Also you could level up your own skills and play in open without any flags cause you prepared for everything)) and I think games work in that way))
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
With regard to leveling up ones skills - that would require the inclination to play the gank-mini-game with other players who have already honed their skills and meta-engineered their ships (players who face no risk from their targets - as they choose them specifically to present no risk to themselves).
Some players don't want to be bothered by those players - and bought a game where they don't need to be bothered by them.
Who said that the path is easy? Some player's could do mistakes while buying games they imagine one thing but in the reality they get other things. I can buy a and use it only as a clothes hanger. So do I have rights to give a suggestions to developers and what kind of suggestions it would be?
And about the risk... Risk has already been in the game by design. If you want to eliminate risk from the game... You can do it by own just play the game and level up skills. The more you play the more game situations you get the more your skill will level up. Of course we have different playstyles but not every playstyle are suitable for the Elite but ppl didn't think that problem are with them they start complaining about the game. If you cannot play versus ppl why do you think you are good for co-op playing?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While that path may not be easy, there are other routes available to play this game, no matter how much some players might wish that there were not. We don't all need to follow the same path in this game, by design.
Some players did indeed make mistakes - when they bought this game expecting to be able to dominate other players using PvP (in any game feature other than CQC).
Players are, of course, permitted to make suggestions - just as other players are permitted to oppose or disregard those suggestions.
Risk from NPCs, certainly - risk from other players has always been an entirely optional extra that no player needs to take on.
I don't expect that there's a desire among players in general to eliminate risk from the game - however the only unavoidable risk is posed by the game itself, not other players.
Some players who prefer PvP have been complaining about the game design since it was published over nine years ago - the same complaints persist, augmented by others relating to features that have been added since the design was published. Should those players stop complaining as well?
.... because co-op play does not require adversarial PvP.
Everyone knows this already, except those being willfully ignorant or dishonest.
The whole narrative that "this game is about PvP, and that's why Open is de facto PvP" is completely false based on the entire premise the game was deliberately programmed with Solo gameplay- if engagement with other players was even remotely to be requisite then it wouldn't even be possible, whether by cooperative PvE or adversarial PvP.
That's why I cannot fathom the logic of Frontier taking a stance that Open should be "de facto" PvP to begin with, whether by "lore" or not. It makes absolutely no sense logically.
Risk from NPCs is also an entirely optional extra, there's no difference in that. As a matter of fact, risk from NPCs is nearly nonexistent, you need to go out of your way to be able to find anything from NPCs resembling risk.
Some skill is useful though, it's not really fun to play co-op with an NPC level player.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It does seem that Frontier have been quite careful when adding NPCs of increased challenge to the game to make them opt-in. Which likely has a lot to do with the backlash after the bugged NPCs of 2.1 which resulted in a swift reversion.
I expect co-op groups are more forgiving than PvP groups in that respect - with a more inclusive attitude to skill disparity.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Open and Private Groups are PvP enabled simply because players can shoot at anything they instance with - it's the easiest implementation.
DBOBE talked of the challenge to remove all possible PvP vectors in an "Open-PvE" game mode in the Engineers launch stream - effectively ruling it out.
It's a completely different game.
I don't really go in for combat much in this game. I can't usually be bothered with fixed weapons; I don't think real spaceships would cripple themselves like that. (I am "gud" with them: I played the original Elite when we didn't even have micro-gimballing or any yaw control). I find the flight model "magic treacle" a very poor representation of space flight. I consider a meta PvP ship actually useless for playing the game: it has poor jump range and tiny cargo capacity, so I've never bothered to build one.
But I really like co-op opportunities. Poking around Guardian ruins, doing wing missions, chatting with people met at quest locations, getting into a Thargoid base, fighting Thargoids in a wing - all great times, when no scum players try to mess things up.
I remember posting my lightweight-hull cargo-carrier long-jump Anaconda build some years ago. Harry Potter commented, "I could melt that in 30 seconds". I replied, "Yes, but you probably won't. It's for PvE play." (Later, when he was prominent in DG2, I added him to block to change "probably" to "definitely"). See, I just wasn't playing the same game as him.
This is a sandbox; you can play however you like. "Blaze your own trail".
Exactly, "easy to implement" doesn't mean it's entirely logical.
At release, this game was intentionally meant for a player to be able to engage with the game itself without ever engaging with another player. If playing with others was ever intended to be requisite, then it wouldn't have Solo at all. (which is my point)
Avoiding dealing with the "problem" doesn't justify post-haste the fact the "problem" wasn't solved. The "problem" of course, how to justify the narrative of the "Dangerous" bit in a game as "engagement with other players" and still have Solo all the while.
"Dangerous" doesn't mean other players. Never has, never will.
Open IS de facto PvP. There is no way, no rule, no mechanic that prevents PvP. It is technically a PvP mode with a label "Open" to trick players into believing they can have a grief-free experience. It's the minimum effort of a MP environment design that tries to protrait itself as a mode for everyone while it is impossible to be that.
I never argued that it wasn't de facto PvP.
The argument is that the narrative of retconning lore is trying to justify the conclusion which isn't supported by the facts.
The fact is - the game was deliberately programmed with Solo play in mind, too. You can't have a requisite of "Dangerous = Other players" in a game where engagement with other players is entirely optional.
Understand?
is optional for all and yet still some malding when it happens
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
... also when the intended target doesn't stick around (legally, of course).
Not familiar with the block function then?
Because you can dramatically reduce the chance for PvP over time by simply blocking known PvP'ers and those unknowns you meet along the way.
Ironically, it's the PvP players themselves who've whined about the existence of Solo yet insist the game's name is why de facto PvP exists in Open who help galvanize the argument itself. If they'd kept quiet instead of whinging on about it, more players may have actually bought into the idea.
But alas, logical fallacy is a logical fallacy.
Amusing, isn't it?
"Over time" is the keyword. If I want to play PvE I certainly dont want to spend a month setting up a blocklist until I can count on a somewhat suitable environment. Not that I'd do it anyway, because if I play a game I can't be bothered with some meta admin upkeep - I like to play my games out the box.
I setup a pair of alt accounts and sent them round the Winking Cat caches to accelerate their development. The first did the first 3 or 4 before joining up with my Main carrier.
The second did the whole route in open in the starting Sidewinder over the 27th and 28th (in a noobwinder it's a lot of jumps especially if you forget you start with economical plotting) encountering 50 other cmdrs including a couple of clown faces.
No interdictions or shooting occurred with either.
The second did the whole route in open in the starting Sidewinder over the 27th and 28th (in a noobwinder it's a lot of jumps especially if you forget you start with economical plotting) encountering 50 other cmdrs including a couple of clown faces.
No interdictions or shooting occurred with either.