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

[Helvellyn]

You can fly a shieldless trader in Open if you have the skills to avoid interdiction in the first place.

The "PvP ships aren't compromised" argument is silly when it's kinda in the name that they're PvP ships. They're obviously compromised at exploration and trading.

Likewise a trader is compromised at PvP because it is a trader.

Choose open or don't, but if you choose open and don't outfit or have the skills to back up your big brass balls shieldless T9 at a CG, don't whinge when you get easily popped by a railgun Adder.

It's not rocket science lads.

PvP ships are not compromised because they aren't making compromises for the thing they're built for whilst the "traders should have sufficient shields" means trading ships are being compromised for the things they're built for.

It is not whinging to point this out. It is merely pointing out a weakness in the game design. There should be pros and cons to all. I have no problem with the idea of traders having to decide between running with a bit more protection or more cargo space, and accepting the balance of risk versus reward changing as those factors change. This isn't the case with the PvP build though, the owner of that ship isn't having to decide between two things he wants when he puts it together. A practical reality of having to compromise is good.

 

[Andy13460]

If this is the case then the block list will just become bigger.

BGS and PP are available for everyone, this includes other modes than open. Neither BGS (which is negatively affected by it) nor PP needs PvP to be successful in it.

The only mode that requires PvP is Close Quarter Combat and it is separate from the entire game.

You sure like that block list lol. If you have more than 10 names on it we are never likely to ever see you in open which is probably best for everyone.

 

[ethelred]

PvP ships are not compromised because they aren't making compromises for the thing they're built for whilst the "traders should have sufficient shields" means trading ships are being compromised for the things they're built for.

It is not whinging to point this out. It is merely pointing out a weakness in the game design. There should be pros and cons to all. I have no problem with the idea of traders having to decide between running with a bit more protection or more cargo space, and accepting the balance of risk versus reward changing as those factors change. This isn't the case with the PvP build though, the owner of that ship isn't having to decide between two things he wants when he puts it together. A practical reality of having to compromise is good.

I think PvP ships do have to choose between different things they way, with DPS being the most obvious to defence being the other.

And again, you are not comparing similar activities. An anti trader ship will have different needs to a pure PvP ship. Both of these represent choice and compromise for a pilot choosing this option, no?

 

[Helvellyn]

I think PvP ships do have to choose between different things they way, with DPS being the most obvious to defence being the other.

And again, you are not comparing similar activities. An anti trader ship will have different needs to a pure PvP ship. Both of these represent choice and compromise for a pilot choosing this option, no?

I don't think there is much compromise there, no. Certainly not of the level of a trade ship having to sacrifice cargo space for protection. Although admittedly my PvP experience is pretty peripheral (more in the nature of "avoid it", although that's often been via keeping an eye on hollow markers rather than going in private, although it depends where I am, what I'm flying, and what I'm doing), so I may well be missing things.

Whilst there may be compromises in the actual build between offence and defence I don't see that as quite the same as compromising the purpose of the ship in order to deal with things you run in to that aren't directly part of that purpose. The trade ship needs to consider the risk from combat, the combat ship only considers combat and nothing else in its build.I was thinking more along the lines of a pure combat ship should generally cost money to run, although that has its own fair share of issues (bounty hunting still needs to be a viable career, it's easy enough to change ships etc., money is easily available anyway) so I've not actually got an answer. Probably best to shrug and accept it is what it is at this stage to be honest.

 

[Andy13460]

PvP ships are not compromised because they aren't making compromises for the thing they're built for whilst the "traders should have sufficient shields" means trading ships are being compromised for the things they're built for.

It is not whinging to point this out. It is merely pointing out a weakness in the game design. There should be pros and cons to all. I have no problem with the idea of traders having to decide between running with a bit more protection or more cargo space, and accepting the balance of risk versus reward changing as those factors change. This isn't the case with the PvP build though, the owner of that ship isn't having to decide between two things he wants when he puts it together. A practical reality of having to compromise is good.

The pro's and cons are that PVP ships might interdict and kill traders but they also have to be engineered to deal with other PVP ships interdicting them, we do have to make compromises you just might not be aware of them. We still have to figure DPS we might output against DPS we might receive. It's also back to the original point of the post. If open is truly open you need to engineer to survive all things or not play in open. Its true that for a pvp ship it's easier because there sole engineering purpose is to kill things in open. We shield or hull tank and pick our weapons of choice. After that the most skilful usually win 1v1's. Not always wing fights though as they will usually be focused at the start.

 

[Helvellyn]

It's also back to the original point of the post. If open is truly open you need to engineer to survive all things or not play in open.

Or just avoid a handful of well-known systems, the odds of running in to anyone elsewhere, let alone someone who'll shoot at you, are low.

 

[Ettanin]

You sure like that block list lol. If you have more than 10 names on it we are never likely to ever see you in open which is probably best for everyone.

Or i rob you of victims (i got a dedicated ipv4 address and thus am more likely to be instance host)

 

[ethelred]

Think about it this way.

Any metrics you want for either a trade or PvP ship are going to be different.

A PvP ship want make ship go pop double quick. Lots of choice there whilst remaining a PvP ship. Certain weps have a higher DPS so more kills/hr. That is the choice.

A trade ship is all about cr/hr. A shield will ofc decrease the single run profit, but should they encounter a hostile ship (NPC or CMDR) then overall the cr/hr is higher than a shieldless build. That is the choice.

Both have choices depending on the outcome required.

Ofc, as it stands in solo, a competent pilot can fly shieldless with only the irritation of magical chain interdictions (in supposed high-sec, lol) affecting their cr/hr.

(Likewise a competent pilot can fly an unengineered PvNPC ship and murder to their hearts content for ++kills per hour)

Obviously we can't compare solo to open so a trade ship running a shield in open isn't compromised - it is adapting to the mode choice and making a choice to make the most cr/hr it can.

 

[DANgerous25]

Your example is reasonable, but it doesn't quite fit the situation:

Its more like you're going as a vegetarian to a restaurant with a meat eater, and he ends up trying to force you to also eat meat...

Hehe yes, but like in ED you can leave the restaurant before it gets shoved down your throat if you know how to get to the exit quickly, or you can avoid the restaurant entirely.

 

[Andruxich]

Elite is Dangerous. And it NEEDs to be kept dangerous. Why do carebears want to harass whole pvp community? Its PvE supremacy, do not be like that. Lets live in pease both in PvP and PvE

 

[Robert Maynard]

Elite is Dangerous. And it NEEDs to be kept dangerous.

The danger posed by other players has always been optional in this game.

Lets live in pease both in PvP and PvE

Nice sentiment - however there's no "living in peace" with those who like to shoot at any player whether their targets like it or not.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Honestly, there's no reason Elite couldn't offer you that sort of gameplay.

Powerplay absolutely SHOULD involve high-level strategy of the same sort as Civilization or Chess. Unfortunately, it doesn't; instead it's basically just figuring out the mathematically ideal place to expand.

That's a big direction I'd like to see Powerplay expand.

Powerplay needs to amplify what ED is, in that its a game about flying ships- in this case your ship against others.

In this vein the strategy needs to be light and understandable and not Stellaris. The BGS is a perfect example of decentralised strategy because you have the high level goal (take a system), the strategy (work the BGS) which is broken down into tasks (flying the ship in various ways).

 

[Gleitfrosch]

Elite is Dangerous. And it NEEDs to be kept dangerous. Why do carebears want to harass whole pvp community? Its PvE supremacy, do not be like that. Lets live in pease both in PvP and PvE

That's (almost) total nonsense.

"Needs to be kept dangerous"
- As dangerous as solo mode?

"carebears want to harass whole pvp community"
- currently it's the pvp players who can harass pve player in open. Pve players do not attack pvp players.

"PvE supremacy"
- if there would be a pve supremacy, then open would be pve only.

"Lets live in peace both in PvP and PvE"
- the only part I agree with. Give pvp players a pvp environment and pve player a pve environment.

 

[Andruxich]

The danger posed by other players has always been optional in this game.

Lets think about pvp system in EVE. You lose ship permanentally, when in elite you pay 5(!)% of its cost. Pvp is cheap, as credits farm rate is higher than ever(1-2 bil per day). There are no big damage in PvP, but in PvE. Some player groups develop and distubute "Black Lists" where you can get, even if you once spaken to "griefers"(on their opinion)(and i dont speak about PP PvP protection system). And list already contains OVER 200 PLAYERS IN IT. Pure hate speach! Moreover, they are destroying bgs from private groups, because they have more than 150 Carebears, which are combat log if they accidentally get in open. There are no way to "fight against" them. only thing tou may do is overcarebearing. And this - is logical consequence of private groups ability to affect BGS. All in All, Black lists need to be redeveloped, as they are used as weapon used to harrass large parts of community.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Lets think about pvp system in EVE. You lose ship permanentally, when in elite you pay 5(!)% of its cost. Pvp is cheap, as credits farm rate is higher than ever(1-2 bil per day). There are no big damage in PvP, but in PvE.

This game isn't EVE, nor is it designed to be. While losing a ship incurs a 5% rebuy, the full cost of loss may exceed that by a massive margin, e.g. loss of exploration data or cargo.

Some player groups develop and distubute "Black Lists" where you can get, even if you once spaken to "griefers"(on their opinion)(and i dont speak about PP PvP protection system). And list already contains OVER 200 PLAYERS IN IT. Pure hate speach!

Some player groups develop and distribute KOS lists and lists of alleged "combat loggers".

The block feature was included by Frontier in their multi-player game from the beginning and has only been improved and made easier to use over time.

Moreover, they are destroying bgs from private groups, because they have more than 150 Carebears, which are combat log if they accidentally get in open. There are no way to "fight against" them. only thing tou may do is overcarebearing. And this - is logical consequence of private groups ability to affect BGS. All in All, Black lists need to be redeveloped, as they are used as weapon used to harrass large parts of community.

The BGS belongs to all players - not just those who prefer PvP and play in Open.

Combat logging should be reported - however leaving the game using menu exit is permissible at any time and is not, per Frontier's definition, combat logging.

The way to fight back against any player or group engaged in BGS activities is to engage in BGS activities - while some players want to be able to oppose players using PvP they can't force other players to engage in that optional activity.

I doubt that Frontier will change the block feature, given that they decided to include it in the game in the first place.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Why do carebears want to harass whole pvp community?

They don't. Generally speaking the "carebears" as you so delightfully term people who don't care for PvP are happy to do their thing. Its the PvPers who sometimes feel the urge to try and change the game to suit their desires to the detriment who don't want that sort of game.

 

[Andruxich]

Generally speaking the "carebears" as you so delightfully term people who don't care for PvP are happy to do their thing.

I speak about always whining carebears who accidentially went to open in Deciat, Shinrarta or CG system, died once and have urge to disable pvp and delte it from game completely. Not all carebears are bad, I am a bgs carebear XDD

 

[DemiserofD]

Powerplay needs to amplify what ED is, in that its a game about flying ships- in this case your ship against others.

In this vein the strategy needs to be light and understandable and not Stellaris. The BGS is a perfect example of decentralised strategy because you have the high level goal (take a system), the strategy (work the BGS) which is broken down into tasks (flying the ship in various ways).

It is absolutely a game about flying spaceships, and it definitely needs to be light and understandable for the majority of players, but that doesn't rule out high level strategy. If anything, it does the precise opposite; high-level grand strategy is exactly the sort of thing that brings communities together, and transforms banal gameplay into truly memorable events. Look at EVE online; every one of the most epic moments in that game take place because of grand strategy, not because of individuals flying space ships. People need a REASON to fight, and if all a fight means is one lost system that can be regained next week or next month when the opposition gets bored, nobody cares. By contrast, if one tiny strategic mistake can lead to dozens of systems flipping and changes for months or years, then people will always remain fully invested in the fight!

But before you respond; consider, the gameplay from the average EVE player's perspective isn't high strategy. It's basically just, 'show up and fight'. When you use players as pieces on a board with thousands of similar pieces, that's all they really CAN be; you can't have ten thousand hands on the tiller, or nothing meaningful ever gets done. The average player doesn't need to worry about the grand strategy. And that's okay. They don't need to worry about actually planning it, they just need to recognize that it's important! That their actions, no matter how small and banal they may seem on an individual scale, actually matter!

 

[Rebel Yell]

Combat logging should be reported - however leaving the game using menu exit is permissible at any time and is not, per Frontier's definition, combat logging.

A "menu log" is considered a c-log and a player using that to leave a combat will be v likely kicked out by most of the squadrons without appeal.

 

[DemiserofD]

A "menu log" is considered a c-log and a player using that to leave a combat will be v likely kicked out by most of the squadrons without appeal.

Lol, get out. It's perfectly legitimate, gankers have just waged an aeons-long campaign to pretend/convince people it isn't.

If you can escape via menu logging, you could have escaped legitimately.