The initial argument was that people left because they were unable to coop. Then the poster gave PGs as coop environment. Now you write that PG is good enough for PvP as well. I disagree. Coop usually means knowing each other and organizing a team, which is not usually the case for PvP. Part of the PvP experience is the thrill to meet people you never met before, and engage in fights with them. So no, PG is not good enough for PvP, not in the context of this hypothetical situation (Open "removed" via something like PvP flag).
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Despite ghosts, there are always folks appearing in open, who are rivaling you for control in that system. These guys aren't here for pvp necessarily, but they are willing to take the risk of being attacked, which will inevitably happen. Voluntary participation in pvp would pretty much give these people an option to skip the confrontation, if the ships/build aren't in their favor.
We've seen plenty of bgs feuds in the past to know how viscerally these groups drive these conflicts. Making sportsmanship a voluntary thing instead of mandatory in open would practically kill organic pvp fights altogether.
Last edited:
Make a point, otherwise I'll just assume you've nothing.It was funny, but now please stop missing the point.
They are there for the pvp component and not necessarily for bgs
IF you mix bgs with pvp you are forfeiting a lot of efficiency and you will lose the bgs if your opponent chase his bgs goal
If in that system your supported faction is the ruling faction and they are clean, you killing them will actually hurt your faction.
Well, we are primarily playing for fun, not necessarily to win at the cost of burning out. Pvp scenarios are always the best part of conflicts, as rare they as they are... Thankfully we didn't have any issues with in system murder, since anarchies are pretty forgiving.
I'm under the impression that a lot of people, including myself, prefer to play Solo mode all the time, not because we don't want to play with others, but simply because we don't want to PVP others.
For comparison, let me talk to you about of one of the worst launches in recent years, Fallout 76, which to the surprise of some has actually redeemed itself (at least to some extent), but owes it survival to its community, which stood during awful first year fo the game, but also a community that confused Bethesda because the devs were convinced their players wanted more PVP... and they were proven wrong, best depicted through many of the ironic headlines that gaming journalism used to deliver the "shocking" revelation:
Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other
Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other
Bethesda was surprised to learn that Fallout 76 players didn't care much for PvP, and how the game has evolved reflects that.www.forbes.com
Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'
Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'
"It's a smaller percentage of our player base than we thought."www.gamingbible.co.uk
Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP
Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP
Bethesda VP Pete Hines reveals that the company was surprised to find that players preferred to avoid PvP in Fallout 76 in favor of PvE.gamerant.com
Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP
Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP
We just want to be friends.www.pcgamer.com
Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don’t murder each other
Why is everyone being so nice?
Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don't murder each other
When Bethesda was designing Fallout 76, it expected players to murder each other, but it turns out they'd rather just work together.www.pcinvasion.com
Don't misunderstand: Fallout 76 do had (still has to a small degree) griefers and gankers, but the vast majority of players simply preferred not to engage in PVP.
Keeping things short, today many of the ways to engage into PVP have been disabled, pacifist mode is a menu option that makes it almost impossible to engage in PVP, and while the game's reputation will forever be tarnished by its launch, its actually in a better than many people expected (which can't be said for games like EA's Anthem, which already threw the towel and cancelled further development). It still is no substitute for a proper Fallout 5, but as a casual time waster with a Fallout theme: it's passable.
Back to Elite Dangerous, I think a lot more people would like to try playing in Open Play with random strangers in Elite if they had the choice to opt out from PVP, like having an aforementioned pacifist mode that disabled PVP interactions.
But that's just my impression, and I would like to hear what other thinks on this matter:
Do you think that Open Play would be negatively affected if PVP could be disabled?
Do you think Elite could benefit from having more people try to play & cooperate with others in Open Play?
Well, I moved to Mobius PVE shortly after starting with ED in 2018 thanks to gankers. No regrets for that decision. Mobius has become the "PvE Mode" for Elite that I like and it works well enough. Obviously, I would prefer a proper "PvE mode" in Open so I could meet more people. Then again, the P2P connection and instancing sort of limits that experience even in Open as well.
As for cooperation: In FO76, there are things where you can cooperate with randoms you just run into: Events, Scorched Queen, quests, legendary enemies etc. There's a player economy where you trade legendary items or recipies. People will visit your base and give you a "thumbs up". I feel the FO76 community is generally much more cooperative, helpful and friendly than in Elite because of this.
In Elite, you lack that sort of emergent gameplay completely. There's no loot I can share or trade. There are no rare mobs that require me to team up with other commanders. There is no "home" friends and strangers can visit. I cannot easily "heal" a stranger in distress, even if I were to run into one (ignoring Hull Seals and Fuel Rats here for a minute). In June, while on a planetary surface, my ship's autopilot decided to explode the damn thing when I dismissed the ship. I called my brother and told him I'd need a lift. He logged into Elite, flew to me to pick me up...and we couldn't get it to work. Crashes, disconnects and always I would end up on the surface again. There's a thread about that "adventure" buried somewhere in these forums. In theory, it could have been great cooperative gameplay: A CMDR stranded and another CMDR rushing to the rescue, picking the survivor up and delivering him to the next station where he can settle the rebuy. Reality: It doesn't work (unless it has been fixed in the last months).
Even if there were opportunities for that gameplay, the communication with other CMDRs is woefully underdeveloped in Elite. Even decade old(!) games like World of Warcraft and EVE Online have a better chat system with player created chat channels and the like. There are trade channels, help channels and various community channels where you can just sit and talk with other people, no matter guild or alliance affiliation.
Long story short, as long as Elite lacks properly developed cooperative gameplay, I don't see the need for a dedicated Open "PvE mode" regardless the Griefer/Ganker issue. Mobius is my "Open PvE" and with what Elite brings to the table, it works well enough at the moment.
Well, we are primarily playing for fun, not necessarily to win at the cost of burning out. Pvp scenarios are always the best part of conflicts, as rare they as they are... Thankfully we didn't have any issues with in system murder, since anarchies are pretty forgiving.
Sure you do.
But that has nothing with BGS and open play.
BGS was specifically designed as asynchronous and indirect gameplay.
While PVP is not tied with any aspect of the game, it is purely optional.
To ansawer the OP - I kinda fail to see how removing PvP from Open would make me suddenly catch up to the rest of players with my unengineered gear. I still would have to grind it out and thus I won't play the game. I did however play open before the arms race. I just won't run the pointless hamsterwheelie to keep my level with the rest of the population.
I wouldn't separate integral parts of the game, merely by assuming they serve different purposes. It's a hollow argument that won't lead the discussion of how ED gameplay should look like forward.
BGS is a thing, a sphere of tactical pvp, a tug of war with numbers. Ship pvp is... yeah. It happens during bgs confrontations, period. There's really nothing else to it.
No, I'll always play however I wish, in whichever mode I wish, so it would make not the least amount of difference to me.
As for disabling PvP in open, no way, that is entirely not the way to go about things, there are some players who consider the option to engage in PvP is essential
As for BGS,
Now having both PvP enabled and PvE "open' modes, that is worth considering.
As for disabling PvP in open, no way, that is entirely not the way to go about things, there are some players who consider the option to engage in PvP is essential
As for BGS,
Now having both PvP enabled and PvE "open' modes, that is worth considering.
Quite simply, yes. (But I mean in the sense that I can toggle it on/off for myself, not disable it for everyone without question.)
Shinrarta Dezhra not a dangerous area?I have 1500 hours in the game, and have been in Open precisely twice in those hours. Within 30 minutes each time, I was randomly killed. No reason, not a 'dangerous area', just minding my own business. Once in Shinrarta Dezhra, and the other searching for a Guardian ruin.
The lesson I learned was just not to play in Open ever again.
I play the game. Not other people.
Is there another Shin Dez other than the notorious haunt of gankers?
I have never really favoured this type of approach as I consider it immersion killing, BUT there are some interesting points, so I'll try and think them through:
Seems reasonable
Agreed.
A nav beacon is a common place to do bounty hunting and so the player under attack could easily have hardpoints open.
Could be tricky to implement, not sure what the client currently can remember between instances.
My main objection to 'PVE mode' is that a player who somehow 'allows' pvp by whatever means will kind of be openly inviting an attack whereas now at least it's neutral.
I do agree that we need some way of distinguishing better between killing and robbing, but for that I still think the C&P system could be significantly improved, while preserving immersion for those of us that like the more 'organic' style PvP.
Shinrarta Dezhra not a dangerous area?
Is there another Shin Dez other than the notorious haunt of gankers?
The only 'dangerous places' IMO should be anarchy or lawless systems. Shinrarta Dezhra is the Founder's system, home of the Pilot's Federation, where Founders and the Elite can gather... ostensibly 'safely'.
In any event, it makes no difference. It put me off open play, and the equally pointless Guardian gank simply confirmed it.
If people want more folks in Open, they need to 'PVP' by the lore of the game, and not just hunt for victims minding their own business. It's not for the victims to change their playstyle, its for the gankers to actually be normal people & not sociopaths.
I played for over 500 hours before my first attack, and that was at an engineer base.I have 1500 hours in the game, and have been in Open precisely twice in those hours. Within 30 minutes each time, I was randomly killed. No reason, not a 'dangerous area', just minding my own business. Once in Shinrarta Dezhra, and the other searching for a Guardian ruin.
The lesson I learned was just not to play in Open ever again.
I play the game. Not other people.
Shinrarta Dezhra and the guardian riuns are both well known ganking spots. If you check INARA for the danger hotspots it is very unlikely you will be attacked.
Problem is, the BGS is affected by almost any action, so we are really back to square one.
Something that I fail to see from those in favor of PvP always ON in Open is, how having a PvE toggle that at the very least would allow more people to play in Open is worse than just not having that people playing in Open.
That said, from all the options I've seen thrown out around every time this issue comes up, my favorite would be solving this through gameplay instead of some immersion breaking toggle:
- The chance of getting attacked in High Sec should be almost null
- Anarchy systems, uninhabited systems, systems at war... should be a free for all
- Real penalties for lawless players if they get caught (to balance the fact that they might be ruining someone's play time, their play time should also be on the betting table)
That said, from all the options I've seen thrown out around every time this issue comes up, my favorite would be solving this through gameplay instead of some immersion breaking toggle:
- The chance of getting attacked in High Sec should be almost null
- Anarchy systems, uninhabited systems, systems at war... should be a free for all
- Real penalties for lawless players if they get caught (to balance the fact that they might be ruining someone's play time, their play time should also be on the betting table)
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Adding an Open-PvE mode would be, functionally, no different from the fact that players in Solo and Private Groups affect the mode shared galaxy - players in Open(-PvP) still wouldn't be able to shoot at them.
Exactly this.
Plenty could be done (and already is in other games) to make the C&P system achieve effectively safe areas where even PvP attacks would carry significant risks for the attacker and virtually no consequences for the victim, and could also give rise to emergent PvP bounty hunting that's actually worth doing.