I have 4 accounts, so for me that is a lot of targets before i am fully blocked.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
The answer to this has been given millions of times, its simple, disable PvP.
I for one don't have the time to deal with basement warriors looking for pew pew whilst sitting in their underpants.
O7
Every game I play has challenge. If exploration is the walking simulator part of the game that's fine, I guess.
You tend more to WS than gaming?
I guess that's why (short of FA off) ED is so "easy", as I have indeed flown real stuff (though not done much simming, short of warthunder/rise of flight etc)
In fact, perhaps I should be full on FA off from now on to get my kicks.
Is there space for any PvP, or is it completely verboten?
Having to contrive my own automatically defeats the purpose.
I can just take off my glasses...that makes doing almost anything in the game a challenge, but it's not the sort of contextual challenge I'm looking for. Neither is having my character choose the obviously sub-optimal path just so I can have a small taste of the thrills that should be intrinsic to surviving the setting.
Any such incentive would only work over the long term if both the network model (peers that could not connect directly were routed through Frontier's mandatory connections) and the tools that manipulate matchmaking weights were built around it, which of course they aren't.
There's always space for PvP, ive been a avid pvper in many games but lets face it there is no PvP in Elite.
Anyone who thinks they are some sort of leet pvp player god taking out trading ships in fully kitted murder boats needs to get a life.
The truth is give most of them an area for a fair fight vs equal opponents and they run a mile (or LYs).
Oh wait Fdev gave them that?
Point proved.
Im always up for PvP in a fair match but ED was never designed for it, there is no balance and yes i know that in the far future of space that's how it will be, but this is a game and games are meant to be fun.
O7
Most PvP is not about fair fights and the presumption it should be is an arbitrary and uselessly narrow view of what constitutes 'PvP'.
Fair fights are are also contrivances that harm my verisimilitude (start a fist fight with me in the real-world and I will end it as swiftly and permanently as possible, which means I'll draw a weapon, unless I have a huge edge in size and strength...honor, fairness, or testing my barely trained skill set doesn't even enter into the equation; surviving as unscathed as possible is all that matters...and, assuming the setting is supposed to be vaguely plausible, I appreciate games that offer the same immersion). Sure I'll have my CMDR engage in them from time to time for the experience, but they are either in-game sports (an obvious game within a game), or blatantly out of character activities. Most organic violent encounters start because someone thinks they have an insurmountable edge, and most of my PvP focus in this game has been fighting off or surviving to escape ambushes by superior forces. I personally find this vastly more enjoyable than organized matches, but it also makes infinitely more sense than PvP being limited to organized matches.
Last edited:
Yes.
In your version of Open I meant - is there any scope for PvP, other than a total ban?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In previous discussions of a potential additional Open-PvE mode, or PvP-flagging in existing Open, those who enjoy PvP (to some extent at least) usually attempt to water down the effectiveness of the proposed elective removal of PvP by proposing circumstances where PvP would still be possible in the Open-PvE mode / when PvP-flag is off.
It's as if some players can't accept that other players, who don't need to engage in, or even tolerate, PvP when buying the game, can play without PvP and consider that they should have no choice but to be the target of those who do enjoy PvP when playing among other players.
Last edited:
To be honest mate sadly no there isn't.
My version of Open is a PVE one like many other MMOs i play.
Lets take ESO as an example, atm i want the Orsinium open lands where you may want Cyrodiil and that's fine, we all want different experiences out of the game.
I think atm ED has the best of all worlds, Solo and Open but where everything is connected.
O7
Yes, this is my question Robert.
If the condition for some players to play in open (as described by @Darrack ) is total PvE mode with absolutely no PvP or whether it would be allowed in zones or what.
What is your take?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Same as @Darrack it seems, i.e. it means no PvP at all.
.... and before someone expresses the opinion that "but the BGS / Powerplay / etc. is PvP" - if it is to be considered to be PvP at all it is at best asynchronous indirect competition - as no players are directly targeted. It can otherwise be considered to be simply "playing the game as sold", with players in all game modes engaging in mode shared game features as they desire.
Put slightly differently, in a game where PvP is already an optional extra from the existence of Solo and Private Groups (where membership can be controlled and where those who break PG rules can be kicked), to implement a deliberately broken elective PvP-removal system in multi-player would be a waste of effort, IMO.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree.
I played PvP in ESO for many years and i was very good at it.
I spent the time to learn every class, every weapon and every gear set, i chased the meta and came up with better ideas to get ahead.
The point is it was an open world fight where every encounter was different but on the whole you were up against folks with similar gear and set up.
Skill points and gear all set up for PvP.
Many times i would come across players questing or looking for Skyshards who i could clearly wipe out in seconds, i would simply bow and ride on.
But that's just me, an easy fight is no challenge.
All PvP should be about having at least a realistic chance of a fair fight otherwise there is no incentive to engage in it.
If you want to be really good at it then yes you need to learn how to adapt to every encounter and that takes experience.
Nobody wants to play a game where pvp is so unbalanced that its demoralising or not fun to learn.
The only people who want seal clubbing zones are low skill cowards, in my experience anyway.
I really don't believe anyone here wants an Eve style game with the crap community that goes with that.
O7
Survival should be my character's incentive. The optionality of it eliminates most plausible incentives.
I make no such judgements, but I firmly believe all credible settings require a fair number of 'low skill cowards'.
As far as the inter-player-character conflict goes, I think EvE got vastly closer to my ideal than Elite: Dangerous did.
I already have the crap community, where players feel entitled to impose their arbitrary rulesets upon other players in the Open mode, but I don't have the more enjoyable parts of PvP, the ones that add excitement or provide characters with agency, to go along with it.
I disagree with this too. If you back up from the actual PvP encounter, what is the objective for me as a non- PvP build?
It could be to deliver explo data, cargo or missions.
For me, NPCs provide no risk so the only challenge without gimping myself is provided by other players.
Thus, asymmetric PvP is framed in opposition to my aim, so a win is evading or avoiding destruction and completing my goal.
Framed like this, for me at least, PvP provides a welcome challenge.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Presumably having engineered ones ship for combat, to some extent at least?
If some missions required players to fly ships of specific loadouts, possibly provided by the mission giver for the duration of the mission, that might be one way to bring some of the challenge back to PvE, for some players.
You can see my fleet via the Inara links below.
I think I've engineered more for jump range and some shielding. My bugbear again is disliking grinding for mats.
I think specific ships for a mission would be a great idea - a suggestion I made yonks ago was to have some sort of stealth module that could only be added to small ships, but with missions where the macguffin is small but worth loads. Thus small ships gain a use and a smuggling game loop is added.
I think I've engineered more for jump range and some shielding. My bugbear again is disliking grinding for mats.
I think specific ships for a mission would be a great idea - a suggestion I made yonks ago was to have some sort of stealth module that could only be added to small ships, but with missions where the macguffin is small but worth loads. Thus small ships gain a use and a smuggling game loop is added.
Same here, but I manage to somehow build up enough over time to do some stuff...occasionally I need to go looking for something specific...
I like this idea but ED is based around flying one's own ships...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is - however some of those players who fly their own ships then complain that the game (no longer) poses a challenge (to them) and then propose that the challenge is increased for all players to deal with that "problem" - there are different ways to deal with the issue without imposing increased challenge on all players to suit the preference of some players.
Direct PvP is anything that pits player characters against each other in combat.
Some people focus on certain subsets of this, with narrowly focused criteria to judge specific skill-sets against. That's fine, but pretending it's the only kind of PvP is clearly disingenuous.
Personally, I'm after an organic experience. I don't want to have to seek out PvP at all (hell, I don't even want to be able to distinguish it from PvE). I want it to be a possibility with it's prevalence and outcome dictated by the fundamental risks and rewards of plausible gameplay mechanisms. The only sort of fairness that's beneficial here is all players having the same basic opportunities under the same overarching rules set (I have a much bigger problem with the beta backer rewards my CMDR has than I could ever have with 'seal clubbing'). Enforced equality or balance at the encounter level is only capable of harming the organic experience. If I'm more skilled than someone at piloting, I don't expect them to want to pit their piloting skills against mine, if anything is actually at stake. They should instead be looking for an edge, whether that involves bringing superior numbers to bear, or catching my CMDR off guard...any situation where they have the advantage. And my ideal game allows my character to potentially be confronted whether he likes it, or is ready for it, or not.
I want the game to depict a setting that seems like it could be real from my character's perspective, not just sort players by some arbitrary skill criteria. The best thing about organic encounters in an open world sandbox style game is the sheer breadth of skills that can be meaningful. It's far more egalitarian, even when it comes to combat, than a game that treats combat as it's sport.
My complaints are the same as ethelred's, in regard to lack of NPC challenge, and were long before Engineering.
Possibly, but I'd want these constraints to make sense rather than feel like difficulty for the sake of difficulty. The underlying behavior and capabilities of NPCs should be fleshed out regardless.
Except for multi-crew, or CQC, or surface stuff.
I like the space flight aspects a lot, and they were my main attraction to the game, but my character has always been the guy in the ship, not the ship itself.
Some people focus on certain subsets of this, with narrowly focused criteria to judge specific skill-sets against. That's fine, but pretending it's the only kind of PvP is clearly disingenuous.
Personally, I'm after an organic experience. I don't want to have to seek out PvP at all (hell, I don't even want to be able to distinguish it from PvE). I want it to be a possibility with it's prevalence and outcome dictated by the fundamental risks and rewards of plausible gameplay mechanisms. The only sort of fairness that's beneficial here is all players having the same basic opportunities under the same overarching rules set (I have a much bigger problem with the beta backer rewards my CMDR has than I could ever have with 'seal clubbing'). Enforced equality or balance at the encounter level is only capable of harming the organic experience. If I'm more skilled than someone at piloting, I don't expect them to want to pit their piloting skills against mine, if anything is actually at stake. They should instead be looking for an edge, whether that involves bringing superior numbers to bear, or catching my CMDR off guard...any situation where they have the advantage. And my ideal game allows my character to potentially be confronted whether he likes it, or is ready for it, or not.
I want the game to depict a setting that seems like it could be real from my character's perspective, not just sort players by some arbitrary skill criteria. The best thing about organic encounters in an open world sandbox style game is the sheer breadth of skills that can be meaningful. It's far more egalitarian, even when it comes to combat, than a game that treats combat as it's sport.
My complaints are the same as ethelred's, in regard to lack of NPC challenge, and were long before Engineering.
Possibly, but I'd want these constraints to make sense rather than feel like difficulty for the sake of difficulty. The underlying behavior and capabilities of NPCs should be fleshed out regardless.
Except for multi-crew, or CQC, or surface stuff.
I like the space flight aspects a lot, and they were my main attraction to the game, but my character has always been the guy in the ship, not the ship itself.