The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Robert Maynard]

"Play my way!"
"Won't!"
For nearly 200 pages now...

Some can't seem to accept that their preferred way of playing, that requires other players, is vulnerable to those other players not choosing to play among them.

.... and this is just the most recent of the five megathreads on this topic (dating back to January 2015).

 

[Felix DiCestria]

the game is galaxy domination i want all the systems

Think you bought the wrong franchise mate...

 

[Barnabis Bananas]

Some can't seem to accept that their preferred way of playing, that requires other players, is vulnerable to those other players not choosing to play among them.

.... and this is just the most recent of the five megathreads on this topic (dating back to January 2015).

looks like the thread is pointless then no need to keep it open just lock it and let Fdev make a poll or not make a poll

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

This thread, like many other megathreads and possibly the whole suggestion forum, is pretty much a dumping ground, in this case, for all the silly "open only hurr durr carebears hiding in solo" posts and their ganker rant counterparts to keep the rest of the forums clean(ish).

 

[Robert Maynard]

looks like the thread is pointless then no need to keep it open just lock it and let Fdev make a poll or not make a poll

If the thread is locked then another will pop up in its place with a short time - that's why these threads exist, as redirect targets for the inevitable duplicate threads.

Noting that this topic has been ongoing since the core game design was published back in November 2012, at the start of the Kickstarter, and that Frontier held the only official poll of the player-base on the (contentious for some) topic of whether ship transfers should be instant or not back in 2016, it seems that Frontier are not inclined to poll the player-base on this topic. Noting that one Dev indicated some time ago that :

While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.[/QUOTE[

 

[Rat Catcher]

looks like the thread is pointless then no need to keep it open just lock it and let Fdev make a poll or not make a poll

I agree it is entirely pointless, but, gosh, it is so much fun!

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's another tautology that doesn't even try to answer my question.

What is it about a player forcing their gameplay on another player that makes it less acceptable than any other aspect of the game being forced upon a player? Why is an effect imposed by a player different or worse than a similar effect being imposed by anything else?

I pondered this for a while, then noticed this in your subsequent post:

Difficulty and consent can't be the only factors involved in the antipathy some have for PvP.

These points cover it pretty much, i.e.

1) the PvE game's difficulty is controlled by Frontier, with the base challenge and optional challenges set according to the particular context. Other players don't follow this so players may be targeted in their perfectly PvE capable trade ship by a player in a G5 murderboat - and stand zero chance of escape (the "just high wake out" advice requires the targeted player to survive for over 30 seconds [wait for the FSD cooldown to start, ten seconds of FSD cooldown, fifteen seconds of hyper-drive charging] - which few will survive);
2) while some argue (reasonably) that consent for PvP is given when selecting Open mode, the degree of disparity between the attacker and the target is what often leaves a bad taste for the vanquished target, i.e. another player consciously chose to target them knowing full well that the attacker faced practically zero risk in the encounter. Being suckerpunched is not for everyone, and not everyone wants to play the game with their head on a swivel looking for hollow triangles in super-cruise.

Claims of "seeking the challenge of a player target as they are not predictable" fall flat in that context, along with the fact that half of players are at or below median skill - so a skilled PvPer will likely meet targets below (or well below) their own skill, and, given the seemingly preferential selection of targets that can't fight back, ring doubly hollow.

 

[Doctor Dread]

looks like the thread is pointless then no need to keep it open just lock it and let Fdev make a poll or not make a poll

This is another thing you're not getting.

The point of this thread is to serve as "the padded room", a place on the Forum where people who want moar victims can come and scream their lungs out, trying to sugarcoat it in logic-this-emergent-gameplay-that-yaarrr, and in doing so feel a little bit relieved. Basically, to cry.

Never intended to have any other use.

So stop expecting you'll achieve anything by "power to the people" pages and pages. There will be no change, they will not succumb to you not reading the manual before purchasing the game and asking them to force PvP for the rest of us, no polls needed - , FD see the server, they know perfectly well how many people enjoy "cool, fun, dynamic encounters" in PvP . They knew it from the day one.

Hence this thread, which would otherwise be closed 10 years ago as trolling - they keep it as a padded room for therapeutic purposes.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Difficulty and consent can't be the only factors involved in the antipathy some have for PvP.

Indeed so!

Disinterest probably ranks highest.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed so!

Disinterest probably ranks highest.

How could I have forgotten about that one.

The "just change the way you play then escaping PvPers is not a problem" advice requires the player to have the inclination to "git gud" and tolerate PvP attacks. If those attacks are, at best a waste of the time involved in escaping or at worst a significant loss of ship contents, then the inclination to let random PvPers interrupt ones game time may be completely lacking. Noting that the attacker has nothing to lose, as they are not realistically going to face a rebuy from attacking a non-combat ship.

 

[Rat Catcher]

How could I have forgotten about that one.

I was more surprised that a poster, known for their excellent analytical skills, could have missed this option, which in all likelyhood outweighs any other speculation why the majority do not bother with PvP combat play. (remembering that, in a very loose fashion, every action done by a player could be classed PvP as it is not a single player game, but the only bit that gets major consideration is combat, which is the least useful activity in the grand gameplay scheme)

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

I pondered this for a while, then noticed this in your subsequent post:

These points cover it pretty much, i.e.

1) the PvE game's difficulty is controlled by Frontier, with the base challenge and optional challenges set according to the particular context. Other players don't follow this so players may be targeted in their perfectly PvE capable trade ship by a player in a G5 murderboat - and stand zero chance of escape (the "just high wake out" advice requires the targeted player to survive for over 30 seconds [wait for the FSD cooldown to start, ten seconds of FSD cooldown, fifteen seconds of hyper-drive charging] - which few will survive);
2) while some argue (reasonably) that consent for PvP is given when selecting Open mode, the degree of disparity between the attacker and the target is what often leaves a bad taste for the vanquished target, i.e. another player consciously chose to target them knowing full well that the attacker faced practically zero risk in the encounter. Being suckerpunched is not for everyone, and not everyone wants to play the game with their head on a swivel looking for hollow triangles in super-cruise.

Claims of "seeking the challenge of a player target as they are not predictable" fall flat in that context, along with the fact that half of players are at or below median skill - so a skilled PvPer will likely meet targets below (or well below) their own skill, and, given the seemingly preferential selection of targets that can't fight back, ring doubly hollow.

You said it much better than I could. With a very few exceptions like the introduction of Thargoid Gankers, Frontier sets a pretty reliable ruleset and difficulty threshold that, for the most part, is very predictable for the player, enabling them to have control over their game - as it should be in my opinion. For me, and maybe most of the non-hardcore gamer types, control over the difficulty is important. Also, everything an NPC does to you in ED has some form of context rationale - no NPC is out there in a G5 murder boat to kill you just "because they can". If I encounter an engineered pirate lord or a Thargoid, it's usually because I asked for it.

In the purely open PvP context, all that goes out the window, and the player hands over control of their game to another player. Now I am not saying that's a bad thing on principle, some players may like that, but some, if not many, seem to hate that. This game specifically is probably chock full of (ro cite a few clichés) chill "carebear" weekend dad traders, explorers, paired with less experienced people who don't do internet socials and have little idea that the system where the engineering journey sends them first is the one where the sharks are waiting.

At the same time the great flight mechanics and fun dogfighting possibilities paired with the opportunity to do direct PvP attract the (more clichés) git gud hurr durr get off my playground I kill everything that moves types, which then also brings the demands to open / PvP gate content, because those need other players to play there game.

I don't need other players to play the game, neither do those who enjoy either playing in their closed group of friends in their PG or heaven forbid, in Solo. Maybe I am biased and blind, but I have never ever seen, or at least noticed, demands to gate content away from open. It's always the need-more-targets git-gud I-am-entitled-because-I-play-in-open types that want to take away content from the others.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I don't think the core game is all that similar to what it was.

Ok, we can disagree on that, but let's leave it there for a separate debate called is ED still the same game at its core as it was on release, rather than the open vs solo thread

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Maybe I am biased and blind, but I have never ever seen, or at least noticed, demands to gate content away from open.

On the odd occasion i've made the odd sardonic post suggesting solo should be favoured in some way over open because playing solo is harder than playing in a wing and you can't wing up in solo.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

On the odd occasion i've made the odd sardonic post suggesting solo should be favoured in some way over open because playing solo is harder than playing in a wing and you can't wing up in solo.

Well yeah . I amend my post to: Never seen earnest demands .

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Well yeah . I amend my post to: Never seen earnest demands .

Well, surely because there is nobody called Earnest on the forums!

 

[Jockey79]

The reason people dislike PG/solo effecting powerplay is because PP's entire thing is putting the powers directly against each other and it's pledges directly against each other. It cuts its own legs out from under itself.

PP has never been about "direct" confrontation. Ever.
The fact that it was designed with the mode system in mind is proof that direct PvP has always been optional for those who want to shoot each other.
Everyone else gets to do indirect PvP by completing PvE challenges before the other team does.

The mode system was part of the game from the Kickstarter, long before PP.
And long before anyone bought it. (The original advertising for the game explained the mode system.)

So perhaps the game isn't wrong, you are for buying the wrong game for your needs.
Have you heard about the PvP-only space game that fella Chris Roberts is making? It should be out "soon"
No mode system there, just what you want.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

PP has never been about "direct" confrontation. Ever.
The fact that it was designed with the mode system in mind is proof that direct PvP has always been optional for those who want to shoot each other.
Everyone else gets to do indirect PvP by completing PvE challenges before the other team does.

The mode system was part of the game from the Kickstarter, long before PP.
And long before anyone bought it. (The original advertising for the game explained the mode system.)

So perhaps the game isn't wrong, you are for buying the wrong game for your needs.
Have you heard about the PvP-only space game that fella Chris Roberts is making? It should be out "soon"
No mode system there, just what you want.

Ah yes, the classic "just leave."

 

[Rat Catcher]

It should be out "soon"

That's what I heard in 2019 when I parted with my pennies...

 

[Jockey79]

I'm aware. I've been playing this game off and on since it's release, and in classic Fdev fashion they released powerplay as you said, in a way that undermines the entire point of it. Just because they messed up from day 1 doesn't make it any better. The opposite in fact

Talk about a bad workman blaming his tools

Frontier did not "mess up from day 1" at all.

They made and advertised Elite Dangerous from day 1 with the mode system. It's not their fault if you didn't understand the concept that I (or anyone else) do not have to play with you if I (or anyone else) don't want to play with you. It has been a fundamental game mechanic since the release of the game.

And to emphasise the point even more, if I wanted to play in Open Mode and I (and everyone else) still didn't want to play with you personally, there is a "block" feature as well. So even in Open Mode, people can still choose whom to play with in-game.

Your ability to interact with other players is a privilege, not a right.