The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Robert Maynard]

Lets assume that the encounter has already happened and a ship loss has already occurred. The disparity in power or difficulty in such a scenario is moot, if it even exists; there is no larger direct penalty the game will inflict than the rebuy screen. Yet, there are clearly some players that take greater umbrage in this situation if the aggressor was a CMDR than if the aggressor was an NPC. That's the part I find curious; there seems to be a trend to dismiss PvE encounters as part of the game, while holding PvP separate, no matter how similar the circumstances or outcomes.

It's not curious, it's simple - as mentioned earlier it is because another player chose to do it which, depending on context, may make all the difference in how the interaction was perceived.

Frontier set the challenge posed by the game and players only need to become proficient to meet that challenge to be able to play. Other players, especially the skilled in engineered combat ships, pose a totally different challenge.

That leaves us with the 'bad taste' from encountering human-controlled enemies...who would rather prevail than fight on their enemies' terms? As weird as this seems to me, I suppose it must be a thing.

Indeed - experiencing or observing how some players choose to behave can leave a bad taste - and it's not something that other players may choose to reward by their continued presence.

Also, one doesn't need to be a triangle until the moment they decide to establish that tether. If one is only worried about triangles, they're asking to get caught off-guard.

Of course - any non-green hollow scanner marker is to be distrusted.

I'm not sure I agree with that either. While I don't think all, or even most, gankers are really looking for a challenge, some surely are, and if they have to go through twenty or thirty encounters to be surprised by a CMDR, that's still a much better rate than they'll find with NPCs, which will essentially never surprise anyone experienced with them.

Which means that they're quite happy to (potentially, there must be some for whom a gank attempt is fun) spoil a lot of player's gameplay to satisfy their desires, without an apparent thought as to the desires of their targets.

.... and then wonder why people are put off playing among those who would shoot them.

 

[Rat Catcher]

And what factors result in a particular disinterest for a PvP encounter vs. an otherwise similar PvE one?

Does disinterest need justifying?

 

[Morbad]

Of course - any non-green hollow scanner marker is to be distrusted.

Green doesn't imply anything. A fairly common ambush tactic is to join the same side as one's target in a CZ, for example. Even blue is no guarantee of alliance, if one isn't vetting wingmates. False flags and other forms of subterfuge are perfectly legitimate gameplay.

Depending on the ranges involved, it's also possible to obscure the hollowness of one's sensor contact by flying in close proximity to an NPC. I often do this out of habit in SC and regularly employ it if I'm in a smaller ship in normal space.

Anyway, no sense in being paranoid. I give other CMDRs the benefit of any doubt, but my CMDR is always ready to destroy them, or jump away (can always blow them up tomorrow, or next year), if they prove problematic.

Which means that they're quite happy to (potentially, there must be some for whom a gank attempt is fun) spoil a lot of player's gameplay to satisfy their desires, without an apparent thought as to the desires of their targets.

Given the spectrum of player reactions it seems foolish to presume that one's target will be offended by any given example of wholly legitimate rule abiding gameplay, and outright silly that it should dissuade someone from playing as they see fit. Even after a decade of threads like this, I would be fairly astonished if a poll revealed most people felt a gank attempt would spoil their gameplay, but even if such an opinion were the overwhelming one, I wouldn't believe for a single second that it was the onus of players to alter their gameplay in non-contextual ways to accommodate those who have chosen the wrong mode, or made poor assumptions about the motives of fellow players.

I mean I don't expect people to refrain from using fleet carriers, having multiple accounts, or even abusing block...just because I think it's bad form. They can't read my mind, nor do they have any particular reason to care what I think. Even if they do care what I think, no one is going to prioritize someone else's perspective over their own.

That's what all these hard coded constraints are for, and why some people want the changed. Voluntaryism is not a workable thing when it comes to multiplayer games featuring strangers.

Does disinterest need justifying?

I'm not asking for a justification. I'm asking for an explanation.

I'm always keen to better understand things, no matter how justifiable, or not, I find them to be.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Green doesn't imply anything. A fairly common ambush tactic is to join the same side as one's target in a CZ, for example. Even blue is no guarantee of alliance, if one isn't vetting wingmates. False flags and other forms of subterfuge are perfectly legitimate gameplay.

Depending on the ranges involved, it's also possible to obscure the hollowness of one's sensor contact by flying in close proximity to an NPC. I often do this out of habit in SC and regularly employ it if I'm in a smaller ship in normal space.

Anyway, no sense in being paranoid. I give other CMDRs the benefit of any doubt, but my CMDR is always ready to destroy them, or jump away (can always blow them up tomorrow, or next year), if they prove problematic.

All the more reason not to play in Open for those disinclined to engage in combat then.

Given the spectrum of player reactions it seems foolish to presume that one's target will be offended by any given example of wholly legitimate rule abiding gameplay, and outright silly that it should dissuade someone from playing as they see fit. Even after a decade of threads like this, I would be fairly astonished if a poll revealed most people felt a gank attempt would spoil their gameplay, but even if such an opinion were the overwhelming one, I wouldn't believe for a single second that it was the onus of players to alter their gameplay in non-contextual ways to accommodate those who have chosen the wrong mode, or made poor assumptions about the motives of fellow players.

I mean I don't expect people to refrain from using fleet carriers, having multiple accounts, or even abusing block...just because I think it's bad form. They can't read my mind, nor do they have any particular reason to care what I think. Even if they do care what I think, no one is going to prioritize someone else's perspective over their own.

Which reads as "everyone is free to do what they want within the rules" - which seems fair. Odd then that some of those who enjoy particular rules complain about other players playing within rules that they don't like so seek to have them changed. Also, if block is within the rules, how can it be abused?

That's what all these hard coded constraints are for, and why some people want the changed. Voluntaryism is not a workable thing when it comes to multiplayer games featuring strangers.

If the modes did not exist then there may not have been a game to discuss - and while games with a single game world that everyone inhabits certainly exist, they certainly don't appeal to all players.

 

[Morbad]

Odd then that some of those who enjoy particular rules complain about other players playing within rules that they don't like so seek to have them changed.

How is that odd? Knowing that what one finds problematic is well within the rules would seem to be the overriding reason one may wish the rules to be changed.

The problems players have with each other ultimately comes down to the rules, or their enforcement. I don't blame other players for playing within the rules, I blame Frontier for implementing rules I feel are bad rules, or for not enforcing the rules that are already in place.

We all have to compromise and we'd all likely be happier with the game if we had to compromise less.

Also, if block is within the rules, how can it be abused?

Same way chat, or networking, or interdictions, or bugs can be abused. Being part of the game doesn't mean all conceivable uses are legitimate. Harassment is against the rules, but all forms of in-game harassment have to use features with (usually) predominantly legitimate use cases. You can block someone to avoid playing with them, but if you and your buddies followed another group of CMDRs around and selectively blocked some of them for the express purpose of preventing them from playing together in Open or the PG you were all in, and someone could prove this, that would surely be against the rules. It's one thing to be indifferent to instancing, it's quite another to weaponize it.

If it didn't have a use that was within the rules it couldn't be abused, it would just be against the rules, or not under the purview of the game at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We all have to compromise and we'd all likely be happier with the game if we had to compromise less.

Indeed we do. Noting that the game we'd each be happy with is likely very different from the game(s) that others would be happy with. As it is there is only one game, with one set of rules - and no agreement on how or even which rule(s) should be changed.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I'm not asking for a justification. I'm asking for an explanation.

I'd have thought that the word was self-explanatory.

But, not having an interest in something would normally indicate that the individual does not find it sufficiently engaging to wish to join in the activity.

Perhaps a simplified example?

I have been a Radio Ham for over 40 years, it is a hobby that has many facets (very much like this game), yet I have never bounced signals off the moon, engaged in Amatuer TV transmission, or used any of the data transmission options we have. There are active communities on each of those, yet they hold no interest, for me...

The same can be applied to this (or any) game, not having an interest in engaging in any particular facet is the choice of the individual, there is no obligation to be interested in every possibility surrounding play.

But, you know that already, logically, if something optional is of no interest, an individual may opt to not engage in it. PvP combat play is optional in this game.

 

[Morbad]

I'd have thought that the word was self-explanatory.

But, not having an interest in something would normally indicate that the individual does not find it sufficiently engaging to wish to join in the activity.

Perhaps a simplified example?

I have been a Radio Ham for over 40 years, it is a hobby that has many facets (very much like this game), yet I have never bounced signals off the moon, engaged in Amatuer TV transmission, or used any of the data transmission options we have. There are active communities on each of those, yet they hold no interest, for me...

The same can be applied to this (or any) game, not having an interest in engaging in any particular facet is the choice of the individual, there is no obligation to be interested in every possibility surrounding play.

But, you know that already, logically, if something optional is of no interest, an individual may opt to not engage in it. PvP combat play is optional in this game.

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask that still doesn't answer my original question of, "what factors result in a particular disinterest for a PvP encounter vs. an otherwise similar PvE one?"

I'm not asking why someone might not like Jif creamy peanut butter, nor even expressing surprise at the fact that they don't. I'm asking why someone eating Skippy creamy peanut butter has a problem with Jif creamy peanut butter, when I'd be hard pressed to tell them apart.

 

[ethelred]

PvP (in direct confrontation terms) is indeed optional.

I guess I am an Open moderate in that I would be happy with some sort of Open Only gameplay (either as a part of PP or separate) that's set up in game, by the game in certain zones.

If this PvP zone adds to bucket filling for a particular power then that would be even better.

It wouldn't replace PvE activities.

So, an optional activity that IMHO doesn't take anything away from PvE players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm not asking why someone might not like Jif creamy peanut butter, nor even expressing surprise at the fact that they don't. I'm asking why someone eating Skippy creamy peanut butter has a problem with Jif creamy peanut butter, when I'd be hard pressed to tell them apart.

While some players seem to insist there's no difference, Sandro acknowledged that there is:

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

 

[Brrokk]

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask that still doesn't answer my original question of, "what factors result in a particular disinterest for a PvP encounter vs. an otherwise similar PvE one?"
I'm not asking why someone might not like Jif creamy peanut butter, nor even expressing surprise at the fact that they don't. I'm asking why someone eating Skippy creamy peanut butter has a problem with Jif creamy peanut butter, when I'd be hard pressed to tell them apart.

I think it's experience. With an NPC I get remarks about tasty cargo and get told how many tons to drop. I've never had any meaningful talk in a PvP interdiction and I've perceived no connection between interdiction and my cargo. It's more like the difference between peanut butter and machine oil.

 

[angusmadmac1]

The problem is PvP doesn't add to anything in game in PP or BGS . Oh I chased a commander around for hours before blowing him up . Woohoo win for me , whilst his other 5 mates have been hauling the PP BGS stuff with no issue , who going to win ?? It's not the one that eventually managed to blow up 1 person ...
As to why PvP isn't liked or regarded as bad . There was a PvPer Arcon fury ( sidewinder against the universe) and he used to PvP but he had some criteria , certain rank in combat and enemy to Arcon , but he would used sidewinders and dbx but he would take on anything some he won some he lost and that was fun to watch .
Going against a superior pilot isn't fun going against a mediocre pilot in a heavily PvP engineered ship isn't fun especially when his mates turn up , the reason for that is because there is no chance I could win ever .
That's the crux of the matter a superior PvP guy in say a small ship will probably win but there is always the chance I could get a lucky hit and win .
It's all about surviving yes we can high wake boost jump etc . But if it's a tiny sidewinder I've got a chance and I would probably give it a go , the PvPer get their fun because they have honed their skills and if I get blown up well it's because the commander was good and I have a giggle to myself and possibly ask for pointers .
NPC interaction is like that except I know that I should win due to my builds and not my skills.
It's the chance of winning that's needed .
But most of the time it's there is no chance and the PvPer is just a smeghead .

 

[Rat Catcher]

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask that still doesn't answer my original question of, "what factors result in a particular disinterest for a PvP encounter vs. an otherwise similar PvE one?"

Is disinterest not sufficient? It is rather self explanatory, isn't it?

 

[Dragsham]

I've been chastised for calling pvpers gankers. Way ic it, their the same. Namely a small band of pvpers gank.
Its their contribution that craps on the rest of the pvp community.
That's what needs addressing. Until then open only is at best a pipedream

 

[Morbad]

While some players seem to insist there's no difference, Sandro acknowledged that there is:

Yes, you pointed out a psychological component earlier. Others have focused on the difficulty aspect.

I still don't know the nature of the dichotomy for Rat Catcher, however.

Is disinterest not sufficient? It is rather self explanatory, isn't it?

My question has nothing to do with sufficiency. I'm not asking why one would avoid PvP. I'm asking what criteria would make one avoid A, but not B. It's not a 'is this good enough' question, it's a 'what's the difference between these two things' question.

Given mechanically identical encounters and outcomes, what makes PvE different from PvP, for you?

NPC yanks your CMDR out of SC, makes some absurd demand for cargo, and gets shot down.

CMDR yanks your CMDR out of SC, makes some absurd demand for cargo, and gets shot down.

How do these encounters differ? If you're ok with one, but not the other, why is that?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes, you pointed out a psychological component earlier. Others have focused on the difficulty aspect.

I still don't know the nature of the dichotomy for Rat Catcher, however.



My question has nothing to do with sufficiency. I'm not asking why one would avoid PvP. I'm asking what criteria would make one avoid A, but not B. It's not a 'is this good enough' question, it's a 'what's the difference between these two things' question.

Given mechanically identical encounters and outcomes, what makes PvE different from PvP, for you?

NPC yanks your CMDR out of SC, makes some absurd demand for cargo, and gets shot down.

CMDR yanks your CMDR out of SC, makes some absurd demand for cargo, and gets shot down.

How do these encounters differ? If you're ok with one, but not the other, why is that?

Start with the bit that goes before that, i.e. evading NPC interdiction is achievable far more often than not and evading interdiction by a player is not.

Put differently: there seems to be a bias in the interdiction towards the player that initiated it.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask that still doesn't answer my original question of, "what factors result in a particular disinterest for a PvP encounter vs. an otherwise similar PvE one?"

I'm not asking why someone might not like Jif creamy peanut butter, nor even expressing surprise at the fact that they don't. I'm asking why someone eating Skippy creamy peanut butter has a problem with Jif creamy peanut butter, when I'd be hard pressed to tell them apart.

I honestly don't understand why you insist on some form of erlaborate explanation. Quite a few people have described in the past how PvP encounters are just... different. You can rationalize all day long why that is, or find arguments why it is actually not, but it just different is for some, maybe a lot of people. And it doesn't really matter if it is "all in their head" or something. I am not interested to be cannon fodder for other CMDRs. Period.

And I bet that even if you remove the hollow marker, people will still be able to tell if they deal with an NPC or a CMDR.

It's just different, and some people are just not interested in getting shot at by other CMDRs.

 

[Rat Catcher]

My question has nothing to do with sufficiency.

Indeed it doesn't.... In fact it just appers to be an inability to understand that any player in this game may choose how they wish to play, no need to justify it to any other player, and, if any particular player is unable to understand choice, that is their problem, isn't it?

 

[ethelred]

It must be a psychological difference.

I remember posts on the OG California where CMDRs insisted they would rather self destruct than give a single ton to an interdicting pirate CMDR

Edit:- it's like the differing psychological approaches to Open - for me I see it as an additional challenge and aren't too concerned with losing stuff I stake when I fly in Open. Ultimately if I "die" in Open it's on me as I've made a mistake - a mistake I try and rectify.

Others would see that as a waste of time for a variety of completely acceptable reasons.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It must be a psychological difference.

I remember posts on the OG California where CMDRs insisted they would rather self destruct than give a single ton to an interdicting pirate CMDR

Indeed - if someone is out to attempt to dominate their target and spoil their fun, why should the target not reciprocate?