I’d like more commanders in the Open

[Robert Maynard]

This is strange to me. Your view on this is very binary.

After over seven years of the same types of requests / proposals / demands / incredulity that the game does not revolve around PvP, I would characterise my response as lacking the sympathy I initially had for those who are disappointed that the game doesn't contain a feature that forces players to engage in PvP. The game design was published long ago and Frontier's stance does not seem to have changed regarding the optional nature of PvP with respect to players experiencing and affecting the galaxy.

I didn't say my solution must be the end all solution. I said it was a possibility. If you disagree, please provide input on what we could do better instead. I think that all players should have access to open without fear of having their experience ruined. Do you disagree?

I'd suggest that there are many ways for a determined player to attempt to ruin the experience of those disinclined to engage in PvP - and that, for the same reasons Frontier mentioned, it's unlikely to be achieved.

If PvP gating is so out of the question, what should we do instead? Thats all I'm asking. I don't disagree that my idea was bad, I disagree that nothing should be done because my idea was bad. Does that make sense? You seem to have a plethora of knowledge on this subject, I would love to hear a potential solution from you if I could. I will watch the video in the meantime!

I have previously offered the opinion that any Open only content should be new to the game and would not reasonably affect the gameplay of any player in Solo or Private Groups.

 

[Oscore]

I have previously offered the opinion that any Open only content should be new to the game and would not reasonably affect the gameplay of any player in Solo or Private Groups.

Alright we're getting somewhere! This is a good idea I think, but I think along with this new PvP open content should come protections for all the other activities. As noted, a PvP flag is out of the question. I will admit I am not sure what could be done in that regard though. Is disabling player damage really that difficult to do? I'd be fine with, say getting rammed to death in stations. This is still a reduction in the amount of times someone will get killed in open. No more gank squads interdicting and seal clubbing, right?

So there'd a place for people who want to PvP, and safety for people who do not. Thats my goal.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Alright we're getting somewhere! This is a good idea I think, but I think along with this new PvP open content should come protections for all the other activities. As noted, a PvP flag is out of the question. I will admit I am not sure what could be done in that regard though. Is disabling player damage really that difficult to do? I'd be fine with, say getting rammed to death in stations. This is still a reduction in the amount of times someone will get killed in open. No more gank squads interdicting and seal clubbing, right?

So there'd a place for people who want to PvP, and safety for people who do not. Thats my goal.

Players who eschew PvP already have access to all game features in either Solo or Private Groups (Wings and Multi-Crew being absent from Solo, of course).

Not all players are PvP-tolerant to the extent that they want to play among those who ram, etc..

There will always be ganks squads and seal clubbing - the details of the method may change - but they are nothing if not inventive in pursuit of their preferred play-style.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

Alright we're getting somewhere! This is a good idea I think, but I think along with this new PvP open content should come protections for all the other activities. As noted, a PvP flag is out of the question. I will admit I am not sure what could be done in that regard though. Is disabling player damage really that difficult to do? I'd be fine with, say getting rammed to death in stations. This is still a reduction in the amount of times someone will get killed in open. No more gank squads interdicting and seal clubbing, right?

So there'd a place for people who want to PvP, and safety for people who do not. Thats my goal.

The potential mechanics of actually removing the ability for a player to directly or indirectly harm another player have been exhaustively explored elsewhere. I'll simply say that there would be so many little contingencies to plan for and loopholes to close that to actually subtract PvP from a multiplayer setting would be game-breaking and far more trouble than it's actually worth.

Clicking on a mode other than open is an option currently available, and you won't notice a shred of difference in 99.9% of the Bubble.

Outfitting properly and learning evasive skills are more of an investment, but the reward of being able to play in open worry-free pays dividends of its own nature.

 

[M00ka]

Players who eschew PvP already have access to all game features in either Solo or Private Groups (Wings and Multi-Crew being absent from Solo, of course).

Not all players are PvP-tolerant to the extent that they want to play among those who ram, etc..

There will always be ganks squads and seal clubbing - the details of the method may change - but they are nothing if not inventive in pursuit of their preferred play-style.

Very true - those that get their enjoyment by upsetting others will always find a way. Even if PvP is removed from the game these players will find some new mechanic, some new trick to extract salt from their victims.

 

[Oscore]

Alright this reply is for all three of you because it'd get a bit too cluttered quoting you all!

So... we should do nothing because a bunch of psychopaths will find a way? No effort at all should be made to mitigate their ability to be terrible people?

How is this remotely helpful to anyone to believe? Even if its true, and I am ultimately wrong, how are you so certain that the effort is pointless? Seems like a defeatist attitude to me. Other games have a better situation then we do. I'd argue the PvP systems of WoW for example are still superior to ED. We should be pushing for the best possible, not the utter elimination of the problem. If thats truly the standard you guys have then, yeah, we will never find a solution. Lets just try to make it better! Why be content?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why be content?

.... because, as designed, the game permits any player to choose to play among them, or not, on a session by session basis while being able to access all game features in more than one game mode.

 

[Oscore]

.... because, as designed, the game permits any player to choose to play among them, or not, on a session by session basis while being able to access all game in more than one game mode.

I'm disappointed, that is a rather weak point. People shouldnt be afraid to go into open because of a few bad apples. A solution should be made, and to be content is counter to my goals. It should to counter to yours as well.

The fact that solo exists is not a true solution to the PvP issue. It is a ineffective bandaid that robs people of a complete experience.

 

[Isaiah Evanson]

And the same people complaining about getting shot now will complain about the lack of rare goods/undiscovered worlds/resources/some other thing. If if isn't ship to ship combat, it'll be BGS. If it isn't BGS, it may be some future feature that allows for player owned structures to be attacked. I'm already expecting people to scream bloody murder if fleet carriers can be attacked and driven off.

What some people seem to want is a game devoid of adversity. The shared nature of the game universe across three modes makes this impossible.

If that's what you're after, I recommend No Man's Sky, because you won't find that in Elite, even in solo play.

 

[M00ka]

Alright this reply is for all three of you because it'd get a bit too cluttered quoting you all!

So... we should do nothing because a bunch of psychopaths will find a way? No effort at all should be made to mitigate their ability to be terrible people?

How is this remotely helpful to anyone to believe? Even if its true, and I am ultimately wrong, how are you so certain that the effort is pointless? Seems like a defeatist attitude to me. Other games have a better situation then we do. I'd argue the PvP systems of WoW for example are still superior to ED. We should be pushing for the best possible, not the utter elimination of the problem. If thats truly the standard you guys have then, yeah, we will never find a solution. Lets just try to make it better! Why be content?

For starters, the 'bunch of psychopaths' only makes up a very small percentage of the PvP community (as we are continually told here), and that PvP community only makes up a small percentage of the overall player community. Nevertheless, they paid for the game and have the same rights to play the game their way as you and I have to play the game our way. Nothing they are doing is illegal under the terms of the game so that stick can't be used.

It basically boils down to this: why should FD cater exclusively to you and redesign the game to cater for your unique playing style over some purple haired player who plays the game differently to you. FD have already given an easy solution for those who don't want to participate in any form of PvP - Open and PG's. Look I don't have a lot of time for the gankers and griefers here, even been known to call them the odd derogatory name now and again, but I also realise they have as much right to play this game their was as I have playing it mine.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

Alright this reply is for all three of you because it'd get a bit too cluttered quoting you all!

So... we should do nothing because a bunch of psychopaths will find a way? No effort at all should be made to mitigate their ability to be terrible people?

How is this remotely helpful to anyone to believe? Even if its true, and I am ultimately wrong, how are you so certain that the effort is pointless? Seems like a defeatist attitude to me. Other games have a better situation then we do. I'd argue the PvP systems of WoW for example are still superior to ED. We should be pushing for the best possible, not the utter elimination of the problem. If thats truly the standard you guys have then, yeah, we will never find a solution. Lets just try to make it better! Why be content?

Perhaps if you moved on from the attitude that people who play a video game a certain way are mentally ill and morally repugnant, you'd see that the solutions of either gitting gud or clicking on the mode best suited for your sensibilities are options that have been available to you all along.

 

[Oscore]

For starters, the 'bunch of psychopaths' only makes up a very small percentage of the PvP community (as we are continually told here), and that PvP community only makes up a small percentage of the overall player community. Nevertheless, they paid for the game and have the same rights to play the game their way as you and I have to play the game our way. Nothing they are doing is illegal under the terms of the game so that stick can't be used.

It basically boils down to this: why should FD cater exclusively to you and redesign the game to cater for your unique playing style over some purple haired player who plays the game differently to you. FD have already given an easy solution for those who don't want to participate in any form of PvP - Open and PG's. Look I don't have a lot of time for the gankers and griefers here, even been known to call them the odd derogatory name now and again, but I also realise they have as much right to play this game their was as I have playing it mine.

I never said it should cater to me. I play in open bud, and I'm fine with being blown up. You're just assuming because you're likely used to arguing with the victims, not an advocate. Hell, as stated before if it were up to me certain tasks should be locked in PvP, and that would screw me over. I said it because I thought it would be more fair, not personally beneficial to me.

And their fun is not more important than the majority. FD should cater to the majority. That is what I advocate for!

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm disappointed, that is a rather weak point. People shouldnt be afraid to go into open because of a few bad apples. A solution should be made, and to be content is counter to my goals. It should to counter to yours as well.

The fact that solo exists is not a true solution to the PvP issue. It is a ineffective bandaid that robs people of a complete experience.

It's not that people are necessarily afraid of playing a video game in the comfort of their home - it's that at least some of them find PvP to be a tedious waste of their precious game time. My goal does not involve changing the game to PvP-gate game content. Given the perceived difficulty expressed by DBOBE in removing PvP from a game mode, I doubt that PvP-flagging will happen in Open - and I strongly suspect that a not insignificant portion of the player-base would not want it to happen to their preferred game mode in the first place.

Solo is one solution to the PvP issue - as PvP is impossible there. It does lack other players though. Private Groups are another - although one should be careful who one permits to play in the PG - and some toggleable rules would help somewhat:

For PvP:

• Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable weapon healing effects? [yes/no]
• Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
• Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]
• Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]

For PvE:

• Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
• Kick player on attacking another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Kick player on destroying another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]

For all play-styles:

• Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And their fun is not more important than the majority. FD should cater to the majority. That is what I advocate for!

.... and one Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP....

 

[Oscore]

Perhaps if you moved on from the attitude that people who play a video game a certain way are mentally ill and morally repugnant, you'd see that the solutions of either gitting gud or clicking on the mode best suited for your sensibilities are options that have been available to you all along.

You're speaking from a position of ignorance. I am not saying all PvPers are morally repugnant. I'm saying that if a game is PvE, and they go out of their way to ruin someones experience they are morally repugnant. Unless you disagree of course, and find that behavior acceptable in which case I disagree with your sense of values.

 

[M00ka]

I never said it should cater to me. I play in open bud, and I'm fine with being blown up. You're just assuming because you're likely used to arguing with the victims, not an advocate. Hell, as stated before if it were up to me certain tasks should be locked in PvP, and that would screw me over. I said it because I thought it would be more fair, not personally beneficial to me.

And their fun is not more important than the majority. FD should cater to the majority. That is what I advocate for!

For starters, don't call me 'bud', you haven't earned that privilege!

Secondly, you are assuming I am pro PvP or that I am an active PvPer - could not be further from the truth. Next, how do you know what the majority wants, since these forums only cover for a very small subset of the player group. The only people who MIGHT know what the majority of players want is, surprisingly, Frontier Development.

 

[Oscore]

For PvP:

• Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable weapon healing effects? [yes/no]
• Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
• Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]
• Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]

For PvE:

• Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
• Kick player on attacking another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Kick player on destroying another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]

For all play-styles:

• Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.

I like some of these suggestions! Hell, I'd settle for a toggle that disables player interdictions alone. It'd still be better then what we have right now. The ability to log out immediately with zero consequence sounds good too, though I suspect some people might froth at the mouth from such suggestions. The issue I find is thinking of one that doesn't instantly cause them rage.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I like some of these suggestions! Hell, I'd settle for a toggle that disables player interdictions alone. It'd still be better then what we have right now. The ability to log out immediately with zero consequence sounds good too, though I suspect some people might froth at the mouth from such suggestions. The issue I find is thinking of one that doesn't instantly cause them rage.

To be clear, these rules were proposed for the Private Group creator to set, not each player - and each member of the Private Group would choose to play in the PG, or not, based on their acceptance of the rules.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

You're speaking from a position of ignorance. I am not saying all PvPers are morally repugnant. I'm saying that if a game is PvE, and they go out of their way to ruin someones experience they are morally repugnant. Unless you disagree of course, and find that behavior acceptable in which case I disagree with your sense of values.

But the game isn't strictly PvE, is it?

And since you can't possibly know the motivation behind someone else's actions, it would seem to me that ruminating on such is a waste of time and energy. Energy you could have re-directed into encouraging others to play the game we have, not the one you wish for.

 

[Oscore]

To be clear, these rules were proposed for the Private Group creator to set, not each player - and each member of the Private Group would choose to play in the PG, or not, based on their acceptance of the rules.

What if this applied to open, where a player can tailor their experience how they want? Would that be impossible or does it lie in the realm of possibility?