The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Rebel Yell]

System? Yes. Location within a system? Not so much.

I'm not sure how many locations there are in the average system, but between planetary ports, stations, and settlements, there are usually lots of locations where people can get missions from, and most player groups can't cover them all 24/7 in all the time zones you'll probably have to cover . And if you do have enough players to cover them all? You'd probably curb-stomp the opposition if you focused on PvE, rather than PvP.

No one engaged in a BGS war and with some brain cells would do what I've read in this sub i.e. like searching all locations here and there or camping hours in a system waiting for a contact etc. [i.e. a "blockade"]... I mean there's no general case, as depending on the various situations/states certain actions and countermeasures might be taken. Intelligence is also a key factor... in particular when numbers or TZs do not cope.

Which is a stance I can respect, and actually share. I play in Open first and foremost to have fun, and don't worry about efficiency. Though I do get a lot of amusement out of the notion of "defending your faction via PvP," because it's such a poor strategy if you want to defend a controlling faction.

It is a great way of attack controlling faction, though.

This is an absolutely right comment. Attack and defence are two sides of the coin but there is the possibility that there's very little convercence and overlap [except for the case of wars/civil wars...] of course there is the chance of skirmishes outside wars but these happens most of the times by a case and not by a purpose. Also, the consequences of PvP engagements do have some degree of impact by disrupting opposition, but such impact also depends on what the opposition is doing (hauling? bounty hunting? etc).

Only if your opposition cooperates by engaging in mass murder, which is only effective if you want to take down a faction, as opposed to promoting a competing faction or any another BGS goal. If your opposition keeps things their activities nice and legal, you'd be doing your enemies work for them, which is much more efficient than doing the work themselves.

True, but after parties take the rebuys some kind of settlement is usually reached... reason is that one can grind relentless weeks or months doing the same thing away from any human direct confrontation. But when the human element comes in to play, the reaction to a human/human confrontation drives to totally different behaviours.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I'm amazed and at the same time not surprised at the community's reaction to "non-consensual" pvp in Elite: Dangerous. I put that in quotes because, as I understand it, Elite has had open and solo from launch, and imo if you choose to log into a game mode that allows players to attack each other then I've got news for you; you have consented to pvp.

There's no such "non-consensual" PvP in Elite. This concept has been invented by some one and is of course totally unapplicable... you're in open? >>> Then you're fair game to anyone (=human player). You don't like the idea? > Solo/PG is your place.

This is a similar situation we have in Elite. We have open (felucca) and solo/private (trammel). Instead of guild wars we have Power Play. The thing lacking in our equation is added incentive to play in open. Devs acknowledged this fact on stream back when Power Play launched, saying that they were considering increasing the passive benefit buffs for powers while playing in open. Sadly I guess that never happened. Personally I think double drop rates in open by itself would be enough incentive in minimizing the engineering grind for many players to gladly accept the risk of dealing with a potential gank. Those that do not will happily choose to continue farming in safety.

Exactly, there's no incentive to play in open... but why do we need that? The incentive is the fun and the different experience... as I've said in the past, "it's the thrill of not knowing what is going to happen every time I jump in SC or go somewhere"... "Am I going to be shot?" etc. that's just paves the way to a gazillion of different outcomes, deviating from what the game code offers.

After the latest dev stream it looks like perhaps Power Play 2.0 won't be the rework players were hoping for but instead a polishing "refresh". My ideas for changes given my limited experience are;
[...]

Powerplay is first of all the ethos, then comes all the rest. I agree with point 1, point 2 (modules and power shopping should be hopefully a memory of the past with PP 2.0), point 3 is hard to implement because it can be (unfortunately) abused.

 

[Sol Valou]

Indeed it is, doubly so in that players don't need to pledge and, if pledged, don't need to play in Open to engage in Powerplay.

I get that. On that same token you don't need to be in open while pledged to a power if you don't want people legally able to shoot you.

Not sure that this was said during the launch of Powerplay in 2015. Maybe in 2018, around the time of the flash topics were posted (which included a possibility that Powerplay might have been made Open only, but the threads were, according to Sandro, investigative and not a fait accompli).

My mistake, right you are. What year is it again? This is the stream I'm referencing, "Join the Elite - Everything you need to know about Powerplay" from March 31st 2016.

At the 7:52 mark Sandro is talking about what Power Play is, "...but importantly, the most important rule is that it allows consensual pvp." and also, "...at its core it is a way for players to work together in teams against other players in teams."

Going back to the AMA that DBOBE took part in, around the time of Powerplay's launch in 2015, players in Solo were mentioned, and his response was:

David Braben Powerplay AMA

David, You mentioned earlier that the new system will be built upon the current influence system. Many of the people supporting minor factions consider this to be bugged especially in relation to winning wars and not getting rewarded (e.g. our war in Njagdal). Is there any plan to work out the...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Righto. So according to this solo pp players balance and effect mostly other solo pp players. That's great. What does that have to do with a pp player in open complaining about being targeted by an opposing faction player? I sense I'm missing something here.

 

[Sol Valou]

There's no such "non-consensual" PvP in Elite. This concept has been invented by some one and is of course totally unapplicable... you're in open? >>> Then you're fair game to anyone (=human player). You don't like the idea? > Solo/PG is your place.

This concept wasn't invented by someone. It was invented by thousands of players killing other players without their consent in one of the first ever persistent online game environments, followed by both parties complaining about it vehemently and threating to cancel their monthly subscriptions until changes were made to the game. (those changes being safe zones, content & incentive for unsafe zones, and consensual pvp systems) It is because of this fact that today any game you play having any form of pvp is in fact consensual pvp because the devs put it in the game and you bought the game.

Exactly, there's no incentive to play in open... but why do we need that? The incentive is the fun and the different experience... as I've said in the past, "it's the thrill of not knowing what is going to happen every time I jump in SC or go somewhere"... "Am I going to be shot?" etc. that's just paves the way to a gazillion of different outcomes, deviating from what the game code offers.

At a base level this holds true as in a perfect world no incentive would be needed. In a sandbox game players do what they want to do, so why have any systems in place at all? Risk alone is enough to attract some players, rewards are needed to entice others.

Powerplay is first of all the ethos, then comes all the rest. I agree with point 1, point 2 (modules and power shopping should be hopefully a memory of the past with PP 2.0), point 3 is hard to implement because it can be (unfortunately) abused.

I'm curious how could that be abused? Obviously if it was something simple like 1 enemy player downed = 1 ARX awarded then yes that would be quite easily abused without timers and limits imposed. However if you are simply hitting your weekly cap a day or two earlier because you were fighting with players instead of npcs I fail to see how anyone could exploit that for any meaningful gain. Even if the cap was increased to 500 and that extra 100 could only be earned via pvp engagement...it's capped. Unless there's something I'm missing I can't see a way to exploit that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I get that. On that same token you don't need to be in open while pledged to a power if you don't want people legally able to shoot you.

That is also the case - in-the-same-instance PvP being the optional extra that it is in this game.

My mistake, right you are. What year is it again? This is the stream I'm referencing, "Join the Elite - Everything you need to know about Powerplay" from March 31st 2016.

At the 7:52 mark Sandro is talking about what Power Play is, "...but importantly, the most important rule is that it allows consensual pvp." and also, "...at its core it is a way for players to work together in teams against other players in teams."

That was the post "hand grenade" stream referred to above, followed up with this comment :

Source: https://youtu.be/uetVzNINdKU?t=1602

Righto. So according to this solo pp players balance and effect mostly other solo pp players. That's great. What does that have to do with a pp player in open complaining about being targeted by an opposing faction player? I sense I'm missing something here.

That's one interpretation. Possibly simpler to take it as "players in all modes affect a mode shared feature and not all players in Solo are pledged to a single Power".

 

[Dragsham]

There it is again hehe.." an optional extra" referring to pvp.
OK bgs is an optional extra.
PP is an optional extra.
Engineering is an optional extra.
In fact every aspect of the game is an optional extra. How is pvp singled out as an optional extra?

That's plainly discriminatory.
Every aspect can be partaken, or not. Doesn't mean it's special or indeed different.
Please stop referring to pvp as an optional extra. Because like everything else In this game its integral. Part of the game its written into the game.
Laying biased on a single aspect is a deliberate attempt to belittle and undermine.
I would laugh loudly if pvp became an important part of the bgs or PP. Wouldn't be an optional extra then would it.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

PP and engineering are optional extras yes, I can completely ignore them if I wish.
Not sure how I would avoid interacting with the BGS. Though it's effects on my own play are usually minimal.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

There's no such "non-consensual" PvP in Elite. This concept has been invented by some one and is of course totally unapplicable... you're in open? >>> Then you're fair game to anyone (=human player). You don't like the idea? > Solo/PG is your place.


Exactly, there's no incentive to play in open... but why do we need that? The incentive is the fun and the different experience... as I've said in the past, "it's the thrill of not knowing what is going to happen every time I jump in SC or go somewhere"... "Am I going to be shot?" etc. that's just paves the way to a gazillion of different outcomes, deviating from what the game code offers.


Powerplay is first of all the ethos, then comes all the rest. I agree with point 1, point 2 (modules and power shopping should be hopefully a memory of the past with PP 2.0), point 3 is hard to implement because it can be (unfortunately) abused.

Despite being on the other "side" of the debate, i've always been impressed with your ability to explain your point of view and your well written posts. I might not agree with everything you say, but always worth reading your posts.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

PP and engineering are optional extras yes, I can completely ignore them if I wish.
Not sure how I would avoid interacting with the BGS. Though it's effects on my own play are usually minimal.

Perhaps more intentionally affecting the BGS to work towards specific results vs just doing your stuff that may impact the BGS one way or another.

If you're not specifically supporting a faction or working against one, then usually on mission boards you're simply choosing missions based on the type of activity you're wanting to do and the rewards, and not caring about which faction is offering them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There it is again hehe.." an optional extra" referring to pvp.
OK bgs is an optional extra.
PP is an optional extra.
Engineering is an optional extra.
In fact every aspect of the game is an optional extra. How is pvp singled out as an optional extra?

That's plainly discriminatory.
Every aspect can be partaken, or not. Doesn't mean it's special or indeed different.
Please stop referring to pvp as an optional extra. Because like everything else In this game its integral. Part of the game its written into the game.
Laying biased on a single aspect is a deliberate attempt to belittle and undermine.
I would laugh loudly if pvp became an important part of the bgs or PP. Wouldn't be an optional extra then would it.

It's not "discriminatory", it's a simple fact given the design of the game. Which game feature, apart from CQC (but that's not in-game), requires players to engage in PvP?

 

[Dragsham]

Pvp

 

[Robert Maynard]

Pvp

PvP requires players to engage in PvP?

Arguably not even then - as the chosen target may not even have weapons fitted....

 

[Dragsham]

Look I cannot answer for those who club seals and gank ax pilots etc. Their a special breed indeed. And their actions tarnish the rest of pvpers who simply wanna enjoy ship to ship or fps gameplay face to face. I realise their actions affect us all. Including solo players who obviously want to avoid this distasteful aspect of pvp.
Quite why fdev haven't done anything to curtail it I don't know.
Pvp itself seal clubbing aside, is an honourable pass time. Enjoyed by those who wish to put their skills up against someone else who is likewise.
We're not a fringe element we're equals in this game. Its just that we don't have a voice.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Look I cannot answer for those who club seals and gank ax pilots etc. Their a special breed indeed. And their actions tarnish the rest of pvpers who simply wanna enjoy ship to ship or fps gameplay face to face. I realise their actions affect us all. Including solo players who obviously want to avoid this distasteful aspect of pvp.

As has been the case since before the game even launched. The usual advice was "git gud, or go Solo". Unsurprisingly some players heeded that advice, but not in the way those offering the vice would have wanted.

Quite why fdev haven't done anything to curtail it I don't know.

Perhaps they consider the three game modes and block feature to be adequate tools for each player to use to be able to enjoy the game as they choose.

Pvp itself seal clubbing aside, is an honourable pass time. Enjoyed by those who wish to put their skills up against someone else who is likewise.

Of course it is. It's when those who wish to engage in it involve those with no interest in it that the problems arise.

We're not a fringe element we're equals in this game. Its just that we don't have a voice.

All players are equal - and all players have a voice. That what some players want may be diametrically opposed to what other players want is at the heart of the issue.

.... and if all players are equal, some players seeking to remove content from other players isn't really on, is it?

 

[Rebel Yell]

There it is again hehe.." an optional extra" referring to pvp.
OK bgs is an optional extra.
PP is an optional extra.
Engineering is an optional extra.
In fact every aspect of the game is an optional extra. How is pvp singled out as an optional extra?

That's plainly discriminatory.
Every aspect can be partaken, or not. Doesn't mean it's special or indeed different.
Please stop referring to pvp as an optional extra. Because like everything else In this game its integral. Part of the game its written into the game.
Laying biased on a single aspect is a deliberate attempt to belittle and undermine.
I would laugh loudly if pvp became an important part of the bgs or PP. Wouldn't be an optional extra then would it.

Users are optionals on this sub too, just click the "IGNORE" under the user name and you'll be safe

 

[Dragsham]

and if all players are equal, some players seeking to remove content from other players isn't really on, is it?

Nope it most certainly isn't on. We are all equal.
It's just that some have a louder voice and more influence than others.
Pvp is a dirty word in elite.
Ask any pvper (honourable ones) what they think their thought of as.

 

[Rebel Yell]

This concept wasn't invented by someone. It was invented by thousands of players killing other players without their consent in one of the first ever persistent online game environments, followed by both parties complaining about it vehemently and threating to cancel their monthly subscriptions until changes were made to the game. (those changes being safe zones, content & incentive for unsafe zones, and consensual pvp systems) It is because of this fact that today any game you play having any form of pvp is in fact consensual pvp because the devs put it in the game and you bought the game.

The key word in my post was "unapplicable".

I mean, if something is not applicable in a (this) game, players can argue about that or even complain but bottom line in this game anyone can shoot anyone else, not having to ask "can I shoot you" and not needing to have a legit reason (reason is subjective and relative to shooters' behaviour) and things did not (in the last 10+ years) change.

At a base level this holds true as in a perfect world no incentive would be needed. In a sandbox game players do what they want to do, so why have any systems in place at all? Risk alone is enough to attract some players, rewards are needed to entice others.

Clever and good point (this has been also asked, but -unfortunately- never happened).

I'm curious how could that be abused? Obviously if it was something simple like 1 enemy player downed = 1 ARX awarded then yes that would be quite easily abused without timers and limits imposed. However if you are simply hitting your weekly cap a day or two earlier because you were fighting with players instead of npcs I fail to see how anyone could exploit that for any meaningful gain. Even if the cap was increased to 500 and that extra 100 could only be earned via pvp engagement...it's capped. Unless there's something I'm missing I can't see a way to exploit that.

I didn't dislike the idea (it's indeed a different one from many posted here). But even if it's 1 ARX/kill, just imagine a YT video "ARX easy farming" where a bunch of friends kill eachother in sideys until the cap is reached... that doesn't play well for the developer.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Nope it most certainly isn't on. We are all equal.

Quite.

It's just that some have a louder voice and more influence than others.

In print all voices are at the same volume.

Pvp is a dirty word in elite.
Ask any pvper (honourable ones) what they think their thought of as.

Likely because of the observation made previously:

Look I cannot answer for those who club seals and gank ax pilots etc. Their a special breed indeed. And their actions tarnish the rest of pvpers who simply wanna enjoy ship to ship or fps gameplay face to face. I realise their actions affect us all. Including solo players who obviously want to avoid this distasteful aspect of pvp.

Some will engage in such activities claiming boredom - and the PvP player-base don't seem very keen to disown them which is taken as them condoning the behaviour.

 

[Dragsham]

Some will engage in such activities claiming boredom - and the PvP player-base don't seem very keen to disown them which is taken as them condoning the behaviour.

Quite..
Its time for folks like myself to stand up and say that we do not condone seal clubbing. It's cowardly. It's allowed?? This needs addressing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Quite..
Its time for folks like myself to stand up and say that we do not condone seal clubbing. It's cowardly. It's allowed?? This needs addressing.

It's allowed simply because players can shoot at anything they instance with.