I really think this depends heavily on what you do in game. If you like to head out to popular areas and see whatever is new on the thargoid/whatever front that day, you will be shot at. Pretty much guaranteed. Same is true for CG's, the latest gold rush areas, or whatever is popular.
Modes Restrict or remove PvP from the game, making Open a nicer place?
- Thread starter Agony_Aunt
- Start date
- Status
I really think this depends heavily on what you do in game. If you like to head out to popular areas and see whatever is new on the thargoid/whatever front that day, you will be shot at. Pretty much guaranteed. Same is true for CG's, the latest gold rush areas, or whatever is popular.
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
My automatic reaction, show me a zone in real life where there and only there wars, crimes and even accidents can happen and I’ll accept this.
By zones I do not mean areas where a superior force enforce non-combat by force of arms. That can (and in many cases has) been ignored by anybody accepting the consequences of doing so.
It might only be a game, but such artificial constructs with no logical reason for existing (other than pleasing some players) ruin the feel for me and end it being a multi player sandbox. They also restrict reasonable RP reasons for trying to stop people doing things.
It’s bad enough that we can all pick the “you can’t hurt me” button anyway when competing against other players in power play for example. This would just nerf any player conflict.
I may spend my time running from PvP players or seeing rebuy when out and about conducting my business in open, but I wouldn’t have it any other way in open. When not intentionally or knowingly impacting on others I already have Solo/PG and use them in that situation when not in the mood for open.
That’s enough for me. If anything I think PG/Solo need to be looked at for the ability to hurt others goals while safe.
Offer up a PvE only mode with balance so you can’t hurt PMFs or do PP without being in open and I’d support that.
Fair enough. And in return PvP open people will pay for another PMF/PP server infrastructure being built where the PvE-people will ONLY affect the PMF/PP and open cannot affect this side.
Think you would find the people who want a PvE server would pay for something new or everyone. And yes that would include me. But I’ve said actions which are inherently against other players should be restricted to open, not that we should have 2 universes.
But as FDev can already shadowban so that BGS PP isn’t effected by actions I think you’ll find they already have options to switch impacts off on 1 server.
Thanks for the well thought out knee jerk reaction though.
No, it is the open population who complain and whine about someone affecting "their" gameplay. Nobody else is complaining that open players can affect Solo/PG people. So those who cannot accept existing system should be ones who have to pay to build additional system there. Why there has to be payment? Because building multiple simulations requires more infrastructure, which in turn costs. Someone has to foot the bill, and it is bad idea to waste money on infrastructure for problems of tiny minority (who are actually using whole argument as excuse to try to remove content from others to try to force them to open)
And why Solo and PG MUST always have PP/BGS that they can affect is because that was sold to us. We were not sold "you can only affect world in open but open can affect you everywhere". We were sold system where all modes are equal before the simulation.
Option of open having ability to screw up things for others in other modes without them having any tools to oppose it is totally lopsided and unbalanced system.
Funnily enough people undertaking PvE only actions in any mode are effected by other PvE action in exactly the same way they are effecting others. Pop them all together and it’s scenery only and has no impact other than the grind race.
But as many of my fellow PvE players don’t like to admit, PvP has an impact on all this. If I’m too scared to enter a system as it’s being blockaded by a PvP force (which has happened) I can effect that system precisely zero%.
So the only people forcing others to play their way in this situation in what is a form of PvP even if not pew pew is.....oh yes, us the PvE players.
Now that’s a lopsided system. We can fit to fight them. We can avoid and escape them. We can even get others to defend us. They can stop playing PvP and join the PvE grindfest.
There is justification in the “what you were sold” line, but are you really saying that if something isn’t working properly that’s fine as it’s what was sold to you?
As to the assumption on motivations, well let’s start with the fact that I am a PvE player and play my own BGS mainly in Mobius where my enemy also are. So I’m not trying to force people into open.
I do however have friends in PvP groups who get constantly attacked on BGS and PP by people they cannot see and cannot defend against in the style they choose to play in. Strangely enough I see their point. We can hit a button and not play their way. They are forced to play ours or give up.
I happen to think that in a multi player game sold to them as allowing PvP this doesn’t seem fair as their preferred tactics are nerfed at the touch of a button.
Now given my absolute preference PMFs would declare open or any mode and when they have system control that would determine how BGS is effected in that system.
PP would be only open as it is fully a player against player mechanic.
I would also place major events that could fundamentally change the galaxy and effect everyone in open as well.
You can disagree as is your right. But I can never accept the position that it’s ok to attack PvP players in any way while not allowing them to defend by all means available to them. That is not fair and is forcing them to play our way. What moral high ground we have against gankers goes out the window when we are fine when it’s us with the unfair advantage.
It’s also why I disagree with the proposal as it is still getting others to only play on our terms in our way when we are attacking them.
In what way PvP players are not able to defend themselves? They can quite freely use the very same mechanism, which is one that defines exactly HOW these things work (notice that PvP kills have practically zero effect on either BGS or PP in terms of points) to counter the effect of other players. They have ALL the means at their disposal which actually AFFECT the outcome. PvP does not.
Their cry has as much sense as sidewinder pilot complaining that they cannot make as much money on running cargo as T-9 if they have means to acquire T-9 for themselves.
As it has been pointed out, PvP blockades are a joke. This game just DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT! This is not Eve online where every player in same location will be shunted in same instance. Trying to build blockades is act of futile pointlessness.
Now, tell me one thing. Are you going to go to open if they take away PP/BGS from us who do not want any direct PvP? Because odds are against most of the people doing that. Is it not better to have ALIVE PP shared by all modes instead of one that is restricted to open and then dies away because so few want to play it in open? By admittance of open-proponents themselves.
So why is totally dead PP/BGS better than what we have now? Or is there somewhere magical supply of players we are not aware of just waiting to rush into open in their PvE ships to be shot at?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Closed as requested by OP on the grounds that he can't compete with Ziggy's brilliance.
- Status