To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?

[Bard Voronwe]

Your idea is split it more, thus guarenteeing your Open only server is going to have less people than the original, not more.

But by all means go for it, I don't mind.

You don't think of the potential of dividing the current crowds (or as I use to call us: "the ones who endure"): you could give two different kinds of game experiences to player, they could even take part to both.

One where PvP is completely optional and doesn't care that much, with the so much desired "Friendly Open Mode", where people can simply play the game in the friendliest way they want.

And one where PvP is a constant variable that the player should always consider.

We'd have back the MANY people that left the game in the years because of the lack of PvP encounters and the ones that left for the undesired PvP component, the Galaxy will seem much more crowded in both the cases because we'd have people playing in an Open Only environment knowing that they can always find people, and on the other Galaxy simply people would probably chose the Open Friendly mode to simply meet people.

This is by the way something I proposed since... forever, maybe.

Two Galaxies, two different CMDRs, then you simply chose in the launcher which one you want connect to (exactly as it happens during beta test periods so nothing new actually).

Eve is, by all metrics, not even close to "All MMOs." In fact thats its selling point. Wanting more Eve is fine, trying to say most successful MMO games are like Eve however is demonstrabily false.

Honestly your opinion, of course I think it is biased because you are of the "solo party", but think about what I wrote just before: I do not want to force Solo Players to play the game differently, I never wanted to. But don't you think that you are maybe trying to force to Open Players a grindy way that maybe you like but couldn't be appreciated by everybody?

Diversification. We'd have more people because, most of times, it's the things that don't work that matter for a player to chose if sticking on a game.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

I expect that Freud would have more to say about those who choose to gank than those who choose not to.

Ypu never read one of his books, right? Anyway, don't let me speak about stuff I know for my profession and you clearly don't. ^_^'

Players find different things interesting or boring - and players don't all want the same things (and can't force other players to play the way they want them to).

Sigh and again: that's banal and incorrect. The current state of the game forces you to play in a precise way if you want to be effective. The fact that you keep saying the same wrong things doesn't make them right the 10,000th time you repeat them. It's just plain gameplay, maybe if you'd play the game a little bit more than trying to submerge this kind of discussions by repeating again and again the same 3 sentences you'd understand what I am talking about.

Grown-ups would accept that the game design was set long before they backed or bought it - and not seek to have it changed for all players just because they don't like the design of a game they chose to buy.

Sorry but this is total Bee Es. Asking for a change would make people less adult? Dude. Really.

Come on.
It's insulting toward all the people that doesn't think like you. Pretty full of yourself ain't you?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ypu never read one of his books, right? Anyway, don't let me speak about stuff I know for my profession and you clearly don't. ^_^'

Unverifiable credential claims on the internet are a common way to attempt to lend weight to an argument.

Sigh and again: that's banal and incorrect. The current state of the game forces you to play in a precise way if you want to be effective. The fact that you keep saying the same wrong things doesn't make them right the 10,000th time you repeat them. It's just plain gameplay, maybe you'd play the game a little bit more than trying to submerge this kind of discussions by repeating again and again the same 3 sentences you'd understand what I am talking about.

Forcing players to engage in (or be prepared for) PvP would not make the game better for all players - it might for a subset, certainly - however they are not the only players who paid for the game.

Sorry but this is total . Asking for a change would make people less adult? Dude. Really.

Come on.
It's insulting toward all the people that doesn't think like you. Pretty full of yourself ain't you?

Proposing that players who don't think the same way should lose access to game content that does not require PvP by placing it behind a PvP-gate is at least as insulting, to those who don't enjoy PvP and made sure that it was not required when they bought or backed the game....

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Unverifiable credential claims on the internet are a common way to attempt to lend weight to an argument.

Really, lol. Just lol. Next time just try to not talk about things you clearly never read anything about. That's pretty sad actually.

Forcing players to engage in (or be prepared for) PvP would not make the game better for all players - it might for a subset, certainly - however they are not the only players who paid for the game.

We talked many times before, you always forget that I always propose different ways to make things enjoyable for everybody, on the contrary you keep saying your way is the one correct because "kickstarter, things are the way they are"etc etc
Honestly it seems that your only goal is to avoid people to have their thing even if it wouldn't affect you.
That's what a crusade is. And I feel pretty sad about you, such despise towards some people you don't even know. But that's the usual internet feud sadly, where reason and discussion give space to the very same "trenches" you keep mentioning (while leading up yours with all your might). Nobody want solo players to play open. On the other hand solo players...

Proposing that players who don't think the same way should lose access to game content that does not require PvP by placing it behind a PvP-gate is at least as insulting, to those who don't enjoy PvP and made sure that it was not required when they bought or backed the game....

And again: never proposed that. You keep saying that because it's useful to your personal narrative about this discussion, mostly because deep down you know that diversification would be beneficial to the game. But now you need to win this argument. God knows why. :/

 

[Robert Maynard]

We talked many times before, you always forget that I always propose different ways to make things enjoyable for everybody, on the contrary you keep saying your way is the one correct because "kickstarter, things are the way they are"etc etc
Honestly it seems that your only goal is to avoid people to have their thing even if it wouldn't affect you.
That's what a crusade it. And I feel pretty sad about you, such despise towards some people you don't even know. But that's the usual internet feud sadly, where reason and discussion give space to the very same "trenches" you keep mentioning (while leading up yours with all your might). Nobody want solo players to play open. On the other hand solo players...

How would any such proposals "make things enjoyable for everybody"?

And again: never proposed that. You keep saying that because it's useful to your personal narrative about this discussion, mostly because deep down you know that diversification would be beneficial to the game. But now you need to win this argument. God knows why. :/

Is that a claim to never have proposed that only players in Open should affect Powerplay and / or BGS?

Spoiler

Just another Open/Private/Solo thread

Hi guys, I know what all of you is thinking about: "Another stupid thread about how everyone should play Open". Well it is not, trust me. In fact I think that every customer of this wonderful game has the right to play it as he likes, even without interacting with other players at all (or just...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Salonica]

Seems to me the whole situationis very binary and one sided, one school of thought related.

For sure, as Mr Maynard states, we have 3 choices, solo, group and open.

The plain as day thing here is if you don't want to be forced into any form of PvP, then you are given 2 other choices; Solo or PvE groups (ala Mobius)


What is being asked for here is that players have another choice. That is play in Open but have the ability to turn off PvP.

That is no great problem, game wise, it already does this. I have seen times when there were bugs that I was playing Solo but could see other commanders. So in the backend, the visibility and therefore tragetable players are simply diferentiated by some flag ala IF statement. If Open then visible, if solo then non visible.

I have yet to see a simple reasoning, why, everyone could not play in open and then decide to have PvP onor off. The only arguements I see are from the PvP side with as yet not one reasonable reason.

Why is it so bad that you could possibly see me, but not be allowed to attack me?

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Is that a claim to never have proposed that only players in Open should affect Powerplay and / or BGS?

2017, 4 years ago. You gotta be pretty obsessed if you had to look for a thread of 4 years ago.

In the meantime I tried to find a way to make things better for as many people as possible, changing a little bit of them in time.

Let's say the worrying part is that you never changed idea in years.

How would any such proposals "make things enjoyable for everybody"?

Simply making people play in a game environment coherent with their gameplay. Which actually is not, for both parts.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Why is it so bad that you could possibly see me, but not be allowed to attack me?

It depends on how you actually play: in Powerplay for example you could simply haul during expansions without opposition and yes it already happens with groups of course.

But why simply not keep using groups then? They seem pretty safe actually...

EDIT

Of course I could answer like Mr. Maynard usually does: it wasn't included in the kickstarter, but honeestly I think that's a pretty weak answer...

 

[Ettanin]

I have yet to see a simple reasoning, why, everyone could not play in open and then decide to have PvP onor off.

The reasoning is simple: They (the gankers) derive their fun from ruining the game for others (that want a peaceful game but without aggression).

The fear is, by giving the players the pond they want their own pond would be abandoned.

They try to marginalize the losses in open mode but fail to realize the effects of hotspots (CGs, engineers, popular bases). Sure, we have solo, we have PGs, but they see the exclusion (by making them switch to solo or pg) or nerf (by forcing them to take defensive builds and negatively affecting efficiency) of peaceful players from open mode a justifed "punishment".

Even greedier gankers want to see solo and pg gone.

To put it straight to the point: PvP only works if both sides of stakes are fair and both sides are balanced. Both factors (stakes and sides) are of course not fairly balanced in ED, the game has a very specific meta and there are options that have no viable counter at all. And that is why PvP focused MMOs and MMO-likes always become a niche - hard to balance, limited audience.

IMHO it would revitalize ED if PvP is entirely optional without the cost of being entirely alone or within a limited subset of all players. All popular MMOs in the past have shown that it works just like that.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I'm under the impression that a lot of people, including myself, prefer to play Solo.

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?

You are correct.

Yes.

Yes.

I used to engage in PvP (lawful or organised, never ganking), and while it was good fun, there were very very few times PvP was actually spontaneous.
If I flew around on my own, I'd likely die instantly if I didn't run, and if I flew with my Squadron and picked off murder hobos, they'd run or die instantly.
So the only real PvP was organised, and not fun, because it lasted too long, with too many rules.

These days I mostly play co-op, or solo. So I mooch around in my PG or Mobious, and co-op play is so much more entertaining than PvP ever was. So yeah, I'd be extremely happy with a no PvP mode.

 

[Rat Catcher]

As if you guys are not forcing others to grind in solo to be most effective.

You do you, pal...
I don't do grind, but don't let that stop you from doing so!

 

[Bard Voronwe]

The reasoning is simple: They derive their fun from ruining the game for others.

Some of them maybe, and I still believe that, as paradoxal it may seem, the coexistence of Open, Private and Solo is a big help to "griefers", because they can grind credits fast and easy in solo to go and do damage in Open after with no consequences at all.

But not every Open Player is a "griefer" you know. There's a great part of players that play the game in groups (Powers or PMFs) that are hurt by the fact that people can do damage in solo with no consequences.

So... what about them? The people damaged by the safety of solo play I mean.

 

[Florenus]

I don't think I ever saw a forum where one discussion repeats itself over and over again so many times.

Sorry but this is total Bee Es. Asking for a change would make people less adult? Dude. Really.

Come on.
It's insulting toward all the people that doesn't think like you. Pretty full of yourself ain't you?

One thing is to dream of your perfect version of a game and hypothesize how it would be - to throw unrealistic proposals around, expecting people to agree that that's how it should change is something different.
There's lots of people who would prefer Elite to be Single player, Offline game. I'm one of those who was disappointed it isn't going to be, when I heard about it. There was plenty of people posting that proposition at the beginning, hoping Frontier would reconsider. Now you rarely see them, because they accepted the facts - no reason to expect this game is going to completely change after years of existence in it's current form.
It is what it is, Frontier committed to certain design (Solo game with indirect influence on BGS and optional Open mode) and not only it will not change - if it would change many people would have every right to feel betrayed, as it would change the core of the game they bought.

 

[Ettanin]

But not every Open Player is a "griefer" you know.

There is no guaranteed option to avoid people who want to force me into PvP without eschewing Open. Unless disabling PvP is a possibility, you won't get the peacefuls and the casuals into Open.

I hope that answers the question of this topic.

 

[Rat Catcher]

But not every Open Player is a "griefer" you know. There's a great part of players that play the game in groups (Powers or PMFs) that are hurt by the fact that people can do damage in solo with no consequences.

They are just pixels, they can't be "hurt"....

 

[Chaparral]

You don't think of the potential of dividing the current crowds (or as I use to call us: "the ones who endure"): you could give two different kinds of game experiences to player, they could even take part to both.

One where PvP is completely optional and doesn't care that much, with the so much desired "Friendly Open Mode", where people can simply play the game in the friendliest way they want.

And one where PvP is a constant variable that the player should always consider.

We'd have back the MANY people that left the game in the years because of the lack of PvP encounters and the ones that left for the undesired PvP component, the Galaxy will seem much more crowded in both the cases because we'd have people playing in an Open Only environment knowing that they can always find people, and on the other Galaxy simply people would probably chose the Open Friendly mode to simply meet people.

This is by the way something I proposed since... forever, maybe.

Two Galaxies, two different CMDRs, then you simply chose in the launcher which one you want connect to (exactly as it happens during beta test periods so nothing new actually).

Honestly your opinion, of course I think it is biased because you are of the "solo party", but think about what I wrote just before: I do not want to force Solo Players to play the game differently, I never wanted to. But don't you think that you are maybe trying to force to Open Players a grindy way that maybe you like but couldn't be appreciated by everybody?

Diversification. We'd have more people because, most of times, it's the things that don't work that matter for a player to chose if sticking on a game.

PG and solo populations added to Open would be a good thing to improve social interaction.

PVP people that "left the game" either left because of broken mechanics or because there were not enough participants.

In either case, adding PVE players to Open would not impact broken mechanics or the population of pvp players.

If you are suggesting that PVE players currently in Open would depart to Open with pvp toggled "off" I think you are ignoring that PG currently exists and is available to those players. The targets that don't want to be targets, are already not targets.

This is a very mature game (several years old).

 

[Bard Voronwe]

They are just pixels, they can't be "hurt"....

Exactly as your ship when it goes kaboom.

 

[Bigmaec]

They are just pixels, they can't be "hurt"....

But THOSE pixels count

 

[Rat Catcher]

Exactly as your ship when it goes kaboom.

Mine does that quite often, thanks...

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Ok let's say nothing must change.

Then your Open no PvP proposal is basically the same as "something open only" proposal.