This is bad policy. It smells like desertion. And the option to try to fix everything for the better is not considered?
Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
This is bad policy. It smells like desertion. And the option to try to fix everything for the better is not considered?
Can I check if I'm reading the perceived issues with Open correctly?
It seems that the 2 main problems are:
1) Not enough easily accessible interaction available
2) The ability to duck out of PVP once initiated
Discussion seems to be turning into the usual PVE vs PVP thread which I don't think it was intended to be?
If those are the two main issues, do we have any good ideas so far of how they can be improved?
Apologies if that's been done already, it's a super large thread and I haven't been through it all
I think these discussions about one mode being 'detrimental' to the other originate in the fact that all modes affect the BGS, and some 'open only' players may say that solo mode players have an unfair advantage when competing for control of a system for example, the the solo mode player cannot be countered directly (I am not saying this myself, I don't agree that this is an issue in the game). Another aspect is that if everyone goes in solo mode (for various reasons such as a C&P system that deosn't work) pirates like myself won't have any clients. So the modes can affect each other in some ways. Personally I think there is a place for all the current modes as they stand, but some more details improvements could certainly be discussed, and I enjoy a good debate.
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
No worries. What we all have in common is that ED is a game we all clearly love but we all love it in vastly different ways. This will cause some strong feelings.
Again, just for the record, I wholeheartedly support PvPers who want more meaningful PVP interaction as long as 'me and mine' remain intact.
I agree that people make claims like that. The thing is they are complaining about difficulty they impose on themselves.
That's where I often lose patience.
I love flying my spaceships as well as I can and try to defeat other players. The game doesn't support this in any way. All other things; mining, exploration, passengers, trading, missions, NPC bounty hunting, you can log on and just do whenever you want. I can't start the game whenever I want and do the activity I enjoy. Probably why I've been online only infrequently lately, as Pugwash and the rest of my squadron can attest to.
No, it is not considered. Considering how to fix 'everything' for the better is an exercise in futility. Leaving a game that doesn't give someone want they want isn't desertion, just common sense, albeit tinged with sadness. I may be doing exactly that next year.
Regarding the use of CMDR bounties as an incentive or a tool for enforcing consequence...advertising wanted CMDRs more prominently, without a fairly significant reworking of networking, instancing, tracking, pursuit, logistics, blocking, and mode swapping mechanisms is largely meaningless. Wanted CMDRs are rarely shot down unless they want to be, CMDR bounty hunting isn't really viable in the game we have, so what their bounties are or where they are shown is largely moot.
Yes, my CMDR has and still occasionally does collect bounties off other CMDRs, these are largely incidental to self-defense; they're flukes and exceptions that prove the rule.
Any objective that requires stopping or delaying my CMDR from doing what he's doing, as opposed to indirectly preempting it (which requires knowledge of what exactly he's doing), requires PvP.
Likewise, I'm often in situation that requires PvP to for my CMDR to achieve his goals.
It shouldn't need to be a factor, the game should take care of that by ensuring that players can only interact with each other in intended ways, which it does with varying degrees of success.
What players can do to each others characters via direct PvP is frequently less meaningful than what they do to each other, consciously or not, via other mechanisms. No one expects to have to ask permission of other players before selling exploration data or using a good trade route they've discovered and I don't see much difference between these things and my CMDR being pulled out of SC and shot at, at least in terms of tangible effect on my CMDR or the setting he exists within.
Shoot down my CMDR now and he'll be back doing what he was doing in five minutes with a loss of assets so trivial it may as well not have occurred. Sell 50 million cr of exploration data to the outpost in this system, and you've erased an entire day of my work. If my CMDR sees a soft target that looks like it's coming back from an exploration trip headed for that outpost, he's probably going to attempt to defend his interests, and he's probably not going to ask before blowing that ship out of the sky just short of the pad.
People that choose PG or Solo for their CMDRs are of no concern of mine, unless they are cheating and thus giving their CMDR's greater than intended influence over the BGS.
Those not exposing themselves to delay or distraction of other CMDRs (which can occur a variety of ways, most of which don't involve combat, or even intent) have a tangible advantage in the rate at which they can transact with the BGS. However, this is as deliberate and intentional as anything else in the game.
Yes, my CMDR has and still occasionally does collect bounties off other CMDRs, these are largely incidental to self-defense; they're flukes and exceptions that prove the rule.
Any objective that requires stopping or delaying my CMDR from doing what he's doing, as opposed to indirectly preempting it (which requires knowledge of what exactly he's doing), requires PvP.
Likewise, I'm often in situation that requires PvP to for my CMDR to achieve his goals.
It shouldn't need to be a factor, the game should take care of that by ensuring that players can only interact with each other in intended ways, which it does with varying degrees of success.
What players can do to each others characters via direct PvP is frequently less meaningful than what they do to each other, consciously or not, via other mechanisms. No one expects to have to ask permission of other players before selling exploration data or using a good trade route they've discovered and I don't see much difference between these things and my CMDR being pulled out of SC and shot at, at least in terms of tangible effect on my CMDR or the setting he exists within.
Shoot down my CMDR now and he'll be back doing what he was doing in five minutes with a loss of assets so trivial it may as well not have occurred. Sell 50 million cr of exploration data to the outpost in this system, and you've erased an entire day of my work. If my CMDR sees a soft target that looks like it's coming back from an exploration trip headed for that outpost, he's probably going to attempt to defend his interests, and he's probably not going to ask before blowing that ship out of the sky just short of the pad.
People that choose PG or Solo for their CMDRs are of no concern of mine, unless they are cheating and thus giving their CMDR's greater than intended influence over the BGS.
Those not exposing themselves to delay or distraction of other CMDRs (which can occur a variety of ways, most of which don't involve combat, or even intent) have a tangible advantage in the rate at which they can transact with the BGS. However, this is as deliberate and intentional as anything else in the game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Yet PvP is not required by any game feature (except CQC) - hence any PvP encountered in-game is optional.
Getting out of a country where you don't like something. Getting out of a house where you don't like something. Leaving a family that you didn't like is all considered common sense? With this policy, many countries would be left without armies, many homes without owners, and many families without some family members. Why then do people fight for their countries? (I am sure that there are no people who are 100% satisfied with everything ) you Can just go to another country) I think this is some kind of weird "common sense". But this is your right, and the topic is not about this.
By your standard, nothing is required because everything is optional.
PvP isn't even strictly required in CQC. I can fly around in circles around the edge of the map or go afk while wedged in some structure and get rank xp just for being there.
All goals are self assigned and there are plenty of these goals that have context, both in character, and with regard to tangible gameplay reward, that mandate PvP.
It seems like the drive of the discussion is to find a way for those who play in Open to more easily find others who play in Open and want to engage in PVP, rather than to pull players from Solo or PG into Open? Would that be correct?
By "cheating" do you mean influencing the BGS in Solo or PG? Wording just seems a bit strong for interacting with the game in a way it allows,although I understand why the fact that we can legitimately do that within the game's current setup would be aggravating.
"It's not necessarily", "Play do not have", "optional", "the game Modes are not mandatory, Pvp\PvE is not required" What is it then? The word "Game" is already becoming irrelevant in relation to this product. Is this a demonstration of the Cobra game engine? Is this a simulation of the milky way galaxy? In games there are rules, there are restrictions and there are obligations, it is quite normal when there is a loser and a winner in the game. But in ED, it's all "optional"? Let's continue to make suggestions for changing the "open mode" for all players?
Last edited:
I'm guessing 'common sense' isn't your first language, as we're talking about a game here and not real life?
However, very generously allowing that you might just have a valid point to make about the game, and not be want to indulge in discussions about a country, house or family....
PvPers, shoot other players, but don't shoot them if they don't want to be shot, or they may leave, or block, or they may shoot back, but that doesn't mean they want PvP.
Other players, stay and get shot by PvPers... unless you don't want to, in which case, leave, or block
Pirates, please make demands before you shoot, unless you think the other player will leave, or block, in which case don't.
Other players, stay and listen to the pirates demands, unless you don't want to, or they shoot first, in which case leave, or block, or shoot them first.
Everyone should stay, and shoot, or not, unless they don't want to, in which case they can leave.
No-one should interfere with anyone else game, unless they want some PvP, in which case they can interfere, but everyone else can leave.
Please, tell us all how you can fix 'everything'...
Give me the ability to run my own server, with my own BGS, and set the rules I choose.
That will only fix 'everything' for you and whoever you favour... which is what this whole thread is all about.
engaging in actions that affect the BGS to reduce the influence of another PMF is PvP because you are carrying actions against another group of players. The difference is that it is just a grind war but it is PvP. Carebears will say it is "indirect" PvP or "transitive" PvP. But PvP it is.
the moment you go, in open, to sell your exploit-driven LTDs in a system that had over 20k cmdrs passing by in the last 24hrs, you know it will be almost certain to find other players. if instancing allows for it, of course.
don't want to be ganked or pirated? use the block feature for every cmdr you meet and get lost.
I'll tell you again. Here they want to find a way to balance in "open mode" for everyone, so that no one interferes with anyone, but at the same time everything was fair. And suggestions to just run away from the problem somewhere else doesn't fit the idea.
I think what we're saying is that the current split of PVE and PVP works because the two player bases want different things from the game - that doesn't need fixing.
What needs to be better, if I understand it correctly, is
1) The ability for players who choose open to interact more easily/frequently with others in Open, and
2) For the influence of those in Solo or PGs on the BGS to not be as effective because it's harder to affect the BGS without interference in Open?
False, you are opposing a NPC faction that some players have chosen to align with.
You are playing a semantics game swapping player goals with combat when the vast majority are talking combat.
By this definition all activities in the game that exchange credits or materials with NPC are "PVP" because they all effect the BGS.