To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?

[Sylveria]

But it's the same 4-5 ideas, they get shot down by other people, someone else repackages them in a 15 paragraph post, rinse repeat

This really is an accurate description of Hotel California over the last 6+ years. The 4-5 arguments are the same on both sides of the fence.

It's the very essence of a stalemate, though... and here's why.

Since the cards seem to be "in favor" of defacto PvP in Open, PvP players don't want to compromise on ground because they've got it their way already aside from BGS influence. Yet all Solo PvE players need do is essentially starve out the PvP players to force a compromise. They're perfectly content to play the game without influence from other players- especially since that's what "solo/single player" means. PvP players NEED interaction with other players to facilitate their playstyle, and PvE players don't.

• Solo Players don't need to do a damned thing, they're content to play by themselves
• PvE/PG players would love to have cooperative play, but not at the expense of becoming "targets" for others
• PvP players want more social interaction, but aren't willing to compromise their beliefs to facilitate change

And as long as these remain true, we'll have a stalemate, folks.

 

[GreySix]

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Yet all Solo PvE players need do is essentially starve out the PvP players to force a compromise. They're perfectly content to play the game without influence from other players- especially since that's what "solo/single player" means. PvP players NEED interaction with other players to facilitate their playstyle, and PvE players don't.

• Solo Players don't need to do a damned thing, they're content to play by themselves
• PvE/PG players would love to have cooperative play, but not at the expense of becoming "targets" for others
• PvP players want more social interaction, but aren't willing to compromise their beliefs to facilitate change

And as long as these remain true, we'll have a stalemate, folks.

Basically so, thats why when one plays in open, always block a ganker.

 

[Brrokk]

This really is an accurate description of Hotel California over the last 6+ years. The 4-5 arguments are the same on both sides of the fence.

It's the very essence of a stalemate, though... and here's why.

Since the cards seem to be "in favor" of defacto PvP in Open, PvP players don't want to compromise on ground because they've got it their way already aside from BGS influence. Yet all Solo PvE players need do is essentially starve out the PvP players to force a compromise. They're perfectly content to play the game without influence from other players- especially since that's what "solo/single player" means. PvP players NEED interaction with other players to facilitate their playstyle, and PvE players don't.

• Solo Players don't need to do a damned thing, they're content to play by themselves
• PvE/PG players would love to have cooperative play, but not at the expense of becoming "targets" for others
• PvP players want more social interaction, but aren't willing to compromise their beliefs to facilitate change

And as long as these remain true, we'll have a stalemate, folks.

Absolutely right. I put a more positive spin on this by saying "we all have 90% of what we want" though.

 

[VeryLittleGravitas]

Basically so, thats why when one plays in open, always block a ganker.

Preferably several of them, or in batches

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Obviously it's player ships.

What happens if I have my PvP flag off and I ram a player who has his PvP flag on?

You cant deal damage with no PvP flag set.

 

[space voyager]

Really interesting conversation, thanks for raising this one. I'll throw in my two cents.

I can't see a version of Open where PvP can be toggled off, even if there are many who would like to play that way. IMO, it would go against the spirit of Elite and certainly against the idea of "Dangerous". It's also not easily explained through in-game lore.

However, I do sympathise with those who would like to encounter and interact with other players during their sessions without getting killed. Obviously there are private groups for that, but it's understandably not quite same since you could only meet people you already know.

Overall, I think the solution to this would be better coming from adjustments to the crime and punishment system to make sure there are meaningful risks/deterrents in place for non-consensual PvP encounters rather than from a binary PvP on/off toggle.

This has been talked about for years. Literally. Yet FD does NOTHING. Even the last C'n'P overhaul was done in a way that has no punishment.

 

[Brrokk]

This has been talked about for years. Literally. Yet FD does NOTHING. Even the last C'n'P overhaul was done in a way that has no punishment.

This. The nature of the standoff was described perfectly by Sylveria above, but a competent game designer wouldn't have left the salt generation going like this for so long. Saying they have no plans for another mode while at the same time helping Mobius to provide a half-baked version of one, and doing a C&P rework which didn't address the problem, has been incredibly lazy and foolish. There has been real reputational damage (e.g. articles about ED's "griefer problem" in the gaming press).

 

[Dox Paradox]

What about allowing anti-piracy/watchmen roles? Opting-in would allow the pilot to receive distress calls (aka "signal crimes committed against me") just like the regular police do in a, say, 10ly radius.
Multiple players could jump-in pretty fast and help. That would be cool and reinforce the social aspect of the game, while making piracy/murder a lot harder (or only viable in remote systems, which kind of make sense..)

And that should require very little work from FDev =)

 

[VR Murgle]

This has been talked about for years. Literally. Yet FD does NOTHING. Even the last C'n'P overhaul was done in a way that has no punishment.

Well the C&P "improvements" did make me avoid combat almost entirely even in Solo since it's now more trouble than it's worth...

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Even the last C'n'P overhaul was done in a way that has no punishment.

The last C&P overhaul has plenty of punishment - look at all the threads complaining that it applies to them when they do illegal Odyssey missions "and have to do nothing for hours because they have a point of notoriety", or loiter somewhere a bit out of the way and get sent several thousand LY to the nearest detention centre,

1) There is no C&P system possible that would be actually punishing for players who were familiar with and expecting its consequences, and know all the rapid-grind routes for quickly re-establishing cash or materials, that wouldn't be disastrously rage-quit level bad for people who "accidentally" triggered its provisions (or, see station-ramming, were tricked into triggering its provisions)
2) The point of C&P is to punish the character not the player - dealing with the in-game C&P system should remain fun for the player because this is a game [1]. If you're wanting to punish the player because you believe that their actions are a net negative to the game, that's what game bans, shadowbans, and other out-of-game / meta-game mechanisms are for, not in-game content. (Obviously Frontier doesn't currently believe that shooting other players is a net negative, so it won't do that)

[1] On which point the current C&P system also fails, I certainly agree. Needs a lot more criminal-side things which require notoriety to access, reasons not to pay off fines and bounties immediately, more interesting trade-offs for smuggling and piracy, better jurisdictional separation, etc.

 

[Bigmaec]

What about allowing anti-piracy/watchmen roles? Opting-in would allow the pilot to receive distress calls (aka "signal crimes committed against me") just like the regular police do in a, say, 10ly radius.
Multiple players could jump-in pretty fast and help. That would be cool and reinforce the social aspect of the game, while making piracy/murder a lot harder (or only viable in remote systems, which kind of make sense..)

And that should require very little work from FDev =)

That would not prevent ganking as the time to kill bad ships is so ridiculously low you're dead before I even clicked on the galmap to navigate to your position even if I wanted to help you. And if you've build your ship competently, you can already escape trivially easy*, making it only a lure for more combat oriented "white knights". Most gankers would welcome that.

* except in very very special circumstances like being in supercruise drop range of a whole ganker wing with frags / TC and groms, and not doing anything about it like bailing out early in supercruise.

The last C&P overhaul has plenty of punishment - look at all the threads complaining that it applies to them when they do illegal Odyssey missions "and have to do nothing for hours because they have a point of notoriety", or loiter somewhere a bit out of the way and get sent several thousand LY to the nearest detention centre,

1) There is no C&P system possible that would be actually punishing for players who were familiar with and expecting its consequences, and know all the rapid-grind routes for quickly re-establishing cash or materials, that wouldn't be disastrously rage-quit level bad for people who "accidentally" triggered its provisions (or, see station-ramming, were tricked into triggering its provisions)
2) The point of C&P is to punish the character not the player - dealing with the in-game C&P system should remain fun for the player because this is a game [1]. If you're wanting to punish the player because you believe that their actions are a net negative to the game, that's what game bans, shadowbans, and other out-of-game / meta-game mechanisms are for, not in-game content. (Obviously Frontier doesn't currently believe that shooting other players is a net negative, so it won't do that)

[1] On which point the current C&P system also fails, I certainly agree. Needs a lot more criminal-side things which require notoriety to access, reasons not to pay off fines and bounties immediately, more interesting trade-offs for smuggling and piracy, better jurisdictional separation, etc.

This.
But as always it's ESPECIALLY about punishing the player - who doesn't break any rules currently - that is shooting other players who don't want that in a game of shooting other players. It's essentially a revenge fantasy

 

[Robert Maynard]

This.
But as always it's ESPECIALLY about punishing the player - who doesn't break any rules currently - that is shooting other players who don't want that in a game of shooting other players. It's essentially a revenge fantasy

If it was actually "a game of shooting other players" then it would not be able to be avoided, i.e. Solo and Private Groups would not exist....

Shooting at other players / being shot at by other players are things that can happen, of course - however they are not a required part of any game feature, apart from CQC.

 

[Dox Paradox]

That would not prevent ganking as the time to kill bad ships is so ridiculously low you're dead before I even clicked on the galmap to navigate to your position even if I wanted to help you. And if you've build your ship competently, you can already escape trivially easy*, making it only a lure for more combat oriented "white knights". Most gankers would welcome that.

Well I get your point, but other players might have different expectations from the game: different builds for different purposes.
What build allow a loaded Beluga or T7, or light Dolphin to escape while maneuvering to land and being shot by 3-6 gankers ?

Or should these ships and associated play styles be removed from the game since they are not PvP combat oriented?

 

[Bigmaec]

If it was actually "a game of shooting other players" then it would not be able to be avoided, i.e. Solo and Private Groups would not exist....

Shooting at other players / being shot at by other players are things that can happen, of course - however they are not a required part of any game feature, apart from CQC.

They are part of two thirds of the available game modes, so in a majority of modes people can shoot other people at sight.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They are part of two thirds of the available game modes, so in a majority of modes people can shoot other people at sight.

Indeed - however every single player has access to Solo and those that have access to Private Groups (which is not all players due to the requirement to have premium platform access on consoles to be able to play multi-player) can play in Private Groups with trusted friends (who can be booted if they don't "play nicely" - which also kicks them from their current session if playing in the PG at the time).

Due to these options all game features / content are available to players who choose not to play in Open - CQC specifically excepted, however it can't be engaged in Open either.

 

[galahad2069]

That would not prevent ganking as the time to kill bad ships is so ridiculously low you're dead before I even clicked on the galmap to navigate to your position

Yesterday:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBtFguewt3g&lc=UgwalXIW-pX5YZZUAkp4AaABAg

 

[ethelred]

Well I get your point, but other players might have different expectations from the game: different builds for different purposes.
What build allow a loaded Beluga or T7, or light Dolphin to escape while maneuvering to land and being shot by 3-6 gankers ?

Or should these ships and associated play styles be removed from the game since they are not PvP combat oriented?

Big shields and boosters? It's possible.

Solo is fine
PG really needs no cap and better admin tools
Open is fine - just be aware you can be shot at for any reason, including none.

 

[Sylveria]

PG really needs no cap and better admin tools

Agree with no group limits... don't know why there's a "limit" to begin with, since the netcode isn't all server based. (it's a P2P hybrid for client connections)
A simple checkbox setting for "No Friendly Fire/Damage" would be optimal here- then there's no "management" and presence necessary for Admins of a group at all.

This has also been discussed in the past as well. PvE players wouldn't be begging for Open PvE if it were available, because PvE PG's would be "Open PvE" for them.

 

[ethelred]

I know initially Mobius had PvP allowed in CZ, so perhaps a flag wouldn't be what they wanted.

Not sure why that was dropped - probably because of shenanigans.