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

[Old Duck]

I have a confession. I've been tempted to fire up Horizons again, having not played in ages, mainly for the free Christmas Arx. I find myself* asking, "What is there to do?"

Then it dawned on me - I can go blow up some noobs! Boredom is the patron saint of griefers, LOL. Though at least I make it somewhat fair by flying low-tier ships. Heck, I actually let most of my prey go with some percentage of hull left, so I'm not really a proper griefer, more like a house cat playing with a mouse


* as a veteran player who's grown tired of most of the PvE game loops in Horizons.

 

[Mcleansc]

Given Solo already exists, ED isn't purely a combat game and it's implemented so it can't be abused, I see no downsides to a toggle PVP button. Open will be busier and PVP'ers will get more chances to actually PVP.

Prime example: I signed in on my old account a while back to gather mats in a Haz Res. En route someone posted in the chat asking for a PVP. I signed in to do other stuff but thought it lets give it a shot. That was a fight they wouldn't have gotten if I were in Solo. If they had interdicted me Id have just high waked out (I was in my fully engineered Vulture). Despite not doing what I signed in to do it was really fun and the person was very friendly and respectful.

I mean unless you just like throwing your weight around as opposed to a proper fight. In which case of course fight for Open to remain as is. I mean you don't need to attack that fully engineered meta FDL docking in Deciat do you? Nah. Go for that Hauler instead big boy.

 

[Dack Janiels]

I mean you don't need to attack that fully engineered meta FDL docking in Deciat do you? Nah. Go for that Hauler instead big boy.

you may find a lot of players ganking in sidewinders, cobras, adders, and clogging to them vettes and cutters.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Nah, spent a few days in Maia hunting 'goids, decided to come back, heading for Nanomam. Been miserable the whole way there.

But your snide tone tells me you're more on the aggressor end of Open.

May be you've been attacked by powerplayers in Nanomam (besides it is another "popular" system)...

 

[Felix DiCestria]

I want to haul tons with danger in open AND be able to reach the Top 10% in a CG.

I do that on a regular basis.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Really interesting conversation, thanks for raising this one. I'll throw in my two cents.

I can't see a version of Open where PvP can be toggled off, even if there are many who would like to play that way. IMO, it would go against the spirit of Elite and certainly against the idea of "Dangerous". It's also not easily explained through in-game lore.

However, I do sympathise with those who would like to encounter and interact with other players during their sessions without getting killed. Obviously there are private groups for that, but it's understandably not quite same since you could only meet people you already know.

Overall, I think the solution to this would be better coming from adjustments to the crime and punishment system to make sure there are meaningful risks/deterrents in place for non-consensual PvP encounters rather than from a binary PvP on/off toggle.

You're overthinking it. A PvP flag and dedicated PvP zones is the simplest way and serves both player archetypes. Grief free environment and chokepoints/easily identifiable places to meet for mayhem. Decs can also define popular locations as pvp zone to troll the xarebears if it's really of such importance to keep it "dangerous".

 

[Gleitfrosch]

You're overthinking it. A PvP flag and dedicated PvP zones is the simplest way and serves both player archetypes. Grief free environment and chokepoints/easily identifiable places to meet for mayhem. Decs can also define popular locations as pvp zone to troll the xarebears if it's really of such importance to keep it "dangerous".

pvp zones was one of the many mentioned options.
making all anarchy systems pvp and all non anarchy pve is an option, but that would also have a huge impact on the game. While I could live with that, I guess many would be against that idea.
What needs to be considered is that we already have the option to exclude anarchy systems from the routes.

Interesting sidenote is that systems can be turned anarchy by players.

 

[Dack Janiels]

you already have a pve flag, it's called "shields"

 

[Felix DiCestria]

If only these people would realise that they are slowly turning Open into their private shadow server. And once they are done, they'll get bored to death and move on. Next game, next cornfield...

They may be starting to see the effects based on system chat at Paresa and Qarato these past two weeks. However the effects seem to be misinterpreted as "game iz ded lol".
Apparently the swarms of fleet carriers moving around them was too subtle.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

If you hate PvP this much, just don't go into Open. We literally have FD in here saying "no" but here we are, still demanding a change that would basically destroy the very core of the game's big multiplayer mode.

We have two ways to avoid PvP. The onus is on PvE'ers to use them if they hate PvP as much as they do.

But let's not kid ourselves. Spontaneous PvP is one of the core aspects of Open and if you can't stomach that, you should not be in Open, period.

BTW, two randoms killed in Open just a few hours ago by me in my Scorpion, no warnings given. No regrets either. I was laughing my butt off.

 

[Brrokk]

They may be starting to see the effects based on system chat at Paresa and Qarato these past two weeks. However the effects seem to be misinterpreted as "game iz ded lol".
Apparently the swarms of fleet carriers moving around them was too subtle.

A few months ago I saw chat like that at a trade CG, with a "Come to Open and fight us" theme. I tried asking them, "This is a hauling CG, why are you asking people to do combat with you? Obviously they're all busy hauling in this system and won't want to do that."

It was met with blank incomprehension.

 

[NewBlacksmurf]

Really interesting conversation, thanks for raising this one. I'll throw in my two cents.

I can't see a version of Open where PvP can be toggled off, even if there are many who would like to play that way. IMO, it would go against the spirit of Elite and certainly against the idea of "Dangerous". It's also not easily explained through in-game lore.

However, I do sympathise with those who would like to encounter and interact with other players during their sessions without getting killed. Obviously there are private groups for that, but it's understandably not quite same since you could only meet people you already know.

Overall, I think the solution to this would be better coming from adjustments to the crime and punishment system to make sure there are meaningful risks/deterrents in place for non-consensual PvP encounters rather than from a binary PvP on/off toggle.

None of that even touches the concerns of a PvE player.
Those who don’t care to PvP could care less about adjustments to crime and punishment.


Being more specific…if I’m doing whatever (PvE), if my ship or now body/suit were attacked and damaged or blown up, that ruins my gaming experience. There’s literally no amount of crime and punishment changes that would fix or address that simple concern.

Perhaps I can offer other suggestions that would really make a difference.
1. Allow commanders to set specific roles for themselves when they leave a station which then enable or disable certain actions. Imagine a role of explorer that does not allow a commander to equip any weapons but instead is a pre-set of specific modules in outfitting for each ship.

Taking it further, someone who desires to be a pirate would be allowed to equip weapons, however, Fdevs would have to build a user interface where commanders with items on their ship will prompt each to accept or deny a request for goods. After such it either disables any combat if said commanders accept to give up goods. If they decline, then and only then does it allow the pirate to attack up until a ship drops said goods but does not allow the ship to be destroyed unless they fire back.


2. Another role could be a rogue or outlaw who does want to kill and destroy other commanders and other npcs. That role would attract npcs and commanders but freely be allowed to fire at will.

3. A role of passenger and goods transporter would not allow weapons but would allow other modules to sneak in and out of places.

4. Accepting X types of missions also would turn on/off roles so a commander could have more than one role at a time.

To me these are meaningful quality of life changes that would add depth and logic. I’m all for the game being for the elite and being dangerous but as it stands…it’s design encourages griefers and lots of other garbage.

lastly, private server gameplay should have a rule set for the host to allow or deny specific actions.

 

[Dack Janiels]

None of that even touches the concerns of a PvE player.
Those who don’t care to PvP could care less about adjustments to crime and punishment.


Being more specific…if I’m doing whatever (PvE), if my ship or now body/suit were attacked and damaged or blown up, that ruins my gaming experience.

It doesn't ruin your gaming experience but teaches you to improve what you doing wrong and makes you a better player.
with the immortality option you will stuck in echo chamber limbo and less than medicore pilot (which is fine for those who want it, and for them there is an SOLO option to play)

PVE option will also disable piracy gameplay because it is clear that no miner will want to be robbed of cargo and they obviously will fly with pvp off flag.
It will also turn off bounty hunters and 'player driven ATR' because there will be no outlaws since they will only attack those who agree to it.

many paths of playstyle will be eliminated it will turn off a fair number of players just because some don't want to lose a ship/cargo with very minimal effort.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It doesn't ruin your gaming experience but teaches you to improve what you doing wrong and makes you a better player.

That determination is for the target to make, not the attacker (or those who support them).

 

[Dack Janiels]

That determination is for the target to make, not the attacker (or those who support them).

he can make it in several ways: in the menu - by choosing solo/pg option or ignoring attacker by doing a wake from the instance.

it is obvious that many players no want to be attacked, but that's the game and there are ways to avoid it

 

[Brrokk]

It doesn't ruin your gaming experience but teaches you to improve what you doing wrong and makes you a better player.
with the immortality option you will stuck in echo chamber limbo and less than medicore pilot (which is fine for those who want it, and for them there is an SOLO option to play)
...

Disclaimer: I'm not just having a go at you, I think there's something in what you say. But your choice of words here is poor and it dramatises what's really wrong with the way Open players sometimes view Solo players. Your words are a handy example for me to illustrate what's wrong in the thinking of one "side" here.

You or I don't get to choose what will ruin his gaming experience! Only he can decide that.

His definition of "better player" probably differs from yours. He might define "better" as "hauls more cargo" or "earns more credits", or less quantitatively "has more fun". If he's not interested in PvP competition he's unlikely to define it as "shoots straighter" or even "escapes more reliably". Almost certainly, according to his definition of "better player", he's a better player than you or I.

Those who impose their definitions on others and expect them to play to the same standards, not comprehending the reasons for different game choices, are actually the ones in an echo chamber.

When Open players try to come up with schemes to make Open more attractive to those in Solo, I usually try to suggest that the first thing they need to do is understand what those Solo players really want. That's not easy to do, and we rarely see any more than a token effort. In this thread the title and OP was such an attempt, but Solo players' responses haven't really been engaged with.

 

[Dack Janiels]

But your choice of words here is poor and it dramatises what's really wrong with the way Open players sometimes view Solo players. Your words are a handy example for me to illustrate what's wrong in the thinking of one "side" here.

I am not a native English speaker, if you wish we can continue this discussion in my language, I assure you that my choice of words will be much better.

 

[TobiasFuzz]

If some people want more players in open there is only one (almost impossible to implement) solution. Or at least that is what I think of.

All players in open must stick to some "reasonable" and realistic behavior.

Cargo-hauling in open:
A Trader could be relatively safe by transporting some random stuff between random markets. A small pirate threat has always to be excepted, but player pirates are seldom this days
anyway. If you wanted to haul specific goods to a system where to interfere with factions in a war or support a faction that has enemy's, then the trader should expect some resistance or has to sneak behind opposing lines.

Mining in open:
Mining in well known and heavy frequented spots should attract pirates and this threat has to be accepted (its just realistic). Mining far away from known spots or far outside the bubble should be very safe. The chances to get pirated here are not zero, but almost zero. This is also exactly now the case.

Participants in PowerPlay should be willing to accept the threat by opposing Powerplayers of course.

And so on for other activities, you know what I mean. Mindless ganking has to stop. It's just not representing the ED world (in my unimportant opinion) , that 2 Maniacs try to kill you while you just wanted to see the Earth in Sol.

On the other hand no complaining about attacks by anti-slave activists while you support for example Torval Mining.

If a risk in a specific activity and location is reproducible... Then it is part of buisness and has to be accepted.

Just my 5 cents.

 

[Brrokk]

If some people want more players in open there is only one (almost impossible to implement) solution. Or at least that is what I think of.

All players in open must stick to some "reasonable" and realistic behavior.

Cargo-hauling in open:
A Trader could be relatively safe by transporting some random stuff between random markets. A small pirate threat has always to be excepted, but player pirates are seldom this days
anyway. If you wanted to haul specific goods to a system where to interfere with factions in a war or support a faction that has enemy's, then the trader should expect some resistance or has to sneak behind opposing lines.

Mining in open:
Mining in well known and heavy frequented spots should attract pirates and this threat has to be accepted (its just realistic). Mining far away from known spots or far outside the bubble should be very safe. The chances to get pirated here are not zero, but almost zero. This is also exactly now the case.

Participants in PowerPlay should be willing to accept the threat by opposing Powerplayers of course.

And so on for other activities, you know what I mean. Mindless ganking has to stop. It's just not representing the ED world (in my unimportant opinion) , that 2 Maniacs try to kill you while you just wanted to see the Earth in Sol.

On the other hand no complaining about attacks by anti-slave activists while you support for example Torval Mining.

If a risk in a specific activity and location is reproducible... Then it is part of buisness and has to be accepted.

Just my 5 cents.

Best post in this thread so far IMHO.

 

[ethelred]

If some people want more players in open there is only one (almost impossible to implement) solution. Or at least that is what I think of.

All players in open must stick to some "reasonable" and realistic behavior.

Cargo-hauling in open:
A Trader could be relatively safe by transporting some random stuff between random markets. A small pirate threat has always to be excepted, but player pirates are seldom this days
anyway. If you wanted to haul specific goods to a system where to interfere with factions in a war or support a faction that has enemy's, then the trader should expect some resistance or has to sneak behind opposing lines.

Mining in open:
Mining in well known and heavy frequented spots should attract pirates and this threat has to be accepted (its just realistic). Mining far away from known spots or far outside the bubble should be very safe. The chances to get pirated here are not zero, but almost zero. This is also exactly now the case.

Participants in PowerPlay should be willing to accept the threat by opposing Powerplayers of course.

And so on for other activities, you know what I mean. Mindless ganking has to stop. It's just not representing the ED world (in my unimportant opinion) , that 2 Maniacs try to kill you while you just wanted to see the Earth in Sol.

On the other hand no complaining about attacks by anti-slave activists while you support for example Torval Mining.

If a risk in a specific activity and location is reproducible... Then it is part of buisness and has to be accepted.

Just my 5 cents.

This is true! If there is behaviour we need to encourage it must be with carrots, and not sticks.

So, there should be more incentives to pirate and leave your target alive - but also greater reward for succesfully delivering cargo when it's against adversity.

"meaningful PvP", so opportunities either BGS or PP based to engage traders/explorers and fighters from opposing factions.

Hanging around Deciat and using long range rails to pop new CMDRs coming in, is not beneficial for anybody.

Most of these are mode independent - I realise @Robert Maynard loves his "median skill level" argument but some areas of space should be dangerous, properly dangerous irrespective of mode. Like in previous Elite universes.