You accept the game conditions when you choose Open, surely?
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
You accept the game conditions when you choose Open, surely?
Playing in open is not a choice to be a target to fulfil someone else's choice. It is a choice to meet and possibly co-operate with others.
The belief that being in open is a choice to accept and engage in PvP is not, I believe, correct.
Steve
Last edited:
I'm afraid I disagree. On the Open button we see:-
"You may encounter other CMDRs..."
You can meet, possibly co-operate AND/OR attack or be attacked by other CMDRs.
Is that not implicit in that? You don't have to like that but is it not self evident if you join Open you are consenting to the possibility of "unwanted" PvP?
How do you see it?
Nope.
Both CMDRs should consent to PvP, otherwise one is wasting the others time.
I see your position being that those not interested in PvP but want to play in open have to grind through the engineering to build and equip combat capable ships and dedicate time to gaining combat skills. The problem, is an armed trader/exploration ship is likely to be no match for a murder boat and is less useful for the intended activity.
PvPers are imposing their playstyle on others who just want to play co-operatively in their own style in the shared, public space.
We will never agree on this, but it is good to let off steam occasionally.
I wonder how many pages this thread will have got to by the time the servers close down?
Steve
Fair. We have wholly opposing views on what Open is, or could be. My basic premise for Open is that you can be attacked at anytime, anywhere for any reason. It seems reasonable given the other modes that are available, what has been said about the game by the Devs, Braben and so on.
FWIW, I don't actually advocate that any engineering grind is needed (though it is of course useful) - it is more using the tools available in game to ensure you're never even at the point of being interdicted and even giving someone the chance to to destroy your ship.
Last edited:
I'll bite, even if that is a stupid "git gud" reply in disguise.
I have no interest in that kind of gameplay, nor do I have the skills or possibly a ship matching that of my opponent. In case of the average hypothetical ganker, that combination is almost guaranteed as he selects his targets accordingly, unless the ganker makes a mistake and interdicts the alt of a top PvP player
.But, the hypothetical me might have an interest to play together with (not against) other random players. Even playing in the largest PGs, the chance of that is drastically reduced. I'd argue the behaviour of the typical ganker greatly harms the community. So there.
Last edited:
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
It is indeed self-evident, and not a matter of opinion. This is demonstrable in that no player is considered at fault for attacking another player for any or no reason, by FDev. It's a core concept of open mode. At the same time it's also true that in open mode an attacker can experience menu clogging and blocking, which are permitted methods to withdraw that consent. The conflict between the no limits core concept of open mode, and these methods, is responsible the disdain that many have for them.
I'm okay with someone asking "would you like a 1v1?", but it's extremely artificial, and if that were the nature of PvP generally it'd seem a bit pointless. Instead it implies two people agreeing to practice together for when "real" PvP happens, or to spar to explore their own abilities. It's not a sport, it's a violent conflict in a simulation of a dystopian future. But it's just a game so that's okay
.I'm not nor maybe ever will be "gud". But I don't get the need to win every encounter for it to be meaningful. If I'm playing a single player game and have to dodge an approaching train, I don't get angry because I can't "beat" the train in a face-off, I jump the hell out of the way and feel no shame in doing so! And it's a fun challenge. And sometimes I have to accept that a 15 year old no-life-ing PvP 10 hours a day is a bit like that train...I'll bite, even if that is a stupid "git gud" reply in disguise.
I have no interest in that kind of gameplay, nor do I have the skills or possibly a ship matching that of my opponent. In case of the average hypothetical ganker, that combination is almost guaranteed as he selects his targets accordingly, unless the ganker makes a mistake and interdicts the alt of a top PvP player
But, the hypothetical me might have an interest to play together with (not against) other random players. Even playing in the largest PGs, the chance of that is drastically reduced. I'd argue the behaviour of the typical ganker greatly harms the community. So there.
At the same time, having to dodge that train repeatedly throughout the single player game even when it's out of context would get old. But that's something that seldom happens in Elite - attacks are concentrated in particular, predictable contexts (conflict locations, busy locations).It is not about winning. It is about having a fair chance, which I don't. And it is about, to use the in my opinion totally hollow phrase, having a "meaningful" encounter, a category to which being interdicted, attacked and most likely be destroyed doesn't belong for me. I am the least competitive player you can imagine, and I gain nothing from it. Really nothing. I only lose, most likely time, because I have to make the trip I was on again.
And I do not care for challenges. Really, I don't.
Last edited:
Oh stop being a victim. That was not a get good statement in disguise. You don’t have to like it but you really only have 3 options, if you want to play this game. Play in PG/solo, learn how to deal with being in open, or continue to be a victim. Playing in open is nowhere near as scary as people make it out to be. The truth is that the chances of encountering another player in open is quite rare. And my experience has been, since I started in 2016 that most players are friendly or at worst very shy. It’s also true that you are very likely to encounter players who want to pvp in a very small number of systems. CG’s, some engineers, shin dez, and a few other high traffic systems containing things that everyone wants to visit. So build a ship that can fight or run, which is easy and does not require much (any) engineering, and play in open, or don’t. What’s not going to work is a campaign to change the game mechanics and players’ play style to baby-proof the galaxy. It’s Elite Dangerous. Choose.I'll bite, even if that is a stupid "git gud" reply in disguise.
I have no interest in that kind of gameplay, nor do I have the skills or possibly a ship matching that of my opponent. In case of the average hypothetical ganker, that combination is almost guaranteed as he selects his targets accordingly, unless the ganker makes a mistake and interdicts the alt of a top PvP player
But, the hypothetical me might have an interest to play together with (not against) other random players. Even playing in the largest PGs, the chance of that is drastically reduced. I'd argue the behaviour of the typical ganker greatly harms the community. So there.
Last edited:
I'm not a victim. I'm not interested. There's a difference.
There is a 4th option - maintaining a block list and keep playing in open just for being able to play co-op with randoms.
If one wants to play co-op with randoms they have to go to places of common interests.
Like a CG for example.
And during an anti-xeno cg, where various randoms were cooperating to complete cz and kill everything, including the end hydras, some of those cz were ruined by gankers praying on cmdrs that had little to no chances to fight back.
And this is an obvious case of social vs anti-social play.
Last edited:
I agree, but this is one method of dealing with open play.
Lest we forget, some of those push open dislike that those in solo or PG can affect things like BGS in safety. They take the view that if a CMDR is affecting their faction's BGS in a particular location then they should be able and have an entitlement to be able to attack and destroy them. Even if the activity is legal trading.
Steve
Steve
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A stance which ignores the fact that all players experiencing and affecting the shared galaxy from any game mode has been a part of the game for as long as other players have been an optional extra in this game.
There is nothing predictable in Elite, there are still NPCs and still i make mistakes, i don't need gankers to change my game experience.
I play many MMOs, solo and pure PvP games but for me Elite is my goto PVE game.
Until they implement an Open PVE environment and do away with the muppets sadly i will rarely bump into anyone else out in the Black other than with prearanged meets.
O7
And fourth option, block the gankers for good.
It is and it isn't.
It's an option you use because you want to play in the same environment with others, but you run the risk of encountering others who simply want to kill you for sport.
It's not only about being able to attack or intimidate, it's about negotiation, meeting neighbours & building relationships. It's a lot harder for insular propaganda to justify flattening another faction when you have met its supporters & know what they are actually like. A simple example would be that you met someone supporting a neighbouring faction & they helped you with a war they had no interest in had they not met you, or that they didn't shoot at you when they had the chance, helping to establish trust rather than animosity.
I suppose a lot of this happens between leaders of large groups on discord now instead of in the game itself.