boogey man".

Again, in the opinion of some. No-one needs to justify to others why they choose not to play in Open - as no justification is necessary.

For sure, not least by posters such as the OP, or indeed yourself and most of those upvoting your posts, I'd say.

Seems to be common among different subsets then, not a completely unexpected outcome - it's not as if we actually have to play together.

I think we're talking about the reasons that may be behind that preference.

Not enjoying PvP is as much reason as any player needs - and none are actually required, as there no need to justify to other players why one may choose to play in the other modes some or all of the time.

Boogey man incarnate. You'll have to de-salad the original point for a response, for I am a bear of little brain.

It may not be worth bothering explaining agan then - as it's clear that there are those in game who like to force PvP interactions upon others, as it is clear that some don't accept that it happens sufficiently often (in their subjective opinion) to justify players citing it as a reason for their mode choice (not that they need to justify their choices to others, of course).

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

for me its not about bogeymen or shrinking in horror.... and indeed i do play in open for some things..... its just i find (some) players 4th wall breaking and not enjoyable. i play for enjoyment not a job, and not to put too fine a point on it, it isnt my job to provide fun for other players, that is the games job and if it is not doing that for people then that is the fault of the game not the players..

i am sure many are great and indeed i have found some who are just that..... but my experiences in open have often been pretty rubbish. just recently in a system being over run by an alien menace trying to presumably wipe out mankind i was attacked by meta pvp ships ... i had no chance of engaging them as i was geared up for defending a human base under attack (and indeed the thargoids would happily have killed these players given half a chance. so it isnt like the game supports a pro xeno stance)

one specifically who managed to "catch" me i had zero chance in the interdiction minigame (i kept the blob centre screen in the blue and still lost) and on the other hand the player could not kill me - maybe had (s)he been in a wing they could have - so i just flew circles around them for a min or so without even deploying weapoins (more to learn how strong my ship was against them before flying away. they were trying to start the interdiction dance again but i was able to dodge them and get to the combat zone with other players at which point it seemed they did not seem keen to pvp when outnumbered.... i cant think why

at no point was i afraid.............. it just wasnt enjoyable, it wasnt something that would do anything productive game wise and it totally destroyed the 4th wall..... so generally i prefer a PG which has for me the benefits of open but not the downsides

(but that said in general all my thargoid stuff is done in open just for player numbers)

I think the pro-thargoid stance is fair enough and can be read in a number of ways, and all the choices you describe on part of your attacker seem reasonable ones. Unfortunately it does require a little leg work on both sides and is inebitably hit and miss for that reason as an emergent in-game theme. Although I've not experienced any of that at all despite being quite involved in the conflict. Anyway I take your point, though I'd say the 4th wall is merely broken in different ways by players and by NPCs. But this is all in the realm of opinion and perception.

I'm not in agreement re: it being purely the job of the game to provide content. It is a multiplayer game, whether itsi or not, in a single shared universe, and like it or not, by design we are all inescapably content for each other.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

In the opinion of some, no doubt.

Quite.

Again, in the opinion of some. No-one needs to justify to others why they choose not to play in Open - as no justification is necessary.

Seems to be common among different subsets then, not a completely unexpected outcome - it's not as if we actually have to play together.

Not enjoying PvP is as much reason as any player needs - and none are actually required, as there no need to justify to other players why one may choose to play in the other modes some or all of the time.

It may not be worth bothering explaining agan then - as it's clear that there are those in game who like to force PvP interactions upon others, as it is clear that some don't accept that it happens sufficiently often (in their subjective opinion) to justify players citing it as a reason for their mode choice (not that they need to justify their choices to others, of course).

Yep, small brain, not worth. Anyway, you keep talking in terms of "need" - I'm trying to explain the impressions that people make on each other through their choices in-game, to which "need"-ing to do anything isn't relevant. That's apart from the suggestions made on both sides regarding what should be needed, i.e. through explicit game-set constraints - PvPers should need to find people with PvP flags on, "gankers" (no accepted definition) should need to face bans, players should need to be in open for <feature>, etc.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yep, small brain, not worth. Anyway, you keep talking in terms of "need" - I'm trying to explain the impressions that people make on each other through their choices in-game, to which "need"-ing to do anything isn't relevant. That's apart from the suggestions made on both sides regarding what should be needed, i.e. through explicit game-set constraints - PvPers should need to find people with PvP flags on, "gankers" (no accepted definition) should need to face bans, players should need to be in open for <feature>, etc.

I expect that players of different play-styles form impressions of the players who makes the choices to control their CMDR in particular ways in-game. Not that anyone needs to justify their choices to anyone else, of course.

Indeed, what the game "needs" varies from player to player - as we don't all want the same things. It's clear that changes to the game that would represent a significant improvement for some players might put some others off playing.

 

[Shabine]

All that players who are disinclined to engage in PvP are lacking is a preference for PvP - and no-one needs to even tolerate PvP to play and enjoy this game.

Of course they do. You've said it yourself many times. We all signed up for the same rules. And the rules of Open clearly include random, ininvited PvP. The rules of Open allow for seal clubbing, and for driving those little seals into Solo or forcing them to expand their block list. And the rules of Open don't require the seal clubbers to have a reason for what they do.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Of course they do. You've said it yourself many times. We all signed up for the same rules. And the rules of Open clearly include random, ininvited PvP. The rules of Open allow for seal clubbing, and for driving those little seals into Solo or forcing them to expand their block list. And the rules of Open don't require the seal clubbers to have a reason for what they do.

Though at that seal clubbers and likeminded persons should not whine about why they are getting blocked, or why instances seem empty, and why somehow their factions get undermined without no visible reason. Because it could be that other people do not want to play with them. I of course prefer big blocklist aproach

 

[Robert Maynard]

Of course they do. You've said it yourself many times. We all signed up for the same rules. And the rules of Open clearly include random, ininvited PvP. The rules of Open allow for seal clubbing, and for driving those little seals into Solo or forcing them to expand their block list. And the rules of Open don't require the seal clubbers to have a reason for what they do.

All of which seems to be ignoring the obvious: no-one needs to play in Open to enjoy the game or engage in mode shared game features, if they are so inclined.

It also ignores, whether deliberately or not, the other multi-player game mode that players can choose to play in with select others, if they so choose to do. Most of the benefits of multi-player with none of the downsides (if the PG membership list is carefully maintained that is).

 

[Shabine]

Though at that seal clubbers and likeminded persons should not whine about why they are getting blocked, or why instances seem empty, and why somehow their factions get undermined without no visible reason. Because it could be that other people do not want to play with them.

Right. So instead of having a game where PvP has a real purpose and a place for it to happen, we have a game full of gankers and their victims, who block them or hide from them in other modes. That's the broken bit I keep trying to highlight. This isn't a good system.

All of which seems to be ignoring the obvious: no-one needs to play in Open to enjoy the game or engage in mode shared game features, if they are so inclined.

No one needs to play ED at all. No one needs to have this conversation. But if you want to be in Open, you need to accept that you're going to be killed by people who have nothing better to do, because Elite doesn't have anything to offer them except for a broken crime and punishment system and an endless supply of seals to club.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No one needs to play ED at all. No one needs to have this conversation.

Indeed.

But if you want to be in Open, you need to accept that you're going to be killed by people who have nothing better to do, because Elite doesn't have anything to offer them except for a broken crime and punishment system and an endless supply of seals to club.

That's the thing - not all players want or need to be in Open to enjoy the game their way.