To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Just giving an exaggerated example to make a point. Been playing the game since beta. Not really into trading though, only traded more than more than 12b so far10-100 jumps for a trade route?
Where are you going, Colonia?
I take it you don't have much experience trading.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If Open became the only game mode then those who continued to play would be forced to play in it - that's the basis of this latest iteration of the proposal - and as Open is a PvP enabled game mode then players would therefore be forced to play among other players who may choose to attack them. While some opine that switching modes breaks their vision of gameplay, other opinions naturally vary - including Frontier's, as they included the three game modes, single shared galaxy state and mode switching in their design information published at the start of the Kickstarter, then went on to develop and release that game (knowing full well that there were those who had disagreed with their position regarding the optional nature of other players from the outset).
Last edited:
and which is why the developers, if they wish to do a open mode only, can do clever mechanics as only allowing PVP on certain types of systems. That way you would not feel that the person beside you can attack you anytime if you don't consent on PVP.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
DBOBE ruled out a PvE game mode in the Engineers launch stream, years ago, as requiring a significant amount of work to remove all possible ways for CMDRs to directly affect each other. Systems where PvP would be disabled would rely on that functionality being in place - which it seems very unlikely to be, given the aforementioned statement.
Never say never, but, given that all players have bought a game where other players are optional and most of those players who chose to buy the game don't get involved in PvP, it seems obvious, this late in the game's development, that the developer does not "wish to do an open mode only".
Last edited:
Nice 262 pages of literally nothing.
Congratz to all.
Congratz to all.
Ok say I'm doing a long range trade run (8 jumps tops) and I am really unlucky and there's 2 systems I want to avoid on route. Plotting around them possibly requires 1 extra jump each time so 8 becomes 10.
Everyone cuts the corner.
Pirates hung around the headlands because trade routes all bunch up there.
I don't like open.
About take the direct route or take the longer detour, that could already be done so it works in game modes, equally well. So everything to make this happen, is already in place in the game, FDev only needs to use it, and tailor the response form the game to fit this new rule set. Like flying through anarchy systems should be much more challenging than flying through high security system for example. As the game do not really care where you are, or what the security rating of the system is, sure the response time of the authority ships is governed by this, and there is no help arriving in anarchy systems, but other than that, you are not really more or less likely to be attacked by a pirate.. but it would make much more sense, that flying an unshielded cargo ship you would fly in high security systems, and mostly avoid anarchy systems. so if the game would add these kind of dynamic adaptation how to respond to player activities, then the route you choose, could matter greatly. and this would fit how other games have different enemy levels on various zones, so if you are just a lowly level 5 and trying to run through that level 25 zone, you would most likely find yourself one shot by just about anything. Now we do not have levels in Elite, but we could treat Anarchy systems as much more challenging places to be, and just as level 5 players learns fast that entering a level 25 zone was a bad idea, Elite Dangerous players would learn that Anarchy systems would be a very different experience. So this would now have no big difference on what game you are in, as the dangerous comes from the security level of the system.
So no need to add the PvP card, the game can just fine create this challenge for the majority of players without having to force them to accept unwanted PvP.
Now, we can expand on this, just as anarchy systems are more dangerous, once you have learned how to deal with that, you can now consider a criminal career, and take new anarchy missions that will have you go to medium and high security systems and do unlawful things, like steal stuff, commit murder etc. and we can now scale the security response to these blatant disregard for the laws and scale up the response. creating a new level of challenge for players. and the more criminal activities you do in any given system, the more dangerous it gets, and all of this without involving any unwanted PvP...
so no, PvP is not need for most players to get a challenge, most of this stuff should already be in the game, FDev just need to use allow the game to respond to what the player does and where the player do it.
add to this the rapid decline of anarchy systems, due to how the BGS and material gathering works today, that create a very hostile environment for anarchy systems. Anarchy systems should not lose any standing due to having ships/settlement raided, it is after all a lawless system, where the one with the bigger stick takes what they want, until they face someone with a bigger stick...
but we are forgetting about all the low security system, these should, for the most part, also be a place for criminals to conduct their business, relatively unhindered...
And here's an interesting sequel.
It seems to me that the question has not been raised before in this form.
And it fits the subject very well.
Flying in the last CG in the open game, I wondered how I can resist gankers in the link?
I can not even run away since one of their ships has a silencer FSD.
I would like to hear a good answer, not if you are a single player forget about interacting with other players and play only in single game.
It turns out in the context of the topic single players have no access to interact with other peaceful players.
It seems to me that the question has not been raised before in this form.
And it fits the subject very well.
Flying in the last CG in the open game, I wondered how I can resist gankers in the link?
I can not even run away since one of their ships has a silencer FSD.
I would like to hear a good answer, not if you are a single player forget about interacting with other players and play only in single game.
It turns out in the context of the topic single players have no access to interact with other peaceful players.
FWIW, someone popped my unarmed T-9 at the last Colonia bridge CG. The shields and hull held up pretty well, but I could not highwake as the player shut down my FSD everytime I tried to jump. I guess using engineered dumbfires or Grom bombs. In the hope of countering this I've mounted two point defences, but I've haven't had the same situation, so don't know if this was the solution. Maybe worth a try..
Those with Grom bombs usually seem to match them with packhounds so point defence is overwhelmed.
ECM is considered the better option in this case.
The GBs are dumbfire so it's better to spoil their aim with a ram attempt.
ECM is considered the better option in this case.
The GBs are dumbfire so it's better to spoil their aim with a ram attempt.
Last edited:
Do you know if it's possible to defend against this?
If you can't highwake and you can't shoot back, prospects are a bit dim in a cargo ship in open..
If there is no way to counter, then maybe it's indeed better to haul in solo, though doing it in open adds some excitement to an otherwise pretty boring activity. I've also added a double engineered jump drive in the hope that it might help, but the ship runs really hot as I didn't add a modification to it, as fdev still didn't tell us that it's ok to mod them.
If you can't highwake and you can't shoot back, prospects are a bit dim in a cargo ship in open..
If there is no way to counter, then maybe it's indeed better to haul in solo, though doing it in open adds some excitement to an otherwise pretty boring activity. I've also added a double engineered jump drive in the hope that it might help, but the ship runs really hot as I didn't add a modification to it, as fdev still didn't tell us that it's ok to mod them.
I tried the double-engineered FSD in my T9. I think it would help against the Grom bombs discussed here, but the heating effects are bad in a ship which runs hot anyway. I've given up on it.Do you know if it's possible to defend against this?
If you can't highwake and you can't shoot back, prospects are a bit dim in a cargo ship in open..
If there is no way to counter, then maybe it's indeed better to haul in solo, though doing it in open adds some excitement to an otherwise pretty boring activity. I've also added a double engineered jump drive in the hope that it might help, but the ship runs really hot as I didn't add a modification to it, as fdev still didn't tell us that it's ok to mod them.
The best defence is probably an FSD with at least G3 Faster Boot Sequence mod. You lose some jump range, with with G5 you get -80% reset time. Also a good idea to have a couple of MRPs.
Yes, it would help, and I find overheating isn't a problem with an armoured PP.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
is overheating really such a problem when you have to get out of Dodge? I have a double engineered FSD on my t9 and yes it's true sometimes alarms are going off and there are sparks and smoke.... but (touch wood) I have not blown up due to it yet and repairs don't cost that much. certainly better than getting got by a murder hobo
Does this help the FSD against grom bombs and engineered dumbfires?