Seriously, what's the point in open play?

[TiberiusDuval]

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.


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.

Is there any PVP enabled game where there are NO GANKERS, NO TROLLS, NO SEALCLUBBERS with meta builds? Difference in Elite is that there are effective methods to filter them out of your game.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Plus even now you can have that meaningfull PVP, just go to some CZ and support your chosen faction as much as you will. Problem of course being that there might be others who maybe can actually fight back, but well thats what it is...

 

[TiberiusDuval]

What I basically don't get is tendency to offer PVP for people who are not interested about getting PVP'd. Like lets say people going to fight thargoids. It is quite logical even from ships loadout that no they are not interested in PVP, what they are interested is having some allies against thargs. Thats why they fly in Open. Not because of PVP. PVP to such people is kind of tax on their gameplay. Obligatory meh, to get social co-op play.

 

[Shabine]

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

No they don't. But Open is clearly broken in that it contains one subset of players who want to PvP, and because they have no gameplay features that cater to them, one subset of players who are their victims. Who complain endlessly about PvP being forced on them.

But, as you've pointed out, these are the rules we've all signed up to. This is what ED is.

Is there any PVP enabled game where there are NO GANKERS, NO TROLLS, NO SEALCLUBBERS with meta builds? Difference in Elite is that there are effective methods to filter them out of your game.

Of course there are. There are plenty of games where PvP is enabled only in certain areas, where it is restricted to certain levels, and where it doesn't spill over into PvE gameplay. Just because ED's approach is busted doesn't mean others haven't done it right.

Games as old as Dark Age of Camelot effectively separated PvP gameplay from PvE while giving everyone something to do. Frontier's failure isn't somehow universal. It's actually quite unique.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

No they don't. But Open is clearly broken in that it contains one subset of players who want to PvP, and because they have no gameplay features that cater to them, one subset of players who are their victims. Who complain endlessly about PvP being forced on them.

But, as you've pointed out, these are the rules we've all signed up to. This is what ED is.


Of course there are. There are plenty of games where PvP is enabled only in certain areas, where it is restricted to certain levels, and where it doesn't spill over into PvE gameplay. Just because ED's approach is busted doesn't mean others haven't done it right.

Games as old as Dark Age of Camelot effectively separated PvP gameplay from PvE while giving everyone something to do. Frontier's failure isn't somehow universal. It's actually quite unique.

Considering that: PVP people are pretty vocal about being AGAINST Open/PVE mode. Or PVP flag.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No they don't. But Open is clearly broken in that it contains one subset of players who want to PvP, and because they have no gameplay features that cater to them, one subset of players who are their victims. Who complain endlessly about PvP being forced on them.

Open is what it is - it's not "special", it's just one of the filter settings on the matchmaking system. The game was not designed to offer PvP-exclusive gameplay, apart from CQC of course. That some players want PvP and other players don't will always cause friction between the two groups in Open, as they don't want to play the same way. The latter group can, if playing in Open becomes unfun, switch modes. Those whose gameplay depends on other players, willing or not, are vulnerable to those other players choosing not to play with them.

But, as you've pointed out, these are the rules we've all signed up to. This is what ED is.

Indeed - and to change them no in favour of one subset of the player-base would be unlikely to be well received by the rest of the player-base.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Considering that: PVP people are pretty vocal about being AGAINST Open/PVE mode. Or PVP flag.

I'd not be in particular favour of PvP-flagging - as it would likely cause even more friction between the two groups if they would instance together - unless the flag also affected the matchmaking system, e.g. only players with the same flag settings could be instanced together.

 

[Shabine]

That some players want PvP and other players don't will always cause friction between the two groups in Open, as they don't want to play the same way.

Indeed - and to change them no in favour of one subset of the player-base would be unlikely to be well received by the rest of the player-base.

So what we have instead is a permanently orphaned playstyle that causes friction by virtue of the fact that it has no features and no restrictions, so it constantly spills over and affects unwilling participants.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So what we have instead is a permanently orphaned playstyle that causes friction by virtue of the fact that it has no features and no restrictions, so it constantly spills over and affects unwilling participants.

The encouragement to not play in Open effectively started before the game actually launched - as some of the more enthusiastic players took delight, well before engineering was introduced to further exacerbate the disparity between builds optimised for different roles, in destroying other players who weren't actually bothering anyone.

It seems clear that being able to engage in PvP is not enough for those players so inclined - they want to be able to affect other players in some way that requires PvP and can't be affected by those who don't engage in PvP. The mode shared galaxy is not consistent with that aim.

In similar discussions to this one, when the subject of how the situation could be improved is raised, it usually ends up in all take and no give from the pro-PvP side, i.e. the PvE players are expected to meekly accept adverse changes to their gameplay while the PvP players lose nothing and only stand to gain. Not that players on either side are actually empowered to carry out negotiations that would result in actual changes to the game....

 

[TiberiusDuval]

So what we have instead is a permanently orphaned playstyle that causes friction by virtue of the fact that it has no features and no restrictions, so it constantly spills over and affects unwilling participants.

It is pretty simple, you see papership, or ax-ship don't fire that intedictor. Even if you inadvertantly interdict someone and they seem not interested in fight then don't deploy weapons, or if you deploy weapons don't fire them. See solution is between chair and stick. Entirely on your hands. What a GREAT SUGGESTION.

 

[Shabine]

It is pretty simple, you see papership, or ax-ship don't fire that intedictor. Even if you inadvertantly interdict someone and they seem not interested in fight then don't deploy weapons, or if you deploy weapons don't fire them. See solution is between chair and stick. Entirely on your hands. What a GREAT SUGGESTION.

Why should anyone do this? Open is PvP. They want to PvP. Why should they have to change their playstyle to suit you? Frontier made Open what it is, which is an "always PvP" environment. Who are you to come along and tell people not to fire that interdictor?

They're playing by the rules of Open. And because they have no features or restricted areas to play in, and because the crime and punishment system is a joke, your ship is going to explode unless you avoid them with blocks or dropping to Solo. You don't get to tell them not to melt you, because they're playing by the rules. It's really that simple.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Why should anyone do this? Open is PvP. They want to PvP. Why should they have to change their playstyle to suit you? Frontier made Open what it is, which is an "always PvP" environment. Who are you to come along and tell people not to fire that interdictor?

They're playing by the rules of Open. And because they have no features or restricted areas to play in, and because the crime and punishment system is a joke, your ship is going to explode unless you avoid them with blocks or dropping to Solo. You don't get to tell them not to melt you, because they're playing by the rules. It's really that simple.

indeed... and personally i have come to accept this........... (just speaking for me) this is workable for me so long as all features are accross all modes and Open does not get special treatment.. it needs to stand or fall on its own merit.

there was a time i felt differently, but that was back when i had hoped FD would manage to find a balance to allow everyone to play together. that isnt possible imo...... not without compromises which would annoy at least one but probably both sides.

FD have attempted to fix open and have managed to come up with some convoluted rules which can be annoying just for a simple mistake and worse still are exploitable and can end up being used against players (hence the eagles with 5% hull flying in front of ships that are docking etc.

the one SMALL thing i do sorely wish (along with fixing CQC) would be proper tools for PGs such as to allow long gone players automatically unsub from a group and therefore making room for other players.

mobius has 3 or is it 4 groups in the game, due to them being so over subscribed they broke the game............ but i reckon only a small number of those people are still active.

 

[Shabine]

(along with fixing CQC)

Am I the only one who genuinely thought CQC was going to be this feature that would allow us to bring our actual ships into an arena where we could put both our skills and our engineered builds to the test against one another? Or, at the very least, that it would offer interesting and expanding content?

I used to play CQC quite a lot, even though it was terrible. I had the opportunity to get absolutely mauled by MUSKETEER many times, and it was those beatings I took that inspired me to really learn "FA off" so that I could start to fly like him. Because of that, I can now cold orbit Thargoids with relative ease. Sadly, the feature was so poorly thought out and so completely abandoned that it wasn't long before I lost interest in it.

It could have been a really cool place where the G5 murderboats got to face off and their commanders could pick up meaningful rewards for the effort put in. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

i would dearly love to see CQC expanded upon... it would not have needed to be much, maybe an extra map each release or the odd new mode.

not to mention some skins awarded and some actual decent credits.

personally me i love the fast TTK and turnaround of the small ships arcade combat so bringing in full sized ships to duke it out would not be for me.................. but as an extra mode the thrown in there? absolutely, i am sure plenty would enjoy it.
also a couple of SRV combat maps as well as a few on foot ones (to act as a tempter to get horizons hold outs to splurge perhaps?? give them a little taste of ED:O) and maybe some canyon races

CQC was close to being great - what is there i really enjoy (when it works) but it needs more content and better organizational tools.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Frontier made Open what it is, which is an "always PvP" environment.

They did indeed - interestingly they asked both the DDF and forum members in general in two polls, back in June 2013 about it:

The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?

Hello guys and gals, backers and watchers! I am trying out a little experiment here, and I'd love your help. There's much speculation and debate on what multiplayer should mean in Elite: Dangerous (and rightly so). I've set up a simple poll, which I'm going to run in the Design Decision...

forums.frontier.co.uk

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/the-tri-poll-what-does-multiplayer-mean-to-you.6302/

What they didn't do is change the fact that the game was being developed with three game modes that would share the single galaxy state, so the ability to shoot at anything one instances got baked in with the ability to choose not to play among those players who would shoot at ones ship.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Why should anyone do this? Open is PvP. They want to PvP. Why should they have to change their playstyle to suit you? Frontier made Open what it is, which is an "always PvP" environment. Who are you to come along and tell people not to fire that interdictor?

They're playing by the rules of Open. And because they have no features or restricted areas to play in, and because the crime and punishment system is a joke, your ship is going to explode unless you avoid them with blocks or dropping to Solo. You don't get to tell them not to melt you, because they're playing by the rules. It's really that simple.

You know there are certain people in IRL that "play by the rules" meaning whatever they do is within law. Still they might be kind of obnoxiuos jerks many people might not want to associate with.

This is same kind of situation. PVP does not magically "spill over" and cause friction. Reason is ALWAYS between chair and screen. If one does not act like total jerk, one does not get treatment deserved to such people. Maybe even ones playstyle does not get such kind of antipathy.

 

[Shabine]

You know there are certain people in IRL that "play by the rules" meaning whatever they do is within law.

You're equating a mindset to a ruleset. We're talking about Frontier's rules and the rules of Open, not people who think whatever they do is within law. Ganking is fully within the "rules" of Open. That's my point.

Still they might be kind of obnoxiuos jerks many people might not want to associate with.

That's your opinion, not a fact.

This is same kind of situation. PVP does not magically "spill over" and cause friction.

It doesn't magically spill over. It spills over because it has nowhere else to go.

 

[Robert Maynard]

the one SMALL thing i do sorely wish (along with fixing CQC) would be proper tools for PGs such as to allow long gone players automatically unsub from a group and therefore making room for other players.

mobius has 3 or is it 4 groups in the game, due to them being so over subscribed they broke the game............ but i reckon only a small number of those people are still active.

I'd support those tools and add the previously suggested toggleable PG rules:

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]

For PvE:

• Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
• Disable "friendly fire"? [yes/no]
• Session & Private Group kick player on attacking another player? [yes/no]
• Session & Private Group kick player on destroying another player? [yes/no]
• Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]

For all play-styles:

• Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It doesn't magically spill over. It spills over because it has nowhere else to go.

It spilling over would not stop even if a PvP feature were implemented - to suggest otherwise is, at best, naive.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

It is pretty simple, you see papership, or ax-ship don't fire that intedictor. Even if you inadvertantly interdict someone and they seem not interested in fight then don't deploy weapons, or if you deploy weapons don't fire them. See solution is between chair and stick. Entirely on your hands. What a GREAT SUGGESTION.

It might seem surprising but I would say many players if not the majority, do actually apply some kind of criterion to the ships they attack, and would leave the harmless rank players in beginner ships alone.