How Open-only would balance ED

[Robert Maynard]

The OP's disclaimer set's the tone; 'not an Open only argument', and yet the thread immediately devolves into the aggressively propagated zeitgeist.

Probably because the disclaimer was followed by "It would also bring legitimate PvP piracy (something I enjoy), and yes, ganking", the latter being something that not all would agree is a "good thing™". Then someone suggested removing Solo, again unsurprising in a thread titled "How Open-only would balance ED" (regardless of any disclaimer).

.... who show up and twist every thread like this into bad faith arguments about 'open vs solo'

What constitutes a "bad faith" argument regarding "open vs solo"?

.... or a "good faith" argument for that matter?

and 'PvP = ganking'...

For some, their only experience of PvP is being ganked. Those attacking often don't seem to care if the target enjoys the encounter. Not all PvP is ganking, of course - and I expect that a not insignificant number of players enjoy engaging in PvP with those who also enjoy PvP.

 

[Stealthie]

If the game was Open-only, these lines would force players to spread out and accept less than the perfect exchange rates in trade, thus bringing balance to the game. It would also bring legitimate PvP piracy (something I enjoy), and yes, ganking, which would also balance the game. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, heck it's not a solution at all (modes are here to stay), but I do think that a large contributor to the success of all these gold rushes is that we can create our own private realities where we don't have to deal with long lines, criminals, and other realistic challenges. And because of this, I do think the game is less than what it could be.

And yet, here I am trading in the safety of a PG / Solo, so I guess I want a FC more than I want realism at the moment, LOL.

Standing in a queue waiting to be shived isn't the gameplay I'm looking for, but I'm sure someone will disagree

There ya go.
That didn't take long.

Simple fact is, ED allows for a diverse array of gameplay and Open-Only is likely to hinder almost every aspect of gameplay aside from PvP.

Trouble is, ED fails spectacularly to regulate player behaviour via in-game means so players who want to do stuff other than PvP are always likely to opt for PGs or Solo.

Sure, ED isn't real-life but real-life does allow people to go and find places where they can participate in a war or become a criminal kingpin but it also allows people to earn an honest living in relative safety or just potter about minding their own business.
Open-Only should never happen until ED finds a way to replicate that real-life paradigm.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
The OP's disclaimer set's the tone; 'not an Open only argument', …

The title of this thread is "How Open-only would balance ED". The OP made it a thread about modes with the title. It's a little bizarr to think that saying "Open-only would balance ED" and then claim it's not a "Open-only" argument turns it into something different. What else should it be? The proposed solution is "Open-only". It really requires a lot of bending of words to come to the conclusion that "Open-only would balance ED" is not about Open-only.

 

[Screemonster]

For some, their only experience of PvP is being ganked. Those attacking often don't seem to care if the target enjoys the encounter.

This is one of the things that comes up in open-PvE and pvp-flagging arguments - when it boils down to it, the vast majority of the time the only encounter that most people really have a problem with is a truly random gank out of nowhere. People that are merely pirated and log out the instant they're interdicted, while technically legal according to the game rules, are generally viewed as poor sports that should be doing their business in private if they're going to mash escape the instant they run into another player.

A pvp-flagging system or mode doesn't have to completely prevent any and all possible negative interactions, it only has to make random murderhoboing ineffective.

 

[Stealthie]

This is one of the things that comes up in open-PvE and pvp-flagging arguments - when it boils down to it, the vast majority of the time the only encounter that most people really have a problem with is a truly random gank out of nowhere. People that are merely pirated and log out the instant they're interdicted, while technically legal according to the game rules, are generally viewed as poor sports that should be doing their business in private if they're going to mash escape the instant they run into another player.

A pvp-flagging system or mode doesn't have to completely prevent any and all possible negative interactions, it only has to make random murderhoboing ineffective.

Sorry but that's a complete non-starter so you might as well forget about it.

It was often argued that the biggest issue with a "PvP flag" system would be the lack of immersion, where you'd have people flying around, apparently oblivious to the mayhem going on around them.
That's a fair point but it's one that FDev might decide to overlook as part of their recent "dumbing down" of the game.

The real issue would be related to abuse of any "PvP flag" system.
Suitable ships, with their "PvP flag" disabled, could almost certainly be used to cause chaos without firing a single shot - and without risk of harm.

EDIT

I should say, I'm not opposed to the idea of a "PvP flag" system.
I'm simply skeptical of the possibility of creating one that can't be subverted maliciously.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is one of the things that comes up in open-PvE and pvp-flagging arguments - when it boils down to it, the vast majority of the time the only encounter that most people really have a problem with is a truly random gank out of nowhere. People that are merely pirated and log out the instant they're interdicted, while technically legal according to the game rules, are generally viewed as poor sports that should be doing their business in private if they're going to mash escape the instant they run into another player.

At the onset of the interdiction there's no disctinction between a ganker and a real pirate.

Arguably ganking is technically legal according to the game rules even is some view gankers as poor sports who should be seeking targets that actually pose a challenge.

A pvp-flagging system or mode doesn't have to completely prevent any and all possible negative interactions, it only has to make random murderhoboing ineffective.

For a PvP-flagging system to be effective it needs to stop PvP. Anything else wouldn't be worth the effort.

 

[iFred]

Why is that? Even if there were just 10 CMDR in an instance, that can create enough traffic to make some CMDRs seek alternative stations to trade in (especially when they are all flying T9s and Cutters that clog up the mailslot).

And what does make you think that there are not 20 concurrent "open" instances at the same place? Especially when you have no idea of the matchmaking routines - something like seperate instances for Asians, Europeans and Americans?

I see the point of the OP - we had that kind of discussion from the beginning. The discussions will not stop, even if powerplay is made open only, as long as you have a slight chance of being throwed into a second/third/whatever instance and the undermining will take place in an instance where you dont have access to. You will still start to moan about cheaters, bots and everything.

Technically it will not work. Thats the end of discussion.

A better idea to save powerplay - in my opinion - is to make all stats available on a seperate website, like "cmdr xy just brought 100 xy of z from A to B" so that you can react in real time. But regarding that I have lost every hope in FD - that webservice based asynchronous design of that game will certainly not help.

For whatever reason Frontier is afraid of creating and providing realtime data, either regarding the BGS or Powerplay. Both would add a lot to this game.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The only solution is for FD to spin off a separate server which is open only. The existing server remains the same.

Those who want open only can have it. Those who are fine with modes can have them.

 

[Screemonster]

For a PvP-flagging system to be effective it needs to stop PvP. Anything else wouldn't be worth the effort.

Perfection is the enemy of progress.
Refusing to do anything that won't completely stop any and all possible negative behaviour is how nothing gets done.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Perfection is the enemy of progress.

Quite.

Refusing to do anything that won't completely stop any and all possible negative behaviour is how nothing gets done.

A good start would be to disable all damage from player weapons / ramming, etc..

 

[Screemonster]

Quite.

A good start would be to disable all damage from player weapons / ramming, etc..

Even in conflict zones?

Wanted players? Imagine the salt if harry potter turned off his PvP flag and just sat in front of a bunch of would-be bounty hunters, untouchable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Even in conflict zones?

Wanted players? Imagine the salt if harry potter turned off his PvP flag and just sat in front of a bunch of would-be bounty hunters, untouchable.

It would annoy some players - probably better to institute an Open-PvE mode so those who would fly PvP-on wouldn't get annoyed.

 

[Stealthie]

The only solution is for FD to spin off a separate server which is open only. The existing server remains the same.

Those who want open only can have it. Those who are fine with modes can have them.

And you know how that suggestion would go down, right?

Spoiler

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AcademicUnconsciousAnkole-small.gif

Said it before but, personally, I'd like to see C&P developed to the point where systems were as safe as their designations imply.
A player who makes the effort to stick to high/medium security systems would be almost entirely safe from attack while anybody who visited anarchies did so at their own risk.
That would be far more organic and immersive but it'd also be hard work to implement.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And you know how that suggestion would go down, right?

Yeah, i know. Because a good proportion of open only advocates:

a) Don't want to be separated from easy targets, they don't want opponents who will shoot back.
b) They would loose access to PG/solo, which many are more than happy to switch to (despite advocating open only) when it suits their needs.

 

[Riverside]

For a PvP-flagging system to be effective it needs to stop PvP. Anything else wouldn't be worth the effort.

Whether it's worth the effort is subjective.

I favour a PvP flag that enables meaningful PvP: BGS inf-like points. Without the flag set player interaction would still work just as it does now, but it wouldn't count for points.

The idea is that it provides a reason to PvP and reduces the 'ganking for boredom' excuse.

It avoids all the immersion breaking stuff of a PvE flag while still providing an improvement to both PvPers & PvEers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Whether it's worth the effort is subjective.

Indeed.

I favour a PvP flag that enables meaningful PvP: BGS inf-like points. Without the flag set player interaction would still work just as it does now, but it wouldn't count for points.

Not a PvP-flag in the usual sense then.

.... it'd probably also be abused - as players could collude to earn "BGS inf-like points" in non-contested encounters.

The idea is that it provides a reason to PvP and reduces the 'ganking for boredom' excuse.

It avoids all the immersion breaking stuff of a PvE flag while still providing an improvement to both PvPers & PvEers.

It'd likely make little difference to those disinterested in PvP as those intent on attacking soft targets would still do so - flag set or not.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

There is no legitimate priracy.

 

[Riverside]

Indeed.

Not a PvP-flag in the usual sense then.

.... it'd probably also be abused - as players could collude to earn "BGS inf-like points" in non-contested encounters.

It'd likely make little difference to those disinterested in PvP as those intent on attacking soft targets would still do so - flag set or not.

You are making up objections based on nothing but subjective negativity

A PvE flag (one that disables PvP) has several significant downsides that would adversely affect the game for some playstyles.

A PvP flag (one that enables meaningful PvP) has no downside over what we currently have. Any abuse of the flag would be actions that can already be done in the game anyway, unless I'm missing something

 

[Stealthie]

Indeed.

Not a PvP-flag in the usual sense then.

.... it'd probably also be abused - as players could collude to earn "BGS inf-like points" in non-contested encounters.

It'd likely make little difference to those disinterested in PvP as those intent on attacking soft targets would still do so - flag set or not.

Ironically, I suppose, IF a "PvP flag" system was only used to ignore PvP, I guess everybody who isn't interested in PvP should be in favour of it.
I mean, if I'm just intent on mining or trading or exploring then I can just un-set my PvP flag and not give two poops whether or not the system is being abused by PvPers in order to avoid consequences and/or retrubution or just to interfere with PvP.
None of that, as a PVE player, would be my problem.

Trouble is, of course, that it's not how a "PvP flag" system would be misused.
As with everything else, the main abuse of it would be for griefers to use as a tool to inflict themselves on others.

Which is why a "PvP flag" system should never, ever, be adopted... unless there's 100% certainty that it cannot be used to harass PvE players.

How about setting it up so that setting your PvP flag immediately takes you out of any instance where there's players who don't have their PvP flag set?
I can predict how popular that'll be too.

 

[Stealthie]

A PvP flag (one that enables meaningful PvP) has no downside over what we currently have. Any abuse of the flag would be actions that can already be done in the game anyway, unless I'm missing something

If the best argument in favour of implementing a new system is "Well, it won't be any worse than the current system" then it's probably not worth implementing.

I'd like to think we set our standards a bit higher, especially when the "current system" is actually no system at all.