The Open v Solo v Groups thread

The problem in Open is the imbalance created by modern dedicated PvP combat builds against literally every other build possible in the game (this is a problem for the game itself and not something wrong with any specific type of player). Skill no longer saves you (unless you are literally a top player). Some tricks still work for evasion, but you shouldn't have to rely on them because you are using quirks of game mechanics instead of just playing the game (no, not combat logging; more like dropping out of supercruise before interdiction and then high-waking out of the system). The imbalance has gotten much worse in the past couple of years. For those CMDRs who were playing in the Bubble the whole time, they may not have noticed. But, for someone who was playing outside the Bubble and returning (or returning to the game after a long pause), the difference was very stark and might discourage them from playing. New players in particular may be impacted by this too. FDEV needs a way to mitigate the imbalance. (If you want PvP only combat, then play CQC.) Since FDEV cannot take back engineering and special modules, there's several methods of mitigation possible (not limited to below):

1) Work like GTA when serial gankers are actively ganking within a star system. A CMDR can gank, but the more they gank within a particular timeframe in a particular star system, the more attention they get from local authorities until the authorities are after the CMDR so hard that the CMDR has to get out of the system or get destroyed. Of course, this won't work in anarchy systems, but why would we don't need it there anyway. This would work well for CGs.
2) Provide valid in-game evasion mechanics. I say valid because the interdiction mini-game is broke for PvP. FDEV can change it to give CMDRs an honest even-playing-field with support for effective avoidance. FDEV could also add modules that allow a CMDR some percentage to avoid interdictions completely. The bigger the module, the higher the avoidance percentage. Maybe allow the CMDR to stack modules. The CMDR who wishes to avoid engagement in Open would sacrifice a lot of space on their ship for that privilege.
3) During CG's, create categories of success that recognize CMDRs who are defending the CG participants from gankers. This would require changing how CGs are run because both defenders and gankers would have to register. Anyone that tries to disrupt a CG without registering would face idea number #1 (above).
4) Buff defensive modules, or provide new and more effective defensive modules based on Thargoid tech.

This would only apply to PvP engagement. Anyone who wants to pirate against hapless NPCs all day, let them have at it per current rules. :)

These are just some ideas that don't require punishing players of any game style and also do not hold gankers accountable for their choice to gank.

They kind of tried a GTA type system for ED in the form of Noteriety.

It didn't really bother PvPers but made everything worse for PvEers.

GG FD.
 
I really don't get the point of this thread... Most people in here have played the game for years, yet there are still complaints about "gankers" or unconsented PvP... It's a game that has PvP, it always has and always will... By now, one might assume "vets" should be good enough to not get killed so easily, yet here we are... I mean... Just learn to fight back instead of arguing on a text based forum? 🤷‍♂️
 
I really don't get the point of this thread... Most people in here have played the game for years, yet there are still complaints about "gankers" or unconsented PvP... It's a game that has PvP, it always has and always will... By now, one might assume "vets" should be good enough to not get killed so easily, yet here we are... I mean... Just learn to fight back instead of arguing on a text based forum? 🤷‍♂️

That really isn't the issue. This thread exists because some players simply can't stand the fact that other players have no interest in PvP, and are free to enjoy this game without ever having to expose themselves to it. Personally, I think everyone's far more likely to have fun when everyone in Open is there willingly, without the various forms of coersion that have been proposed over the years.

Meanwhile, THIS veteran has been doing rare runs for PowerPlay, and has managed to complete yet another run to George Lucas in Open, where I know there's an active blockade by the Alliance going on. Once again, I encountered zero opposition while doing so, even though it was during the global peak. Made eight runs today so far, only came under fire once, and escaped with my rares in the process. :)

Furthermore, I've been dropping approxiatemly 50 merits worth of undermining materials on each run, so I've probably dropped about 400 merits of undermining in the process, and I have to wonder if the Commanders camping the station have killed enough non-Alliance Commanders to at least make up the difference. ;)
 
I really don't get the point of this thread... Most people in here have played the game for years, yet there are still complaints about "gankers" or unconsented PvP... It's a game that has PvP, it always has and always will... By now, one might assume "vets" should be good enough to not get killed so easily, yet here we are... I mean... Just learn to fight back instead of arguing on a text based forum? 🤷‍♂️
It's a common misunderstanding that this thread is kept going by people complaining about being ganked, but if you read the actual posts carefully and maybe assign them to categories you'll see that the real picture is different.

The thread has long times with nothing happening and then bursts of activity. Each burst is kicked off not by a complaint about ganking, but by a complaint about other people not being available for ganking. It's always something about PP or BGS or people "hiding" in Solo or how Open is the proper game.

In other words, the complaints are from the opposite direction to that usually supposed, but they have no effect. All of us just carry on playing in whatever mode we like for what we happen to be doing, and blocking people we don't enjoy playing with. No doubt this will continue, and it's why the thread is so long.

Edit: ninja'd!
 
There are no stakes when i'm out exploring for example.

That's why it's a game and not a job. Same for any other player activity conceivable, no matter how subjectively tedious it may seem.

But it's distinction without a difference, when I can go into a blockaded station, in Open no less, and expect to unopposed more than 90% of the time due to that same netcode. Or 95% of the time now, assuming that blockade is still ongoing.

That is mighty thin odds of oppositition, in my experience.

It shouldn't take an impenetrable blockade or cordon to make an effective one. Problem is that thin odds are stacked with negligible consequences and high relative costs.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
By now, one might assume "vets" should be good enough to not get killed so easily, yet here we are... I mean... Just learn to fight back instead of arguing on a text based forum? 🤷‍♂️
It rather depends on whether the "vets" have any interest in combat in general and PvP combat in particular - in the case of those who are interested in neither there's no reason or need to try to learn to fight back against those who wish to engage them in PvP when those players are an optional extra.

Also, why reward them by (attempting to) put up a fight?
 
It shouldn't take an impenetrable blockade or cordon to make an effective one.

Out of morbid curiosity, what would your definition of an "effective blockade" be? Because from my point of view, the one in George Lucas leaks like a hair net.

Problem is that thin odds are stacked with negligible consequences and high relative costs.

Which will always be a problem, given this game's networking solution. It's not designed for antagonistic PvP, but cooperative gameplay.
 
I really don't get the point of this thread...
i for one think that being able to attack someone without defendant being able to know who his attackers are is a bad game design. a somewhat isolated issue within plethora of arguments in here. some people agree. some people disagree. some argue. some do semantics... some are here to talk, some are here to harass...

Most people in here have played the game for years, yet there are still complaints about "gankers" or unconsented PvP... It's a game that has PvP, it always has and always will...
arguable. i wasnt here but id say that the game progressed from mainly 'solo' towards something that could be more open.

By now, one might assume "vets" should be good enough to not get killed so easily, yet here we are... I mean... Just learn to fight back
you would think so, right? but how to defeat arguments such as "i dont want to" or "i hate you"?

instead of arguing on a text based forum? 🤷‍♂️
seems like being hostile on the forum is ok but god forbid you would have some adversity in the videogame.


Out of morbid curiosity, what would your definition of an "effective blockade" be? Because from my point of view, the one in George Lucas leaks like a hair net.
unbreachable blockade
1731970363374.png
 
unbreachable blockade
Spoiler: img

To me that is spoiling the game for others and not proper gameplay. To me if you do this, you are to be avoided. Be a spoiler and I will avoid you, and where will that get you?
 
unbreachable blockade
Spoiler: img

To me that is spoiling the game for others and not proper gameplay. To me if you do this, you are to be avoided. Be a spoiler and I will avoid you, and where will that get you?

That isn't a player. That's an NPC, and the inevitable consequence of a station instance being loaded for too long.
 
unbreachable blockade
Spoiler: img

To me that is spoiling the game for others and not proper gameplay. To me if you do this, you are to be avoided. Be a spoiler and I will avoid you, and where will that get you?

The pic shows an NPC. I once died in this scenario, I was in a shieldless, maxed out cargo Cutter & foolishly didn't retreat out of radar range. A Cmdr in an FDL noticed me & boosted out of the dock (much as Darkfyre describes), unable to resist the temptation my shieldless cutter presented while I waited for the station guns to address the blockage.

Ironically I was using the ship to deliver as much inf as I could to defend the faction that owned the station from a conflict & I was well aware I was taking a huge risk of being spotted & attacked.

This was in San Tu & I was supporting Dragons (the local anarchy that at the time controlled the station & the system). I had done several runs prior & did a few more after getting popped.

We had a laugh about it afterwards in local chat, I respawned in the dock I had been unable to get into ;)
 
Out of morbid curiosity, what would your definition of an "effective blockade" be? Because from my point of view, the one in George Lucas leaks like a hair net.

An effective blockade would be able to justify the allocation of blockaders with a reduction of trade/merit/whatever flow that was greater than the contribution the blockaders could manage elsewhere.

The 'happy time' era of the Battle of the Atlantic was a modestly successful blockade. Most ships got through it, and it wasn't able to achieve any of it's strategic goals, but before effective anti-submarine tactics and tools, relatively cheap uboats were able to sink many times their tonnage in commerce and force the rest to adopt less efficient tactics and/or divert resources from elsewhere to escort them.

Plenty of border patrol/customs policies could be described as moderately successful persistent blockades. Despite there being a very low chance of any given illicit crossing being intercepted, they can still be effective at mitigating smuggling or enforcing tariffs and tolls.

Which will always be a problem, given this game's networking solution. It's not designed for antagonistic PvP, but cooperative gameplay.

Only the odds of a CMDR encounter are a primary consequence of the networking solution, and most of the problems there could likely be addressed without fundamentally changing the network model.

Consequences are network agnostic and don't need a PvP dichotomy to exist. In a real blockade ships that are intercepted are either turned back, interned, captured, or sunk. Even the least of these wastes a trip and causes days or weeks of delays. In Elite: Dangerous, they wake out to try again two-minutes later, or more rarely are shot down to respawn with a similar interval, with negligible actual losses. Neither cargo nor credits are typically limited resources; losing them is barely a setback. Ships are functionally free and are replaced near instantly. Logistics were always simplistic, but have been made more so by increased jump ranges and reduced dropout distances.
 
I really don't get the point of this thread... Most people in here have played the game for years, yet there are still complaints about "gankers" or unconsented PvP... It's a game that has PvP, it always has and always will... By now, one might assume "vets" should be good enough to not get killed so easily, yet here we are... I mean... Just learn to fight back instead of arguing on a text based forum? 🤷‍♂️
This thread is a dumping ground, so that we don't get ten different "I've been ganked", " game should reward you if you play open / punish players hiding in Solo" or "PG and Solo should be removed / game should be open only" threads every two days. We still get those, but those are closed swiftly and referred here.

Everything that can be said about this topic has been said, and then repeated ad nauseum.

Say it with me: "Dumping Ground".
 
This thread is a dumping ground, so that we don't get ten different "I've been ganked", " game should reward you if you play open / punish players hiding in Solo" or "PG and Solo should be removed / game should be open only" threads every two days. We still get those, but those are closed swiftly and referred here.

Everything that can be said about this topic has been said, and then repeated ad nauseum.

Say it with me: "Dumping Ground".

Also known as:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09839DpTctU&ab_channel=Eagles
 
You've lost me. I thought you were saying hanging around a station waiting for people isn't a job because there are stakes, but then trying to compare it to exploration not being fun or something.

I'm not making any judgements on what anyone considers fun; there is no accounting for taste. I'm saying that I consider the prime distinction between 'game' and 'job' to be what's at stake...from the player's perspective, of course.

You can make a game that is literally a simulation of what some people do for a living and it's still a game, no matter how closely it resembles someone else's job. The stakes for the player in, say, Farming Simulator are negligible, while the stakes for the real farmer, no matter how much they may enjoy their job, are probably significant.

Conversely, you can take what was originally intended as a game and someone can build their livelihood around it, which raises the stakes and turns it into a job. This is what professional sports are.

It doesn't matter what's at stake in exploration or a blockade, from an in-game perspective, because the game itself is low stakes for the player. In a permadeath game, my character's existence may depend on their overcoming some challenge, but the death of my character isn't going to discomfit me much at all, because it's just a game and I can start a new story with a new character. In a game where the character is destined to survive any screw up, the stakes for the player are even lower, as not even the illusion of progress is lost.
 
I'm not making any judgements on what anyone considers fun; there is no accounting for taste. I'm saying that I consider the prime distinction between 'game' and 'job' to be what's at stake...from the player's perspective, of course.

You can make a game that is literally a simulation of what some people do for a living and it's still a game, no matter how closely it resembles someone else's job. The stakes for the player in, say, Farming Simulator are negligible, while the stakes for the real farmer, no matter how much they may enjoy their job, are probably significant.

Conversely, you can take what was originally intended as a game and someone can build their livelihood around it, which raises the stakes and turns it into a job. This is what professional sports are.

It doesn't matter what's at stake in exploration or a blockade, from an in-game perspective, because the game itself is low stakes for the player. In a permadeath game, my character's existence may depend on their overcoming some challenge, but the death of my character isn't going to discomfit me much at all, because it's just a game and I can start a new story with a new character. In a game where the character is destined to survive any screw up, the stakes for the player are even lower, as not even the illusion of progress is lost.

Ah. Hard disagree. Stakes don't matter to me. All i care is if i enjoy doing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom