Pvp griefers open fix idea. We want all you solos back!
- Thread starter Dragsham
- Start date
It's as major as not everybody having access to the Cobra mk4. Stealth SC would bring maybe you back but not many more. And I say that as a lover of stealth builds, I have a few of them and unfortunately shield multiplier, missiles, and certain experimentals have them at a disadvantage most of the time.
Not picking on Ganogati or players who think like that. This is why some people don't fly in open, nothing to earn extra. Nothing wrong with it and solo/pg is perfect for that. The stealth SC wouldn't do anything as there still is no extra reward compared to solo/pg.
Its not fine as is.
There's no recourse nor any motivation for players whatsoever to participate in ganker vs player. There isn't even a valid excuse for gankers to do it because they gain nothing but player salt. Every single aspect of the "world pvp" system is biased in favor of ganking to the sole detriment of the victim.
There's not even anything you can really do about it aside from just also only playing in a pvp ship, which effectively prevents 80% of the content from being enjoyed.
... the point of stealth is to avoid the interaction altogether. There is no ability to do so now.
So, all those people who don't play in Open because they don't want PvP... you want them to be rewarded with some credits for returning to Open and engaging in PvP.
I perceive a flaw in this plan.
Yes there is.
Don't fly directly to the target. Fly in a big arc out of the plane, nothing changes as you would be visible close to the star even with "stealth". As there are no gravity wells you don't slow down and you are save from interdictions. Depending on the system it might even be even faster. If you get close to the station and nobody is there just slow down normally, if there is somebody "dangerous" lurking do the loopy thing or use the gravity well to slow down.
Right now with the SC bug it's even easier as you can't just park in SC anymore.
Open does NOT equal PVP constantly, it means there is a chance of being attacked by a player.
It also means you have a chance to see more players.
I like open, not sure why anyone would choose Solo.
I can understand PG with friends a little bit.
This game is so good when played with others
It also means you have a chance to see more players.
I like open, not sure why anyone would choose Solo.
I can understand PG with friends a little bit.
This game is so good when played with others
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed.
Indeed - as it is the only game mode with an unlimited population.
Their choice - no-one else is expected to understand or agree with it.
Indeed.
It can be - it depends on what those others choose to do.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Has it been confirmed that that's a bug?
But how am I supposed to hunt a PvPer from solo if he continously hides in open? I feel descriminated that I can't hunt him via the BGS. There should be atleast five Elite ranked Anacondas with ATR weaponry chain interdicting him!
This is the issue. The PVP fit.
It should simply not exist.
Removing the pvp build is the only one thing that could bring balance to the galaxy
It would put commercial builds vs commercial builds, not tanks vs grocery lorries.
Good point and well put: I have made the same point before because i think the game is diverging into a soft/bland version on the one hand and a free-for-all on the other. Other games use a 'safe zone' idea which I don't like as it's not very 'realistic', so I'll go back to saying (yet again) that if high security was made high then traders could even have fun watching their attackers (yes, even players) crash and die against the zero reaction time ATR level wing of cops. Will they stop the trader being killed? Maybe not. Will they make the attacker think twice about doing it again? Yes.
I don't play with others in unfair games.
You and I are playing very different games.
Nothing has ever stopped me from following and intercepting someone doing this. It makes you... harder to catch, but doesn't save anything.
Choosing not to play in Open isn't just about PvP or not wanting to PvP. Even if PvP was eliminated completely (which would be bad) I may still choose not to go into Open.
Most of the time, after a day at work the last thing I want to do is interact with other people, regardless of whether they are friendly or whether they just want to shoot at me.
When I want to interact with people then I choose to go into Open or Private Group depending on whether I want to interact with friends and/or strangers.
Most of the time, after a day at work the last thing I want to do is interact with other people, regardless of whether they are friendly or whether they just want to shoot at me.
When I want to interact with people then I choose to go into Open or Private Group depending on whether I want to interact with friends and/or strangers.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Sounds like an impossible task - as some players simply don't enjoy combat in general, or PvP in particular, or find it to be "fun". It's quite possible to play this game without firing a shot in combat - and two of the three paths to an Elite rank don't require the player to engage in combat.
What is expected to constitute "fun" for the non-combatant target in a PvP encounter?
EvE is certainly an example of a game - a quite different game. It's a game that some players consciously choose not to play as they don't find it's gameplay appealing.
How does this supposed to "bring back solos"? Nothing in this post even remotely shows any understanding of a solo player.
Hint: its in the name solo player.
Hint: its in the name solo player.
The point I am missing in the discussion is the biggest design error I see:
Open today is okay as it is - if you are in an anarchy system.
But if you are in a hi sec system, it's ridiculous. In a hi sec system it should effectively hardly happen that you are griefed because the punishment for the terspassor will be too harsh for the big majority of them to take on as a result of their game play decision. I am thinking of truly painful measures, one month prison time = real time month not being able to play that account, loss of subtantial parts of their credits, loss of engineered modules and engineer access for a given time; so it really would force them to e.g. grind quite a bit for each run they take at a hi sec system.
If one would feel fairly safe in a hi sec system, but would be truly in danger in anarchy systems, that would somehow feel quite right, wouldn't it ?
But of course there is the ol' gang of PVP's inevitably coming back to bark that this game has the word "dangerous" in its title for a reason - which of course doesn't in the slightest change the logic of what I just described, but I have come to the conclusion that they are intellectually blocked from seeing the obvious because of their desire to have a game which in fact doesn't contain any safe areas - it should be Mexico everywhere, even if it says Sweden on its label... what ?!? But I am no longer arguing with them not only because I feel they are not willing or capable to think it through but primarily because it would have to be FDev who need to address it, and they apparently have no interest in changing it, so I just play solo & pg, end of story.
This! There is just so much less what pulls me into Open compared what repells me that it is not even a question popping up in my mind anymore. And if solo / pg didn't exist - I would simply stop to play Elite, easy decision.
Well, that is in the eye of the beholder, clearly. For the users like me there is very little fun in Open, and much more in pg & solo. And so we all are going our ways, which I have accepted and I suggest the Open players do so too. Don't know why they are discussing this topic so often on the one hand and still seem to be at a loss why other users are turning their back on Open.
All I see is users trying time and again to educate those critical of the current state of Open to effectively play the game as the pvp's wish to play it (quote: git gud), and the motivation is just so obvious: they would love to see more players in Open, but exactly due to their own approach they are actively driving people out of Open, especially those juicy easy targets who don't log into Open to pvp but for other game styles. Seems to be too much food for thought for them to chew... can't really feel pity for them if they can't connect the dotted lines...
[edited out a quote from apparently another thread]
Open today is okay as it is - if you are in an anarchy system.
But if you are in a hi sec system, it's ridiculous. In a hi sec system it should effectively hardly happen that you are griefed because the punishment for the terspassor will be too harsh for the big majority of them to take on as a result of their game play decision. I am thinking of truly painful measures, one month prison time = real time month not being able to play that account, loss of subtantial parts of their credits, loss of engineered modules and engineer access for a given time; so it really would force them to e.g. grind quite a bit for each run they take at a hi sec system.
If one would feel fairly safe in a hi sec system, but would be truly in danger in anarchy systems, that would somehow feel quite right, wouldn't it ?
But of course there is the ol' gang of PVP's inevitably coming back to bark that this game has the word "dangerous" in its title for a reason - which of course doesn't in the slightest change the logic of what I just described, but I have come to the conclusion that they are intellectually blocked from seeing the obvious because of their desire to have a game which in fact doesn't contain any safe areas - it should be Mexico everywhere, even if it says Sweden on its label... what ?!? But I am no longer arguing with them not only because I feel they are not willing or capable to think it through but primarily because it would have to be FDev who need to address it, and they apparently have no interest in changing it, so I just play solo & pg, end of story.
This! There is just so much less what pulls me into Open compared what repells me that it is not even a question popping up in my mind anymore. And if solo / pg didn't exist - I would simply stop to play Elite, easy decision.
Well, that is in the eye of the beholder, clearly. For the users like me there is very little fun in Open, and much more in pg & solo. And so we all are going our ways, which I have accepted and I suggest the Open players do so too. Don't know why they are discussing this topic so often on the one hand and still seem to be at a loss why other users are turning their back on Open.
All I see is users trying time and again to educate those critical of the current state of Open to effectively play the game as the pvp's wish to play it (quote: git gud), and the motivation is just so obvious: they would love to see more players in Open, but exactly due to their own approach they are actively driving people out of Open, especially those juicy easy targets who don't log into Open to pvp but for other game styles. Seems to be too much food for thought for them to chew... can't really feel pity for them if they can't connect the dotted lines...
[edited out a quote from apparently another thread]
Last edited:
Why have I been quoted into a different thread of the message it's from? 