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

wrmiller

W
Zajo said:
Im not trying to be a jerk. But when it is already so rare to encounter another commander, there is no need at all for a pvp toggle in open. There is private and solo for that.

Space is huge and it is incredibly simple to avoid other players. I think that people grossly overinflate how often they encounter other people let alone how often they are attacked.
Click to expand...
Try living at Jameson...
 

Darrack

Darrack
Zajo said:
Im not trying to be a jerk. But when it is already so rare to encounter another commander, there is no need at all for a pvp toggle in open. There is private and solo for that.

Space is huge and it is incredibly simple to avoid other players. I think that people grossly overinflate how often they encounter other people let alone how often they are attacked.
Click to expand...
Try doing CGs in open its a PITA with enough Muppets for a complete new series.
The OPs question has been answered many times in this thread, if you want more players in Open a PvP toggle would be an absolute must.
An Open PVE only would be even better.

O7
 

Brrokk

Brrokk
Darrack said:
Try doing CGs in open its a PITA with enough Muppets for a complete new series.
The OPs question has been answered many times in this thread, if you want more players in Open a PvP toggle would be an absolute must.
An Open PVE only would be even better.

O7
Click to expand...
"How can we get more people in Open?"
"Do this..."
"But we don't like this..."
"OK, don't."
"But how can we get more people in Open?"
... continue for 241 pages ...
 

Ettanin

E
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

However, Frontier wants 100% of the potential earnings, not 99.7%. And unless:

current earnings + added earnings by adding a random-pve-friendly option - costs for adding a random-pve-friendly option > current earnings

nothing will happen.

And now, here we are, page 241.
 
Last edited:

Sapient6

S
Ettanin said:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

However, Frontier wants 100% of the potential earnings, not 99.7%. And unless:

current earnings + added earnings by adding a random-pve-friendly option - costs for adding a random-pve-friendly option > current earnings

nothing will happen.

And now, here we are, page 241.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's unlikely to ever come close to working out in favor of creating the option because the dev cost of providing an open pve experience would have to include the cost of maintaining it.

But that's not why we're here almost 250 pages in and still coming back, is it? I was already certain there was no chance of this feature being in the game EVER the first time I replied to the topic (which wasn't even in this particular thread). We've just got to rattle the bars even though we know they're never coming loose.
 

Chaparral

Chaparral
Pretty sure Arthur stated no PVE approach to the game was to be considered, but a revisit of C&P would be worth looking at.

What would an effective C&P look like that promoted both PVE and PVP experiences in Open?
 

Ettanin

E
Chaparral said:
Pretty sure Arthur stated no PVE approach to the game was to be considered, but a revisit of C&P would be worth looking at.

What would an effective C&P look like that promoted both PVE and PVP experiences in Open?
Click to expand...
It won't change a thing about PvErs going to Open because any kind of moderating system using in-game methods is prone to abuse. It will only exacerbate the issues the current iteration brought about.
Only a flag or a dedicated open PvE mode (in which any and all methods harming other players are disabled) will conform to those that go Solo or PGs due to forced PvP
 

wrmiller

W
Felix DiCestria said:
Well Jameson's is a fine institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
Click to expand...
I like being able to build ships, test different configurations, etc., without having to travel around to various stations to get parts. Not sure of the context of your use of the work 'institution' but the station suits me just fine.
 

Felix DiCestria

Felix DiCestria
wrmiller said:
I like being able to build ships, test different configurations, etc., without having to travel around to various stations to get parts. Not sure of the context of your use of the work 'institution' but the station suits me just fine.
Click to expand...
So why stay after you've built the ship?
Why not base your fleet somewhere else if certain locals cause an issue?
Would that preclude you from using Jameson's services when you want?
 

ethelred

ethelred
Chaparral said:
Pretty sure Arthur stated no PVE approach to the game was to be considered, but a revisit of C&P would be worth looking at.

What would an effective C&P look like that promoted both PVE and PVP experiences in Open?
Click to expand...

A reworked C&P system won't encourage more PvE to Open because it's not what PvErs want. Any C&P rework punishes the crime, but it doesn't prevent the crime.

I'm not the target audience, but what might help is NPC Wingrmen, and more co-operative gameplay that is easy to find.

All of those things should be mode agnostic however.
 

TiberiusDuval

T
ethelred said:
A reworked C&P system won't encourage more PvE to Open because it's not what PvErs want. Any C&P rework punishes the crime, but it doesn't prevent the crime.

I'm not the target audience, but what might help is NPC Wingrmen, and more co-operative gameplay that is easy to find.

All of those things should be mode agnostic however.
Click to expand...
Dunno better C&P can work as deterrent.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
ethelred said:
It really won't. Do you think someone in a G5 murderboat isn't going to hang around Deciat because their fine is going to get bigger?
Click to expand...
It depends what form the C&P changes take - if a persistent offender were to be chased out of the system by ATR (or worse) every time they entered then it'd be a bit more inconvenient for them, unlike an ignorable increasing bounty.
 

ethelred

ethelred
Robert Maynard said:
It depends what form the C&P changes take - if a persistent offender were to be chased out of the system by ATR (or worse) every time they entered then it'd be a bit more inconvenient for them, unlike an ignorable increasing bounty.
Click to expand...

Ok. Work this through. I'll need your help here as I am already in Open.

How does a CMDR get a bounty in this instance?

By popping a CMDR.

Subsequently after X or so are popped then they are chased out (leaving aside the mechanics of that for the moment).

The main complaint it appears from CMDRs who don't already play in open is asymmetric combat they can't deal with.

Even in this scenario, that CMDR ends up popped. There's no difference for them.

That is why a C&P rework won't attract more PvE players to Open (IMHO) because the main complaint of Open still exists.

Granted, those CMDRs who already play in Open might feel a little better and be more sanguine about their loss, but they would have felt that anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom