Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[DarkWalker]

Despite acknowledging that the issue(s) probably shouldn't be "fixed", I still attempt to discuss some of the aspects on a theoretical level. But the usual response I get has nothing to do with what I am talking about. It's generally something like "should have read the box" or one of many other canned responses.

That response is because what you point as an issue is not really a flaw, but a deliberate design choice.

Frontier decided, from the start, that every player, including those playing in Solo, should be able to influence how the shared galaxy develops; there are videos nearly three years old explicitly pointing this. The idea was that the fate of the galaxy would be decided by who got more support. The instanced design of the game precluded any kind of tactical play anyway, as you would be hard pressed to get anything bigger than a 4x4 fight with the game's networking system, so making the choice basically a popularity contest doesn't negatively impact the result.

Atop that, the core idea of the multiplayer aspect of the game is that players are free to choose who they allow to play with them. Which means that no player would ever be able to force their will upon another in a lasting way, that there would be no way to prevent others from enjoying the content they want to play. This basically precludes any kind of denial tactic — such as a blockade — that is not initiated by the devs themselves.

You apparently see the lack of ways to force direct conflict and the lack of effectiveness of denial tactics as flaws. I see them as the best feature of the game's multiplayer modes, and something deliberately included by the devs to boot. Hence the "working as intended" and "should have read the box" answers; those characteristics of the game you see as issues are, from my point of view, intentional and highly desirable features.

 

[Faded Glory]

I'm not sure why everyone playing Open is assumed to be driven towards PvP. I know I'm not overly interested in it. I'm sure there must be other traders and explorers in Open who aren't. If I were to play PP, I likely would be one of the guys grinding away flying delivery missions.

Then what exactly is the problem with the modes now?

I've suggested to Daffan many times that he just gets on and plays the game the way he wants. He (and others) say they can't because the people 'grinding' hidden to him have no risk so it's not an even playing field. If you are saying that PvP is such a minor issue in Open, then where exactly is the non-level playing field? NPCs exist in all modes.

The Open only advocates have made it abundantly clear that they wish to prevent other players from doing PP stuff by PvP confrontation. There's absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else from playing Open cooperatively, nor is there anything stopping players like Daffan from playing the game his way in Open right now.

Except for one thing. Not many other people seem to want to play the game that way it would seem.

 

[Jockey79]

Perhaps an open advocate can answer this;

Why do we need to change any aspect of the game, when people are clearly enjoying human contact in open right now?

Thing is, there are plenty of traders that co-operate. Not 5 minutes ago, I interdicted an unshielded type-7 at the bacon CG. We had a pleasent chat, he dropped 10 tons of meat, and was on his way.

In my experience it's maybe 60/40 against a trader co-operating. That's not bad odds. Put it another way: There are good eggs - the traders that co-operate. No reason to punish them, and my paltry 10 tons are a meager fee. I like these traders, so I treat them well.

Then there are the traders that don't co-operate. The bad eggs. One way or another, these are useless to myself and other pirates. So I may as well have some fun and see a pretty explosion.

and

I've been doing the whole "pirate" thing since gamma. If anything, the amount of co-operative traders has increased in open.

^^ This guy makes a living off interactions with other players.

Perhaps those of you moaning should PM this guy and get lessons maybe?
As this guy is clearly doing well out of player interactions right now.

 

[JosiahD]

The issue is not that everyone in Open is doing PvP. The issue is that a single person that insists in PvP can force others in Open to also engage in PvP, regardless of whether they want to play PvP or not.

Hence, Open is a PvP mode. Only good for those that either want PvP or don't mind it happening.

---

Another part of it was that most player to player contact was supposed to end in co-op play, not PvP. The idea is that people should be thrilled when they find someone else in the game. Every time that some player jumps out of fear just from meeting another player, before that other player even has the chance to show his intent, the game has failed.

---

Sincerely, this is naive. There is a dedicated PvP population that will make sure that any game mode where PvP is non-optional ends up as an outright PvP mode, regardless of the intent of the developers or publisher. I've seen this happen more than once.

Hence why I, and others, want an Open PvE mode. Prohibiting non-consensual PvP at a rules level is the only way to effectively have a PvE mode.

Not 'everyone' in open is doing PvP anyway, so that will never be 'an issue' to begin with. But again, open is NOT PvP mode, it is a principally PvE mode within which PvP is possible. More than anything it is a mix of possibilities and, sorry, but to brand it one mode or another is plain wrong. It is not at all niaive - there is no way for any PvP group to somehow make the mode PvP-focused. They can try to 'own' certain systems if they like, but even in the highly unlikely event that they succeeded in turning, say, 100 systems (eg Star Citzen size?) into PvP-land, it would still only be a tiny percentage of the number of inhabited systems, let alone the number of systems in total. They might believe in their own minds that the mode is a PvP mode because that's the specific gameplay they're after, but they can't themselves define what the mode is to everyone else. Ergo, open will still be primarily a PvE mode and always will be. You might have seen it happen more than once (examples?), but I doubt you've seen it in any game with a playable area as large as we have in Elite: Dangerous. It is very easy to avoid PvPers already, except perhaps when CGs concentrate player actions (such as the Hutton scrap run) - and all Frontier need to do to mitigate that is have multiple CG options running concurrently (which is exactly what we've seen recently, so I think that was a deliberate test by Frontier to see what the community behaviour would be in comparison with Hutton).
.
Even though I personally am not a fan of non-consensual PvP, nor am I in favour if a further separate mode - there's more than enough PvP-free space in open as it is (I already rarely see players, let alone ones who attack me), and we have the tools to circumvent those areas where it is engaged in. That said, if you want to prohibit non-cosensual PvP with rules, I'd be more than happy with a PvP flag.

 

[relayer]

It is not at all niaive - there is no way for any PvP group to somehow make the mode PvP-focused. They can try to 'own' certain systems if they like, but even in the highly unlikely event that they succeeded in turning, say, 100 systems (eg Star Citzen size?) into PvP-land, it would still only be a tiny percentage of the number of inhabited systems, let alone the number of systems in total.

I just pulled this part out of your post (which I mostly agree with) because "it's such a huge galaxy that most people won't find you anyways" is one of the reasons given for "you can escape pvp easily" and that isn't such an easy way out.

The kind of PKer we are talking about doesn't roam the galaxy looking for fights. They concentrate on Rares routes, on some systems (ie Sol/Exuber/Sirius, etc) that they consider they "own"; on "this is a thing to see in Elite Dangerous (lore)" (ie Lave, Leesti, etc); on Community Goals systems and on noob systems/starter systems.

That makes the workable galaxy a bit smaller. It increases the chances of encountering reavers exponentially.

If anything would change (although I think the 3 modes do an admirable job for choice of playstyle), I'd be in favor of a pvp flag. I'm also in favor of "sticky" bounties attached to the account/player rather than a ship and would follow a player through all the modes. If "it's called 'Elite Dangerous'" is a reason given for PKing, then it should be extremely dangerous to practice this "lifestyle/RP."

 

[Jockey79]

... there's more than enough PvP-free space in open as it is ....

There is no such thing a "PvP free space" - no matter what system you are in, if someone wants to kill you, they can.
Simple as that.

People have been killed outside Hutton Orbital,
People have been killed at Sag A*.
People have been killed in the Mobius PvE Group.

There is no "PvP-free space".
Saying "if you find me" does not make this a PvE game, it makes PvP harder as you can run and hide, but it does not stop or disable the open galaxy PvP state.
Plainly put - if I wanted to kill you and I see you - I can, because EVERY SYSTEM HAS PVP ENABLED and you cannot do anything about that in open play.

You may not like it being called a PvP game, but games that allow PvP EVERYWHERE are PvP games, just because it is "optional" does not make it any less of a PvP game. I know the Devs intent was a PvE game with optional PvP... but they clearly did not make that. Every CG has PvP fights going on (groups like CODE make sure of it) due to them being advertised on Galnet. And even without any actual rewards for PvP in Power Play look at how the PvP crowd want people forced in to open - for PvP, using PP as the excuse.

The only way to escape PvP is play Solo or with people you trust not to shoot you.

 

[Mouse]

Not 'everyone' in open is doing PvP anyway, so that will never be 'an issue' to begin with. But again, open is NOT PvP mode, it is a principally PvE mode within which PvP is possible. More than anything it is a mix of possibilities and, sorry, but to brand it one mode or another is plain wrong. It is not at all niaive - there is no way for any PvP group to somehow make the mode PvP-focused. They can try to 'own' certain systems if they like, but even in the highly unlikely event that they succeeded in turning, say, 100 systems (eg Star Citzen size?) into PvP-land, it would still only be a tiny percentage of the number of inhabited systems, let alone the number of systems in total. They might believe in their own minds that the mode is a PvP mode because that's the specific gameplay they're after, but they can't themselves define what the mode is to everyone else. Ergo, open will still be primarily a PvE mode and always will be. You might have seen it happen more than once (examples?), but I doubt you've seen it in any game with a playable area as large as we have in Elite: Dangerous. It is very easy to avoid PvPers already, except perhaps when CGs concentrate player actions (such as the Hutton scrap run) - and all Frontier need to do to mitigate that is have multiple CG options running concurrently (which is exactly what we've seen recently, so I think that was a deliberate test by Frontier to see what the community behaviour would be in comparison with Hutton).
.
Even though I personally am not a fan of non-consensual PvP, nor am I in favour if a further separate mode - there's more than enough PvP-free space in open as it is (I already rarely see players, let alone ones who attack me), and we have the tools to circumvent those areas where it is engaged in. That said, if you want to prohibit non-cosensual PvP with rules, I'd be more than happy with a PvP flag.

I'm sorry, I have to agree that Dark Walker is right. You make some good points and I agree Open was not intend to be a PVP server.. but some who love PVP, and more importantly PVP against weaker foes, have decided that ANYONE who plays in THEIR pond.. aka Open.. has automatically consented to PVP and anything that they want to do to them.

When you have to go away from areas just to find peace... it is a pvp server. It is like Eve..

 

[Khelder]

Can you give me an example of the bit(s) you'd like to theoretically discuss?

Well, I was going to finally give up on this conversation... again. But since you ask and since it was actually you I was originally responding to...

Ok. It makes perfect sense that the number of players on each side would have a massive (if not defining) influence on an outcome. I don't know if I've ever said that it doesn't.

But what happens if those numbers are fairly close? Better still, what happens if those numbers are exactly the same? Now, forgive me if I misunderstand the aspects of PP here. Let's take a scenario...

Faction X has 100 willing participants. They carry widgets from point A to point B in order to help their faction. Faction Y has 100 willing participants too. They carry widgets from point C to point D (or are they going B to A?) in order to help their faction. So far, in theory, this should come to pretty close a tie (ignoring travel time, and all other variances).

Now, what happens if 10 of Faction X's players decide to start picking off Faction Y pilots heading to point D? The numbers are still the same. But some interesting possibilities come to play. Clearly, Faction X has 10 fewer players delivering widgets. That's a disadvantage - let's get that out of the way. But now it becomes known that Faction X is killing around point D. What if a Faction Y player starts thinking "I'd like to deliver these widgets, but I also like my ship. Maybe I might sit this one out?" What if 10 Faction Y players start thinking that way? What if more? What if they don't but every time Faction X makes a kill, that Faction Y player has to start from scratch at point C? Since there is only Open, the option to fly Solo to avoid Faction X isn't available.

I honestly don't know how much of a difference it would make. PvP may very well be a futile exercise. But the effectiveness of PvP or relative numbers per faction weren't really the points in discussion.

So, we are talking about a theoretical situation where Open mode has its own BGS (or other modes are not available I guess). In this theoretical scenario, all players playing the game want to play ED (all arguments of "I refuse to play that way - I would just leave" are irrelevant). In this theoretical scenario, if a player wants to avoid PvP, they will likely continue playing but do some trading or exploring on their own.

In this scenario, everyone's network connection is stable and ping times are sub 10ms. In this scenario, everyone is playing at the same time and the instance of a PvPer will always include a member from the opposing faction.

I have already accepted that overwhelming numbers for a particular faction would seem to be a deciding factor - but we don't really know the number pledged (and active) for each faction. In this theoretical example, the numbers are the same (at least initially).

Ok. With that groundwork in place and the scenario that I gave above, would it be possible for a PvP contingent of one faction to make a difference to the outcome? Despite the fact that PvP, in itself, does not contribute to merit scores (or whatever PP uses as a score).

 

[Jockey79]

Well, I was going to finally give up on this conversation... again. But since you ask and since it was actually you I was originally responding to...



So, we are talking about a theoretical situation where Open mode has its own BGS (or other modes are not available I guess). In this theoretical scenario, all players playing the game want to play ED (all arguments of "I refuse to play that way - I would just leave" are irrelevant). In this theoretical scenario, if a player wants to avoid PvP, they will likely continue playing but do some trading or exploring on their own.

In this scenario, everyone's network connection is stable and ping times are sub 10ms. In this scenario, everyone is playing at the same time and the instance of a PvPer will always include a member from the opposing faction.

I have already accepted that overwhelming numbers for a particular faction would seem to be a deciding factor - but we don't really know the number pledged (and active) for each faction. In this theoretical example, the numbers are the same (at least initially).

Ok. With that groundwork in place and the scenario that I gave above, would it be possible for a PvP contingent of one faction to make a difference to the outcome? Despite the fact that PvP, in itself, does not contribute to merit scores (or whatever PP uses as a score).

Do you know about the Lugh experiments ?

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
Ok. With that groundwork in place and the scenario that I gave above, would it be possible for a PvP contingent of one faction to make a difference to the outcome? Despite the fact that PvP, in itself, does not contribute to merit scores (or whatever PP uses as a score).

No. The game and especially PP is designed for PvE.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
Ok. With that groundwork in place and the scenario that I gave above, would it be possible for a PvP contingent of one faction to make a difference to the outcome? Despite the fact that PvP, in itself, does not contribute to merit scores (or whatever PP uses as a score).

Maybe, who knows. You'd have to be playing the game you just described, which is not ED.

 

[Kavaros]

There is no "PvP-free space".

You fool! None shall come to PvP me at Myeia Thaa JI-B D13-0

 

[Jockey79]

You fool! None shall come to PvP me at Myeia Thaa JI-B D13-0

Oh I don't know, I'm not far away now...

 

[Mouse]

Well, I was going to finally give up on this conversation... again. But since you ask and since it was actually you I was originally responding to...



So, we are talking about a theoretical situation where Open mode has its own BGS (or other modes are not available I guess). In this theoretical scenario, all players playing the game want to play ED (all arguments of "I refuse to play that way - I would just leave" are irrelevant). In this theoretical scenario, if a player wants to avoid PvP, they will likely continue playing but do some trading or exploring on their own.

In this scenario, everyone's network connection is stable and ping times are sub 10ms. In this scenario, everyone is playing at the same time and the instance of a PvPer will always include a member from the opposing faction.

I have already accepted that overwhelming numbers for a particular faction would seem to be a deciding factor - but we don't really know the number pledged (and active) for each faction. In this theoretical example, the numbers are the same (at least initially).

Ok. With that groundwork in place and the scenario that I gave above, would it be possible for a PvP contingent of one faction to make a difference to the outcome? Despite the fact that PvP, in itself, does not contribute to merit scores (or whatever PP uses as a score).

What you literally described is Eve in a cockpit with the addition of PP.

 

[JosiahD]

There is no such thing a "PvP free space" - no matter what system you are in, if someone wants to kill you, they can.
Simple as that.

People have been killed outside Hutton Orbital,
People have been killed at Sag A*.
People have been killed in the Mobius PvE Group.

There is no "PvP-free space".
Saying "if you find me" does not make this a PvE game, it makes PvP harder as you can run and hide, but it does not stop or disable the open galaxy PvP state.
Plainly put - if I wanted to kill you and I see you - I can, because EVERY SYSTEM HAS PVP ENABLED and you cannot do anything about that in open play.

You may not like it being called a PvP game, but games that allow PvP EVERYWHERE are PvP games, just because it is "optional" does not make it any less of a PvP game. I know the Devs intent was a PvE game with optional PvP... but they clearly did not make that. Every CG has PvP fights going on (groups like CODE make sure of it) due to them being advertised on Galnet. And even without any actual rewards for PvP in Power Play look at how the PvP crowd want people forced in to open - for PvP, using PP as the excuse.

The only way to escape PvP is play Solo or with people you trust not to shoot you.

Sorry but I have to disagree. I (and many others, I would suggest) have gone extended periods in open when in inhabited space without even seeing another player. PvP implies the presence of other players. Their absence, whether that be because they're not there or simply because of matchmaking mechanics, INDEED results in a PvP-free experience. While it is true that PvP COULD occur if they were present, that doesn't make it a PvP mode (or PvP-focused as some seem to imply it is), but rather EXACTLY as I described it - a PvE game in which PvP is possible. Even where PvP is more common, the core remains a PvE mode whether people like it or not, exactly as designed. The point, again, is that describing open as one mode or the other is incorrect - it is in fact a hybrid ranging from PvE through coop to PvP. People need to stop trying to pigeonhole open mode into one gameplay style or another.

 

[Mouse]

Sorry but I have to disagree. I (and many others, I would suggest) have gone extended periods in open when in inhabited space without even seeing another player. PvP implies the presence of other players. Their absence, whether that be because they're not there or simply because of matchmaking mechanics, INDEED results in a PvP-free experience. While it is true that PvP COULD occur if they were present, that doesn't make it a PvP mode (or PvP-focused as some seem to imply it is), but rather EXACTLY as I described it - a PvE game in which PvP is possible. Even where PvP is more common, the core remains a PvE mode whether people like it or not, exactly as designed. The point, again, is that describing open as one mode or the other is incorrect - it is in fact a hybrid ranging from PvE through coop to PvP. People need to stop trying to pigeonhole open mode into one gameplay style or another.

Sorry, but I agree with Jockey.. PVE means that I'm playing and you come up then try to shoot me. Because I'm not flagged PVP or because of the mode we are in you can't do it, THAT IS PVE mode

IF you can attack me at any point without me putting up a PVP flag or otherwise consenting.. it is a PVP mode.

 

[DarkWalker]

But again, open is NOT PvP mode, it is a principally PvE mode within which PvP is possible. More than anything it is a mix of possibilities and, sorry, but to brand it one mode or another is plain wrong.

The definition I use for a PvE game, or mode, is that the player will never be forced into a PvP situation. If the player can be forced into a PvP situation, no matter how unlikely, then I consider it a PvP game/mode/whatever and treat it accordingly.

Thus, Open for me is a PvP mode, and will always be. And, as such, worthless for me.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
There is no such thing a "PvP free space" - no matter what system you are in, if someone wants to kill you, they can.
Simple as that.

The only way to escape PvP is play Solo or with people you trust not to shoot you.

[snip]
Sorry but I have to disagree. I (and many others, I would suggest) have gone extended periods in open when in inhabited space without even seeing another player.

People need to stop trying to pigeonhole open mode into one gameplay style or another.

To be fair, regardless of what you call it, what Jockey is saying is technically true. PvP is allowed, is not against the rules, and while you certainly can take steps to avoid it if you want (although I'm not sure then what the point of playing Open is...), it can happen, consensually or otherwise. The emptiness of space does not mean it can't happen.

I don't think anyone is trying to pigeonhole Open. Some tried to pigeonhole Solo and Group as places where people went "to hide, to exploit, to cheat" no less, but as far as Open goes, most people are quite happy for it to be a place where anyone can play if they want to. They key being 'if they want to', and it would certainly seem that there are plenty who don't want to, and that seems to be a problem for some. I don't really understand why...

 

[JosiahD]

To be fair, regardless of what you call it, what Jockey is saying is technically true. PvP is allowed, is not against the rules, and while you certainly can take steps to avoid it if you want (although I'm not sure then what the point of playing Open is...), it can happen, consensually or otherwise. The emptiness of space does not mean it can't happen.

I don't think anyone is trying to pigeonhole Open. Some tried to pigeonhole Solo and Group as places where people went "to hide, to exploit, to cheat" no less, but as far as Open goes, most people are quite happy for it to be a place where anyone can play if they want to. They key being 'if they want to', and it would certainly seem that there are plenty who don't want to, and that seems to be a problem for some. I don't really understand why...

Doesn't make open a PvP game though. CQC is a PvP game for example because that is exactly what it is and nothing else - no ambiguity, no hybridisation. Saying open is a PvP game is basically portraying it as exclusively PvP, equating it to CQC, COD, Battlefield and other games of that ilk - which is inaccurate. Allowing PvP in a PvE-focused core, which is what open mode is, doesn't make it a PvP game but rather the hybrid I have already described. There remains no need for a separate open PvE mode because it is already PvE-focused - unless people are hellbent on depopuating open mode even more than the actions of a few groups and individuals have already done. We have already the alternative tools to disconnect from the rather small PvP component of open (although PvPers and some others would have everyone inflate the significance of PvP in open beyond it's rather minor contribution in the grand scheme if things), and we all know what they are. Open is a hybrid, not one nor the other. But let's go ahead and create an open PvE-only mode then........it'll only hurt the PvPers (ie fewer targets), but personally I'd prefer a PvP flag in the current open mode if people are so insistent on blocking non-consensual PvP (mostly because I couldn't care less about ruining the so-called immersion for a few PvP zealots).

 

[Mouse]

But let's go ahead and create an open PvE-only mode then........it'll only hurt the PvPers (ie fewer targets).

Actually it gives them the right targets... PVPers.. PVErs do NOT want to be forced into PVP.. The whole argument about open only is that argument right there.. Some PVPers want targets.. problem is they are not wanting other PVPers are targets.. they want "soft" targets.. non PVPers.. which is why Mobius exists, and Solo, and countless private groups, and why the request for a PVE open mode has strength..

We play ED to play ED.. NOT to be other people's content, and some of us can not PVP for real life reasons. Yet we like to interact with others.. according to some.. we are not allowed to.. because we take their game away from them by not allowing ourselves to be their targets....


ED is a PVE game with PVP added.. OPEN MODE currently is a PVP mode not PVE with PVP added because there is no way to manage the PVP..to not PVP.. you have to leave the mode or stay away from interacting with others.