Using your own hired NPCs (customizable appearances using Holo-me) and flying your ships.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
Using your own hired NPCs (customizable appearances using Holo-me) and flying your ships.
Sure. But as Etannin points out, that puts the onus and work of curation on the individual player. It's not really a systemic solution. And it's something you can only enact as a reaction to bad behavior, instead of preempting it. And you can never really block all the jerks.
As I've mentioned before, I'm pretty satisfied with the status quo at the moment. But the basic premise that there's some combination of C&P mechanics that will allow a lore-friendly internally consistent way of dealing with an issue whose causes and reward cycles are totally out-of-game is just faulty on its face. I get the allure of the ideal, but like, wow, has that ship sailed.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Quite.
If you are strong at google-fu and inferring/deciphering information you can make use of what others post at various sites and social media to preemptively fill your blocklist. Since around the time ARX was introduced, you no longer neither need to meet anyone nor be logged into a mode to block someone preemptively.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The Distant Ganks 2 leaderboard posted elsewhere may form a decent basis for those inclined to block.
Some reddit posts and forumers (what and how they post) here as well. Oh, and, Inara of course.
My kingdom for a world where every griefer was foolish enough to use the same name in game that they do on Twitter.
But also, like... a lot of people aren't good at those things. Nor do they want to take the time. And there's a reasonable argument that they shouldn't have to.
Which takes us back to Solo/PG, of course, where all these roads seem to inevitably lead. [I'm just saying it out loud to save Robert the trouble of saying it again.
]I have seen someone who got chain-interdicted by players post a video which clearly showed the names of the ones who did it. And sometimes it's also guilty by association (squadrons)My kingdom for a world where every griefer was foolish enough to use the same name in game that they do on Twitter.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Players who may not be fun to play with for their targets seem to be quite sociable with kindred spirits, e.g. Squadron members - so there may be some merit in the application in "guilt by association".I have seen someone who got chain-interdicted by players post a video which clearly showed the names of the ones who did it. And sometimes it's also guilty by association (squadrons)
This is also a good measure for anyone who's not a "murderhobo" type to support- because in the end the PvP community gets what they want (a setting which is "organic" and everyone shares the same "risk") and so does the PvE community- as opposed to those who just harass other players (which is against the terms of service).
Over the years, I'm quite surprised to see that few of the PvP community support such a measure, as was also demonstrated with the OOPP initiative. I spent days gleaning the various comments from many well-known names who opposed any measure at a compromise, and it conveyed for them, it's either ALL or NOTHING. They're completely satisfied with how things are and continue to push for Solo and PGs to be removed instead. So, we continue with the stalemate, and likely will until either a new game is produced that is palpable to all, or one that caters to specific playstyles is produced instead.
If I saw a proposal which was truly a compromise- I'd back it. But at this point, with all the bait and switch tactics and all or nothing opposition, there's not much I can do but continue to advocate that PvE-centric players should just avoid Open entirely unless they get a particular hankering for it at some point... there's always a choice, after all.
I'd support a compromise: I've previously suggested some Open-only PvP features (maybe based on PowerPlay), introduced at the same time as an Open-PvE mode. That seems to me to give everyone what they want, apart from those who want Open-only BGS effects.
I've noticed when suggesting this before that I don't get much agreement. My interpretation is that some PvP enthusiasts don't just want a PvP feature for like-minded players; they want it to be inescapable for everyone.
The other approach, of making two separate galaxies with independent BGSs for Open and PvE play, I wouldn't mind seeing but I think we know how it would turn out. It would be a good spectator sport to watch the "Open" galaxy fill with tumbleweed, and the PvE one would end up with most of the players. Elite would de facto become a PvE game. Be careful what you wish for.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Those who want a herd to attack, provoking a response from those who want a herd to defend don't seem to consider what the herd wants.
Indeed. And we have the exact extreme opposite now, (de facto PvP game) which is likely why it will never happen.
And if you must force players to be there, then that's not a choice. And the unintended consequence of Open Only would be the entire game would be a tumbleweed spectator sport instead. Which has kind of already happened to Open as it is now.
There have been quite a number of proposals for a sort of compromise... i.e. different rewards (open = higher risk), PvP flag/toggle, etc. and was reckoned they're hard (if not impossible) to implement as FDEVs very likely had a very simple assessment like "is that worth my [company] money/time investment?" and if "yes" what's the "potential return in terms of income".
Honestly most of the discussions end up in "murderhobos in the game are sociopaths" or something like that, as the audience here just overlaps the open-play mode with the PvP-murderhobos like that's the only one feature associated with selecting "open-play" on the start menu. That turns [negatively] to the point is that a new player coming on this forum just reads "I've been ganked" more frequently than "I've had a great experience with other players" because it's a human thing to raise hands higher to complain for something rather than to be happy for something else (think about it). And most of the majority of users active/voicing in the Solo/PG vs. Open belongs [unfortunately] to the former group.
Reality it's not what this sub provides, as "murderhobos/gankers" (etc) are an unrelevant fraction of the players' base and a very small fraction of the whole PvP community, but most of the open players / PvPers have moved somewhere else to talk (i.e. DiscortdReddit) because they've not been welcomed here given the repeat brigading against them and the very lack of support from developers' side (no one of them is a PvPer).
Such discussions can be "constructive" only going beyond these facts and other misconceptions, as open-play is not "argh I'm gonna be kaboomed by a PvPer within seconds" [unless, given the current state of the game, such player drops at a CG with a shieldless T9, or in Deciat with an unengineered ASP].
Last edited:
This pretty much is the meat of the matter, as the game has already been released with success, they've reaped profits over many years' time, so why change it now?
Well, if the game has demonstrated PvE activity to be majority in perspective, yet Open was designed with de facto PvP in mind, would it not draw many players who've avoided playing the game to do so? That's a reasonable, logical deduction, based on evidence, as Frontier has seen for themselves. The reverse perspective, in forcing PvE players to participate in PvP activities, however, doesn't make as much sense. Why would you tell the majority of your playerbase to quit playing?
That's definitely one perspective. Another is that they've moved themselves to insulate against dissenting opinion, rather than staying present in the community. That's why they're called "echo chambers", because you hear only only what you tell yourself.
As the adage states, "Wherever you go, there you are."
In my years of experience here on the forums, I've yet to see any PvPer told they're "not welcome" in the community discussions- and "brigading" has existed on both sides of the fence, and there's also been quite a few constructive and civilized debates. Because everyone does not agree with one's opinion doesn't make them "unwelcome", nor does it constitute "brigading". It helps when people retain cool heads and state opinion without emotion, but with logic and sensibility.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While some of the proposals may represent a compromise from the perspective of those making the proposal, i.e. the proposal is smaller in scope than what is desired, they're not actually a compromise when looked at from a different perspective - just a reduction in scope of proposals for change to benefit one subset of the player-base, with nothing for the rest.
Thank those who choose not to consider whether their in-game choices might adversely affect other players, even if they are permitted by the game to do so. Actions have consequences - and those consequences are not in the control of the player who instigated the unwanted interaction.
It's not the only feature associated with Open. But it is the only feature that can ruin an experience specifically in Open.
Given that, it shouldn't be surprising that people complain about it.
...until you get ganked by one of them. Then they become very relevant, very quickly.
I mean, you said it, right? We tend to weight negative experiences heavier than positive ones. People nope out on all kinds of things after one bad experience, especially when that thing is low stakes, like a video game. Is it realistic to expect this would be any different?
So it's a misconception right up until a player attempts to actually play the game with other people or do stuff other people are doing, and then it's not?
Exactly this, too. Many of them are seemingly "self-serving" in nature, such as locking modules to Open only, given that Open is already de facto PvP by nature.
Any proposal which doesn't benefit the PvE community in some way other than "now you're forced to be in the barrel" isn't really a compromise at all.
My kingdom for a world where every griefer was foolish enough to use the same name in game that they do on Twitter.
I have seen someone who got chain-interdicted by players post a video which clearly showed the names of the ones who did it. And sometimes it's also guilty by association (squadrons)
shrugs
I have a handful of vids up shooting or even ganking people. And?
Should I use an Alt to obscure my main?
If someone wants to block me for that, so be it.