Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
This always gets brought up, but never the reason why we should. Open is already that and more. It's also open enrollment and has a bigger population thana group could ever have. So I'll repeat the question, why should players who want pvp create a group when open is all that and more?

According to the responses here, Open is a barren wilderness and you can't find anyone because they are all PP grinding in Solo and if you do find someone they combat log?

Does that mean there is not a large proportion of the player base who want constant non-consensual pvp? I can't keep up with the situation in Open, if you state it is everything you want an more?

FDev will never flag the current Open mode as "The pvp mode", because it isn't. So if pvpers really wanted to show how big a % of the active player base they are, why not create a group and record the results? The idea of the group would be people wanting / seeking / not avoiding pvp. So the numbers wouldn't be artificially bumped up with invisible explorers, for example.

The thought being that every PP area is full of players wanting the pvp encounters we hear are missing from Open.
 
Because the game is open pvp by default, it's not pve by default.

No, the game is personal choice by default - a choice PvPers in this thread have made it quite clear, they want removed.
I don't have to PvP if I don't want to - and I don't want to. Yet the calls to remove MY choice to not PvP keeps coming up, over and over.

And when that fails, it falls back to nerf Solo/Group or Buff Open - same argument from 2 sides. So if PvPers cannot remove my choice, they want to make it invalid.
 
Because the game is open pvp by default, it's not pve by default.

And that point seems to be lost on all the Open Combat loggers?
I can see that my idea seems like a dig, it really isn't meant to be. Get a big group of PvP+ players in a group, get some vids done, push the agenda to FDev with some hard currency.
I appreciate this thread ends up being rhetoric and posturing from both sides all too frequently (myself included). People arguing for the status quo don't have such a difficult position to defend, as it appears to be aligned with the game designers.
 
Last edited:
Good point, I didn't think of that. Might be worth it just for that alone. Too bad it will have an even worse, trader, pirate, bounty hunter ratio than open.

I have been suggesting a dedicated PvP group before myself, but i'm no longer doing that, for the very reason you mention.

The only solution i can see would be to completely trivialize the consequences of ship loss.

Something like re-spawning people in their ships without cost or loss of cargo, that way SOLO mode would pretty much lose all of it's appeal.

I don't think that would sit well with a majority of ED players though.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The only solution i can see would be to completely trivialize the consequences of ship loss.

Something like re-spawning people in their ships without cost or loss of cargo, that way SOLO mode would pretty much lose all of it's appeal.

If the full reimbursement was for the ship that was attacked only rather than the attacker(s) then it might encourage players to play in Open without massively increasing PvP due to no financial consequence for the attacker.
 
If the full reimbursement was for the ship that was attacked only rather than the attacker(s) then it might encourage players to play in Open without massively increasing PvP due to no financial consequence for the attacker.

This idea sits right with me, although you'd have to determine how lost goods are handled. Do you keep your cargo? Exploration data? Vouchers?

I'd be fine with all of those being preserved as long as the cargo is not jettisoned or forcibly removed from the holds. But then traders would never submit to PC pirates because they can fight until death or run away, and keep their cargo if they die. I think a middle ground could be had here to lower the consequences of death in cases of being attacked in a pvp situation, but they can't reasonably be completely removed.
 
If the full reimbursement was for the ship that was attacked only rather than the attacker(s) then it might encourage players to play in Open without massively increasing PvP due to no financial consequence for the attacker.

Even better.

Hmm... not for all Solo players, it wouldn't!

Not for all solo players, no.

I still think it would encourage substantial numbers of solo players to play in open.

I'm also not sure how much i like my own idea.;)
 
Last edited:
And that point seems to be lost on all the Open Combat loggers?
I can see that my idea seems like a dig, it really isn't meant to be. Get a big group of PvP+ players in a group, get some vids done, push the agenda to FDev with some hard currency.
I appreciate this thread ends up being rhetoric and posturing from both sides all too frequently (myself included). People arguing for the status quo don't have such a difficult position to defend, as it appears to be aligned with the game designers.
A pvp group would only appeal to duelists. Traders won't join, so pirates won't join so bounty hunters won't join. It's pointless since CQC will be coming out so the pvp group will have their fix soon.
 
Last edited:
A pvp group would only appeal to duelists. Traders won't join, so pirates won't join so bounty hunters won't join. It's pointless since CQC will be coming out so the pvp group will have their fix soon.

Really?

What about the traders who play in open now?
Some have joined in this "debate" and stated they play open for the risk, as they enjoy it.

You don't think those same players would not join a PvP group ?
 
A pvp group would only appeal to duelists. Traders won't join, so pirates won't join so bounty hunters won't join. It's pointless since CQC will be coming out so the pvp group will have their fix soon.

Fairy nuff :) I'll be intrigued to see if any of the major Open proponents end up filling the leaderboards in CQC and letting the "imbalance" that is Open pvp fade a bit.

That could even encourage more people into Open, if they felt that the chance of "pvp for no good reason" was being reduced by CQC participation?
 
Misanthropes! Now there's a good word!

Cowardly, cheating, filthy, casual, ignorant, risk-averse, mode-switching, misanthropic, Solo players! Yes, I like that - impressive!
 
Misanthropes! Now there's a good word!

Cowardly, cheating, filthy, casual, ignorant, risk-averse, mode-switching, misanthropic, Solo players! Yes, I like that - impressive!

oh, nice !

Sorry, it won't let me +1 you for now. Will do as soon as it lets me
 
Really?

What about the traders who play in open now?
Some have joined in this "debate" and stated they play open for the risk, as they enjoy it.

You don't think those same players would not join a PvP group ?
Oh you mean the small portion of traders that like the open risk? Even if by some miracle we could get the same ratio as open, it would still be a smaller size than open. Thus less traders overall. There's only so many people that read the forums or reddit.

- - - Updated - - -

Fairy nuff :) I'll be intrigued to see if any of the major Open proponents end up filling the leaderboards in CQC and letting the "imbalance" that is Open pvp fade a bit.

That could even encourage more people into Open, if they felt that the chance of "pvp for no good reason" was being reduced by CQC participation?
As long as the shield cell meta gets removed I'd play CQC. Pure pvp in open is too boring imo. It's all about chaffs and shield cells.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
This idea sits right with me, although you'd have to determine how lost goods are handled. Do you keep your cargo? Exploration data? Vouchers?

I'd be fine with all of those being preserved as long as the cargo is not jettisoned or forcibly removed from the holds. But then traders would never submit to PC pirates because they can fight until death or run away, and keep their cargo if they die. I think a middle ground could be had here to lower the consequences of death in cases of being attacked in a pvp situation, but they can't reasonably be completely removed.

That's what I meant by full reimbursement - ship and cargo / exploration data / refined commodities. I would specifically exclude booty and bounty vouchers from this as the aim would seem to be to encourage the less combative players into Open by offering less of a disincentive on ship loss.

If cargo or refined commodities were jettisoned then they would not be reimbursed (the difficult point would be how to deal with cargo extracted by damage to the cargo hatch or use of a hatch breaker) as it would lead to exploits if they were.

I would go as far as to suggest that players with a bounty on their head should not be reimbursed either (or maybe only for those with a bounty for attacking / destroying another player).
 
That's what I meant by full reimbursement - ship and cargo / exploration data / refined commodities. I would specifically exclude booty and bounty vouchers from this as the aim would seem to be to encourage the less combative players into Open by offering less of a disincentive on ship loss.

If cargo or refined commodities were jettisoned then they would not be reimbursed (the difficult point would be how to deal with cargo extracted by damage to the cargo hatch or use of a hatch breaker) as it would lead to exploits if they were.

I would go as far as to suggest that players with a bounty on their head should not be reimbursed either (or maybe only for those with a bounty for attacking / destroying another player).
I'm not particularly against this idea, but one thing to note would be that it would change the "meta" of piracy. Right now the best way is the "cargo or die approach". If there's no penalty for death that won't work. Then piracy would become about ripping the cargo from the trader. That is also the least effective method. It's a pretty big indirect nerf to piracy.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but FD has no idea what it wants from its game.

That's your opinion because it isn't the game you want. FD have actually been pretty consistent in their position, and what you see as cluelessness is very likely a commitment to the way they see the game progressing.

There are couple of different issues here anyway. PvP for the sake of it, because it's more fun than PvE (an opinion), and role playing PvP, mainly piracy.

The first of these is something that for sure David Braben, and therefore presumably FD do not wish to impose on the whole player base. They give it as an option, something you can do, and technical limitations aside, it is something that some CMDRs seem to engage in consensually, and post their engagements on Youtube. I would be surprised if FD ever imposed PvP on everybody, which would by it's imposed nature be non-consensual. It might make the game shine for a few players, but I doubt very much if it would be seen as a good move by the majority.

Piracy is a potentially different matter. FD have indeed stated in the marketing blurb that you can choose to play the game as a pirate. What they can of course never do, is assure you a constant stream of victims, unless those victims are NPCs, as that is very much within their powers. It's exactly the same for any of the professions, except perhaps exploration, that you will have to play the PvE game to progress. They are starting to address the issue that NPCs are not up to scratch as opponents in combat (opinion again), and that will doubtless be a continual balancing process. They absolutely need to do the same for NPC traders to make them acceptable targets for player pirates, and I would presume over time they will try to do that.

Personally, I cannot imagine that there are many players who log into a computer game to every time be someone else's content, their victim. While I'm sure that some players will enjoy the occasional interaction of being pirated as they trade to make credits, that will have to get old pretty soon, after all, there's only so many ways such an interaction can go.

The way the game is designed, the differences in ship strength and capabilities, the potential for loss that credits aside can amount to hours, if not days of gameplay due to destruction all make that destruction something that most players will strive to avoid as much as possible. CQC will presumably be the exception to that.

If you are looking for more interesting player with player content, whether that be PvP, piracy, system / faction conflicts, then I'd look at the things that FD seem to be doing with groups. If you are just looking for 'live' prey, then I imagine you will always be disappointed.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I'm not particularly against this idea, but one thing to note would be that it would change the "meta" of piracy. Right now the best way is the "cargo or die approach. If there's not penalty for death that won't work. Then piracy would become about ripping the cargo from the trader. That is also the least effective method. It's a pretty big indirect nerf to piracy.

I see what you mean - while you may have more traders willing to play in Open due to reduced losses on being destroyed by a player, you may have less luck actually getting any cargo from the trader who knows that they lose nothing on losing the ship. Difficult one....
 
Because this system is really bad and boring

Sorry, but grinding endless spawning nameless couriers is not great design for a FACTION vs FACTION war


You missed the part that said,
"war is what happens when politics fail. The Powers are not at outright war (yet)"

PowerPlay is not a Faction vs Faction war.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom