Due to a small but vocal group of people who want to change how PG/Solo players play, i think its time for fair play and turnabout, so let's take a look at Open.
This is the second of two threads looking at the possibility of changing how Open works.
So, what about restricting PvP to specific zones or circumstances, or removing it from the game entirely? Controversial! I'd fully expect the argument from some to be "FD sold us a game with PvP in it, they can't change that" which would be great, especially if they have been proposing changes to Group/Solo that would affect how the game works for those players, as it might make them think a bit about what they are proposing.
So, what are the arguments for this? And it can be summed up in a single word: Toxicity.
Toxicity is the bane for many games, and with PvP in any game, you get very high levels of toxicity generated by the community, even pure PvP arena games you see it, although there is nothing worse than a game where PvP mixes with PvE.
No, PvE isn't immune to toxicity. However, once the two mix, it tends to get a lot worse. An example from Ark is servers where groups go around pillaring prime territory so nobody else can build there. There are even possibilities to grief players using PvE. However, its usually a lot more limited and less likely people will do it.
Here is an example from my own experience. I used to admin/dev for an Neverwinter Nights 2 server. Our server was more or less pure PvE. PvE was allowed, but only consensual. When challenged, if you didn't accept, you had to back down, move away, if you didn't accept, but that was the only penalty. It was a reasonable compromise that allowed people to emerge the victor from a confrontation without going to PvP, but allowed PvP when both participants agreed. It wasn't perfect, but it kept things sane, and of course, it still led to some issues.
There were other servers that had zero PvP, and they were generally friendly places.
And then... there were those servers that allowed unrestricted PvP. And those places (to my mind) where horrible. Non-stop fighting (i mean forum fighting) and toxicity between players. Name calling. Complaining. Complaints to the devs about meta builds and how X is broken because they can spam Y and kill in seconds and etc.... maybe it sounds familiar?
Or we can look at EvE, which is designed around the idea of PvP, and i would say, anyone wanting to only PvE in EvE is not going to get the full experience and I would recommend playing EvE with the intention of doing PvP. But, it does have high levels of toxicity as well, and its often why people are so against EvE like elements being put into ED. We don't want the toxicity that comes with that form of playstyle.
If you ever want to see really high levels of toxicity in relation to ED, just go join a certain PvP discord (won't name, might be somehow naming and shaming - but i think most will understand which one it is). For a discord that is ostensibly meant to be there to help people to git gud at PvP, i've never been on a more toxic channel. When they are not bashing PvEers ("carebears" "forum dads" and worse) or being hateful to a person or group (while patting each other on the back for being like that) they are busy ripping each other apart. One group calling out another, calling each other combat loggers or disrespecting each other. (As a side note, i was there about a year ago, so they might have cleaned things up a bit, at least from their open channels - i do hear the odd thing still that gets posted in their closed channels, and behind the scenes, its still toxic). Note: I'm not saying everyone there is like this, but its the case of a few bad apples ruining the crop.
Remove or restrict PvP in the game, and the toxicity is much reduced (of course, never removed, there will always be some).
Ok, having said all that, there are times PvP can be useful and fun, even for those who are predominantly PvE.
Suggestions:
1) Restrict PvP to Private Groups where a PvP flag can be enabled. Those who want PvP can join those groups, confident in the knowledge that everyone in the group is wanting PvP.
2) Create special zones where PvP battles can take place. Just empty arenas or like CQC areas, where PvP can occur with no instrusion by police.
3) Implement a system of PvP consent. All who want to PvP have to activate consent, which lasts as long as people remain in the instance.
Is it worth it in order to reduce the toxicity levels in game? It might get more people in open as well, at least those who want to play with more people and see more traffic. Won't affect those who don't want to see other players of course
This is the second of two threads looking at the possibility of changing how Open works.
So, what about restricting PvP to specific zones or circumstances, or removing it from the game entirely? Controversial! I'd fully expect the argument from some to be "FD sold us a game with PvP in it, they can't change that" which would be great, especially if they have been proposing changes to Group/Solo that would affect how the game works for those players, as it might make them think a bit about what they are proposing.
So, what are the arguments for this? And it can be summed up in a single word: Toxicity.
Toxicity is the bane for many games, and with PvP in any game, you get very high levels of toxicity generated by the community, even pure PvP arena games you see it, although there is nothing worse than a game where PvP mixes with PvE.
No, PvE isn't immune to toxicity. However, once the two mix, it tends to get a lot worse. An example from Ark is servers where groups go around pillaring prime territory so nobody else can build there. There are even possibilities to grief players using PvE. However, its usually a lot more limited and less likely people will do it.
Here is an example from my own experience. I used to admin/dev for an Neverwinter Nights 2 server. Our server was more or less pure PvE. PvE was allowed, but only consensual. When challenged, if you didn't accept, you had to back down, move away, if you didn't accept, but that was the only penalty. It was a reasonable compromise that allowed people to emerge the victor from a confrontation without going to PvP, but allowed PvP when both participants agreed. It wasn't perfect, but it kept things sane, and of course, it still led to some issues.
There were other servers that had zero PvP, and they were generally friendly places.
And then... there were those servers that allowed unrestricted PvP. And those places (to my mind) where horrible. Non-stop fighting (i mean forum fighting) and toxicity between players. Name calling. Complaining. Complaints to the devs about meta builds and how X is broken because they can spam Y and kill in seconds and etc.... maybe it sounds familiar?
Or we can look at EvE, which is designed around the idea of PvP, and i would say, anyone wanting to only PvE in EvE is not going to get the full experience and I would recommend playing EvE with the intention of doing PvP. But, it does have high levels of toxicity as well, and its often why people are so against EvE like elements being put into ED. We don't want the toxicity that comes with that form of playstyle.
If you ever want to see really high levels of toxicity in relation to ED, just go join a certain PvP discord (won't name, might be somehow naming and shaming - but i think most will understand which one it is). For a discord that is ostensibly meant to be there to help people to git gud at PvP, i've never been on a more toxic channel. When they are not bashing PvEers ("carebears" "forum dads" and worse) or being hateful to a person or group (while patting each other on the back for being like that) they are busy ripping each other apart. One group calling out another, calling each other combat loggers or disrespecting each other. (As a side note, i was there about a year ago, so they might have cleaned things up a bit, at least from their open channels - i do hear the odd thing still that gets posted in their closed channels, and behind the scenes, its still toxic). Note: I'm not saying everyone there is like this, but its the case of a few bad apples ruining the crop.
Remove or restrict PvP in the game, and the toxicity is much reduced (of course, never removed, there will always be some).
Ok, having said all that, there are times PvP can be useful and fun, even for those who are predominantly PvE.
Suggestions:
1) Restrict PvP to Private Groups where a PvP flag can be enabled. Those who want PvP can join those groups, confident in the knowledge that everyone in the group is wanting PvP.
2) Create special zones where PvP battles can take place. Just empty arenas or like CQC areas, where PvP can occur with no instrusion by police.
3) Implement a system of PvP consent. All who want to PvP have to activate consent, which lasts as long as people remain in the instance.
Is it worth it in order to reduce the toxicity levels in game? It might get more people in open as well, at least those who want to play with more people and see more traffic. Won't affect those who don't want to see other players of course
