Why is being a "prey" of a pirate in open a bad game design...

[VR jefranklin18]

Solo dilutes the player-base too - yet both Solo and Private Groups have been part of the game design for just as long as Open.

How players interact with other players dilutes the player-base - as not all players seem to care whether they are "fun" to play with or not. Some profess to enjoy playing as a player pirate - a role that necessarily requires the pirate to attempt to dominate the target and either coerce or force them to drop cargo. Persuading players to cheerfully accept being dominated by others during a leisure activity is likely a tough sell.

Yeah I know that and accept that. I originally planned to play exclusively in Solo, but switched to Mobius as I prefer PvE but like the occasional human interaction.

My point is that a PvP toggle on open means that a player with it set to PvP off cannot be interacted with other than via comms - no interdictions, shooting or hatchbreakers. The would-be pirate would have to find another victim - of course, that would open people up for being abused in chat for being a care bear though.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yeah I know that and accept that. I originally planned to play exclusively in Solo, but switched to Mobius as I prefer PvE but like the occasional human interaction.

I expect that many players are looking for a co-operative experience in this game.

My point is that a PvP toggle on open means that a player with it set to PvP off cannot be interacted with other than via comms - no interdictions, shooting or hatchbreakers. The would-be pirate would have to find another victim - of course, that would open people up for being abused in chat for being a care bear though.

I don't favour an in-the-same-mode PvP flag simply due to the potential for exploits, i.e. PvP players using PvE players as shields, indestructible PvE players stealing kills in CZs, etc. and would prefer to see an Open-PvE mode added to the list of launcher options. I'd agree that the comms issue would likely result in taunting, or worse, from either "side"in a PvP-flagged version of Open as we know it.

 

[MarkAusten]

It would be a nightmare to maintain, but could have resulted in some interesting situations where CGs with competing goals have different results. Actually prefer the PvP toggle approach because it doesn't split the player base.

Indeed, it would have been very interesting, but there's no denying, I think, that there would have been two entirely different games.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

While killers obviously exist, FD have struggled to make trader ships robust enough to survive a few shots to allow disabling them. If it was easier from the start (and had hatch breakers from day one) a lot of accidental destruction would have been avoided.

Well, sort of. My trade ships have always been robust enough to survive a few shots. And then a few more shots for good measure to ensure that I can escape with full cargo without being disabled.

A shield-hull balance much more in favour of hull would have been needed across the board.

And as I said, if the game revolved around traders / miners who control all the wealth, they can both withstand losses and make money unlike a bounty hunter or pirate who rely on traders. By making things expensive only the wealthy can own top end ships, while pirates cannot, meaning C+P is more effective.

This assumes that everyone only does one thing, though. Trade to get money, pirate to spend it, would become the approach. Piracy and hunting need to be profitable professions in their own right.

Lovely as that is, unless there is an unwinnable state you can't force someone to drop cargo, because they'll just flip the table.

Piracy shouldn't need to rely on the trader voluntarily pressing the "dump cargo" button. The mechanics would need to be set up so that:
- trader is trying to escape and will probably succeed in doing so with their ship (mostly) intact
- pirate is trying to blast a large enough chunk out of them to release plenty of cargo before they do

No need for comms beyond the implicit "You are being interdicted, this is a hostile act, prepare to fight or flee". Trader doesn't need to care whether this is a "pirate" or a "griefer" because from their point of view both will open fire and try to do large amounts of damage to their ship.


The big catch with getting a pirate-trader ecosystem to work is that it also needs to work both ways in PvE. Player-player encounters are just generally rare, in most systems, so if the NPC pirates are pushovers then it doesn't really matter what the player pirates try to do. That would be the really big change - if traders expected to take some losses to piracy (in the same way that bounty hunters expect to pay a bit for ammunition) as part of the career, then it might be workable.

It's obviously far too late to change Elite Dangerous to being that, and given the role of pirates in previous Elite games I'm not sure it'd necessarily look much like an Elite sequel if they had (because "armed trader fighting off under-equipped pirates" is so much of an archetype)

 

[Robert Maynard]

The big catch with getting a pirate-trader ecosystem to work is that it also needs to work both ways in PvE. Player-player encounters are just generally rare, in most systems, so if the NPC pirates are pushovers then it doesn't really matter what the player pirates try to do. That would be the really big change - if traders expected to take some losses to piracy (in the same way that bounty hunters expect to pay a bit for ammunition) as part of the career, then it might be workable.

Another catch being that only about 50% of the player-base as a whole has access to engineering (and, I'd expect, not all players with Horizons will have unlocked all of the engineers, gathered sufficient materials and data, and engineered their ships) - meaning that players in unengineered ships will be targeted by players who may well, given their chosen role, have engineered their ship.

It's obviously far too late to change Elite Dangerous to being that, and given the role of pirates in previous Elite games I'm not sure it'd necessarily look much like an Elite sequel if they had (because "armed trader fighting off under-equipped pirates" is so much of an archetype)

Indeed.

 

[MadSinUN]

I still think the answer would have been a PvP On/Off toggle in settings or a "PvE server". Having the ability to create private groups just leads to diluting the player base.

You can not make switching modes "open pvp/pve" free. This will allow the attacker to attack the Pve player, then switch the mode to Pve and avoid punishment while unnerving their victim with their unpunished presence.


I hope everyone understands the fact that some of the kills of newcomers in such systems as Deciat, Shinrarta continues because the players who can prevent these kills are simply blocked? Many continue to play open mode because of the desire to be among the live players, but if you divide the players into 2 separate modes "Open Pvp" and "Open Pve" then you will have to take some of the content from the players who want to play among the live players.

 

[ShimEnki]

I could not for the life of me imagine becoming involved with Eve online and its PVP oriented game...its all in the open there with VERY focused
"gankers" with sophisticated combat ships and mechanics.

But, an unseen hand guided me in. I found the game and my experience in it is not anything I imagined it to be.

I just could not get into mining and especially playing in OPEN here. I could not put my finger on why I could not get into mining though. It has been very well developed and in and of itself can be very enjoyable.
In Eve I realized exactly why. I have been mining for many many hours a day using strategies and tactics to out wit and Bugs Bunny the Sam Shields out there wanting my stuff P.
It is not because of the mining mechanics, but the context it is immersed in. A player to player intense and nearly if not outright unrestricted economy. I have several mega manufacturers that will buy everything I can possibly mine. The context and immersion that it is set in goes much deeper and wider than mere sales, and I have yet to hit the edges. Experiencing playing in an OPEN wild west style was never something I could imagine doing and it is genuinely fun to arrive at the station having won that session (well, that's the experience of it anyways) and process the goods. The domino effect of what I am doing that's enhancing other players experience make ALL the difference. The money earned is a side effect, although an important one, it certainly is not the driver of why I am doing it.

The ED froggie, if he ever manages to reach the top of the ED well and gaze beyond and can play in an unrestricted player to player economy
then and only then will Open have any meaning whatsoever and true life will enter this game

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed, it would have been very interesting, but there's no denying, I think, that there would have been two entirely different games.

Which is probably why Frontier have stuck to their original stance, i.e. a single galaxy state experienced and affected by all. Noting that, back in 2015, Michael Brookes indicated that there would be no galaxy split between Open and Solo / Private Groups. Also noting that, when each console version was released, the new players on those platforms were simply added to those who affect and share the single galaxy state.

 

[MarkAusten]

You can not make switching modes "open pvp/pve" free. This will allow the attacker to attack the Pve player, then switch the mode to Pve and avoid punishment while unnerving their victim with their unpunished presence.


I hope everyone understands the fact that some of the kills of newcomers in such systems as Deciat, Shinrarta continues because the players who can prevent these kills are simply blocked? Many continue to play open mode because of the desire to be among the live players, but if you divide the players into 2 separate modes "Open Pvp" and "Open Pve" then you will have to take some of the content from the players who want to play among the live players.

Sorry, I don't quite understand your reasoning in that last paragraph.

Surely splitting the players in two groups means that they can play amongst live players of they same play style as them? You would not deprive either group from live players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You can not make switching modes "open pvp/pve" free. This will allow the attacker to attack the Pve player, then switch the mode to Pve and avoid punishment while unnerving their victim with their unpunished presence.

If a PvE player can be attacked then they weren't playing in a PvE mode or with a PvE flag set. Mode switching has always been a free choice for each player at any time (subject to being able to play in multi-player at all).

I hope everyone understands the fact that some of the kills of newcomers in such systems as Deciat, Shinrarta continues because the players who can prevent these kills are simply blocked? Many continue to play open mode because of the desire to be among the live players, but if you divide the players into 2 separate modes "Open Pvp" and "Open Pve" then you will have to take some of the content from the players who want to play among the live players.

If players in Open-PvP lose targets to an Open-PvE mode then I'd suggest that's simply because playing among those who prefer PvP (some of whom are not much "fun" to play with) is less "fun" than playing in a co-operative PvE game mode. Players who don't enjoy PvP can already choose to completely avoid it in this game.

 

[A C Ender]

I could not for the life of me imagine becoming involved with Eve online and its PVP oriented game...its all in the open there with VERY focused
"gankers" with sophisticated combat ships and mechanics.

But, an unseen hand guided me in. I found the game and my experience in it is not anything I imagined it to be.

I just could not get into mining and especially playing in OPEN here. I could not put my finger on why I could not get into mining though. It has been very well developed and in and of itself can be very enjoyable.
In Eve I realized exactly why. I have been mining for many many hours a day using strategies and tactics to out wit and Bugs Bunny the Sam Shields out there wanting my stuff P.
It is not because of the mining mechanics, but the context it is immersed in. A player to player intense and nearly if not outright unrestricted economy. I have several mega manufacturers that will buy everything I can possibly mine. The context and immersion that it is set in goes much deeper and wider than mere sales, and I have yet to hit the edges. Experiencing playing in an OPEN wild west style was never something I could imagine doing and it is genuinely fun to arrive at the station having won that session (well, that's the experience of it anyways) and process the goods. The domino effect of what I am doing that's enhancing other players experience make ALL the difference. The money earned is a side effect, although an important one, it certainly is not the driver of why I am doing it.

The ED froggie, if he ever manages to reach the top of the ED well and gaze beyond and can play in an unrestricted player to player economy
then and only then will Open have any meaning whatsoever and true life will enter this game

How is the flight model in Eve? It was something I was considering, alongside NMS, before I got ED.

What you describe to me is what I consider good game design, and why I consider solo mining/trading against NPC a bad game design. It's too easy - you are 100% guaranteed to return safely without any real possibility for any interruption (NPC interdictions is an annoyance at most).

 

[MadSinUN]

Surely splitting the players in two groups means that they can play amongst live players of they same play style as them? You would not deprive either group from live players

And it just gets smaller. visually, there will be even fewer players. and for players who play open mode the way they love among a lot of other live players, the space will become even more empty than it is now.

 

[peteuplink]

Don’t agree at all: the ‘murder psychopaths’ are a relatively small part of players who do some kind of pvp.

Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but in all my time playing the game since 2014, I've never once encountered a PvP pirate. All of my PvP encounters have been against people who just want to shoot, kill and move on to their next victim.

It's probably down to the game lacking any really good pirate mechanics for players. I wouldn't mind getting interdicted if there was any real point to what the other player was doing besides blowing people up for s**ts and giggles. The way that piracy should work is the pirate should need your cargo to sell it to make money that they can use on improving their ship or pay levies to the pirate cartels they're part of. The game should be better designed so the pirate can scan their intended victim to see what they're carrying. Then, if they're a viable target, interdict them and make their demand of X number of whatever cargo is being carried. If the interdicted player has no cargo then a credit transfer should be viable. If the victim refuses or attempts to run away, then gunplay should ensue. I'd be quite willing to give up some cargo in return for free passage.

Probably an unpopular idea, but maybe ships systems, including the most powerful weapons (because they use more power, smaller weapons would be unaffected) and FSD, should have a cooldown period after an interdiction for both pirate and victim to allow for the cargo/credits demand to be sent.

 

[MarkAusten]

And it just gets smaller. visually, there will be even fewer players. and for players who play open mode the way they love among a lot of other live players, the space will become even more empty than it is now.

Except that there is a technical limit to the number of users in any one instance anyway, so you'll never see all the players, even if you did split the play styles.

 

[MadSinUN]

If a PvE player can be attacked then they weren't playing in a PvE mode or with a PvE flag set. Mode switching has always been a free choice for each player at any time (subject to being able to play in multi-player at all).

I consider myself a Pve player, I never attack first and I'm not really interested in fighting another player, but I like to feel dangerous. The voluntary choice of a permanent regime of "open Pvp/PvE " does not limit the rights and choice of the player.

 

[MarkAusten]

I consider myself a Pve player, I never attack first and I'm not really interested in fighting another player, but I like to feel dangerous. The voluntary choice of a permanent regime of "open Pvp/PvE " does not limit the rights and choice of the player.

Ah, I think I see. You advocate players being able to limit themselves permanently to one play style voluntarily. Other players may decide not to limit their play style in any way. Correct?

 

[Deleted member 182079]

I consider myself a Pve player, I never attack first and I'm not really interested in fighting another player, but I like to feel dangerous. The voluntary choice of a permanent regime of "open Pvp/PvE " does not limit the rights and choice of the player.

My playstyle is very much the same (with rare dips into active PvP territory when I feel like it, which isn't very often).

If a PvE toggle was to be added to the game (I'm confident Frontier can see this is a bad idea so won't ever happen) I'd just stick to Solo mode, hide system chat completely and be done with it.

Check out how Fallout 76 handles it - it's awful and completely breaks immersion as players who have the toggle enabled appear to be invincible, but still share the same gaming space with you. It's just weird.

 

[MadSinUN]

Ah, I think I see. You advocate players being able to limit themselves permanently to one play style voluntarily. Other players may decide not to limit their play style in any way. Correct?

To be honest, I am in favor of more stringent mechanic solutions that make the gameplay as difficult as possible without alternatives. But it seemed to me that the main crucial community of ED players does not like difficulties, and Fdev tries to provide all players with a comfortable game as much as possible. Therefore, my proposals are also aimed at protecting and voluntarily choosing all players.

 

[MadSinUN]

Ah, I think I see. You advocate players being able to limit themselves permanently to one play style voluntarily. Other players may decide not to limit their play style in any way. Correct?

You can provide this opportunity. Inside the game mode. Back to the "license" offer. This can be a license of the "civil Federation of pilots" and "combat Federation of pilots", which can be purchased at any time, but for a significant amount of credits.

 

[MarkAusten]

To be honest, I am in favor of more stringent mechanic solutions that make the gameplay as difficult as possible without alternatives. But it seemed to me that the main crucial community of ED players does not like difficulties, and Fdev tries to provide all players with a comfortable game as much as possible. Therefore, my proposals are also aimed at protecting and voluntarily choosing all players.

That first one would never get implemented of that I am sure since many players would not consider this to be a better way to play, me included. Personally I don't play Elite because it is difficult but in order to relax.

Also there is the problem of degree. What is "difficult" for you would probably be "utterly impossible" for me. I have enough problems with NPC interdictions and attacks and thus Elite with Solo, PG and Open suits me just fine.

I would be happy with other modes being introduced, the open PVE that RM favours as well as the mandatory iron-man mode but personally I don't think that one-size fit all mode with Flagged exceptions or licences is a good solution as is either pay-for-play or doesn't stop the PVP for PVE players. There are just too many ways, it seems, that a player can force PVP play.