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

[Sylveria]

So now that we've established "Dangerous" = / = "Other Players", what other real justification is there for Open continuing to be "de facto" PvP instead of PvE again?

Or is Frontier planning on removing Solo mode from the game to continue retconning the game's history and lore?

 

[Deleted member 110222]

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

I find myself liking both the last two posts. I must be very flexible.

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Robert Maynard]

I setup a pair of alt accounts and sent them round the Winking Cat caches to accelerate their development. The first did the first 3 or 4 before joining up with my Main carrier.
The second did the whole route in open in the starting Sidewinder over the 27th and 28th (in a noobwinder it's a lot of jumps especially if you forget you start with economical plotting) encountering 50 other cmdrs including a couple of clown faces.
No interdictions or shooting occurred with either.

My newest altCMDR (starter sidewinder, no modifications, about two hours of play-time) was destroyed by a camper at one of the scan sites - just after I completed the scan and lifted off - zero rebuy and saved me the time taken to travel to my main's Carrier (which was in-system at the time).

 

[Sylveria]

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

I find myself liking both the last two posts. I must be very flexible.

forums.frontier.co.uk

That still doesn't answer the question I've posed... which was

what other real justification is there for Open continuing to be "de facto" PvP instead of PvE again?

Or is Frontier planning on removing Solo mode from the game to continue retconning the game's history and lore?

And C&P adjustments still won't establish that attempt to justify "Dangerous = Other Players".

 

[Deleted member 110222]

That still doesn't answer the question I've posed... which was

And C&P adjustments still won't establish that attempt to justify "Dangerous = Other Players".

Your approval is irrelevant, as is mine.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Your approval is irrelevant, as is mine.

Sandro's statements regarding Powerplay being the only game feature even possibly being considered for Open only / bonus haven't stopped others proposing / demanding that the BGS, CGs, etc. should also be PvP-gated / biased in some way....

 

[Sylveria]

Your approval is irrelevant, as is mine.

I'm not asking for "approval", I'm asking for a justified factual response, and not an attempt to create a logical fallacy.

Try to keep up, please.

 

[JoeyTheMooch]

Here we go again
Same old again
Marching down the avenue
Few more days and we’ll be through
I won’t have to look at you
So, I’ll be glad and so will you

 

[Cosmik_Debris]

It's early, i've had half a coffee, so this is my take on the 'solo or open' issue; and to be clear this is not just about ED, but ALL computer games that do MP.

The problem has always been (going all the way back to MUD in the 1980's) a 'cultural' issue in relation to the empowerment of 'anti-social' behaviours, the rewards and encouragement of them and the style of game design that developed around that.

Now if your game is fully setup to be a pure competitive darwinian fight, that is a perfect vessel for such MP gaming, everyone is on the same page and knows what is expected of them and what to expect. These are historically games i've always found a bit boring as they are generally shallow by design because the rules are simple, kill or be killed. Fun for many people though as MP FPS games can become big financial hits.

The problem for ED (from the outset) is it tried to allow that MP'rs could also be decent civilised and culturally mature individuals capable of showing restraint and able to 'role play' their place in the ED world and build that worlds narrative. I think in hindsight we could say that was naive thinking. The DNA and history of MP gaming has seen generations (now) of people born and raised on a different type of MP game, and that has nurtured a 'type' of MP'r gamer that has zero interest in any of that restraint or world building, they just want to gank for the Lolz.

It is possible to design rules into the game to force them into the preferred behaviours (and ED has some of that), but this type of MP'r has so many choices to turn to if you drive them away too hard, so it is a difficult nut to crack. You are talking about needing to change the learned culture of the majority of MP'r gamer's, and heck there will be a large number that don't want that.

So in the face of that near impossible problem to fix, it has been my perceived wisdom going on 30 odd years now, that except for light distraction gaming (in a game i care little about, or wish to not invest too much in), i keep away for MP games. Elite has always been a game i cared about, and so far in ED (just a few noobs days worth mind you!) i still care, so i play Solo.

EDIT:

Now to address the OP's suggestion, to 'turn off' PvP mechanics in Open, keep in mind in the game we fly spaceships that get damaged and cause damage when we fly into things, we also have lasers and missiles.......so yeah. You don't want to break the internal logic of the game (too much).

You could have laws and enforcement of laws (as we do in real life). You could make a pirate player really feel the sweat on the back of their necks each time they tried to enter a system with any kind of law enforcement, you could enforce massive financial penalties, ship impounding's etc for all manner of crimes. You could in effect have a strong and robust crime and punishment system that would aid both the MP (antisocial gaming side) and game world building, but you would also expect prams to be pushed over and lots of doll throwing. The question becomes would the MP gamers want to play in a game where they have to face up to their in-game choices?

I completely respect your attitude to this in the sense that you understand that its just how the majority of MP gamers are and trying to force change is futile - but can i offer a different perspective to why people are combat focused in games? In my case, at least, it isnt a repressed desire to be anti social / 'gank for the lolz' (im not denying that those players exist, but its not all combat focused players)

Games are an escape from reality, that allow us to simulate doing things we cant do in reality - most human interactions are not well represented by them, really, because sensations like touch and taste are absent, and form such an important part of most interaction. However, combat / fighting is an exception to this, in that the physical missing sensations are unpleasant, and we know it. Speaking for myself, i enjoy the gaming mechanics of trying to win at it, but would never want to engage in it in reality, because i dont want to be hurt, but just as much because i have empathy and dont want to hurt others. (i dont consider killing someone in a game to be hurting them any more than beating them at Chess would be). Given this focus on combat, some people are going to be competitive and want to be 'good' at it, win while being challenged. For better or worse, the highest challenge is always going to be other players - especially in a game like this where all PvE combat content can be completed by a single player (albiet with difficulty at the harder end), so there isnt really an incentive for (much) cooperation in PvE combat. You can get fights with good enemy humans in two ways - you can organise it, or you can try to get them to emerge organically.

I dont gank in this game (literally, never have once), because it cannot lead to my desired outcome given the way instancing, blocking and mode switching work, but i have in other games. The intention isnt the easy kills in and of itself (for me, anyway). It was to cause the people being killed easily to complain and get the serious PvP players to come and fight my group, to stop us blockading the leveling area or something - to force open world PvP fights. (which are not the same as organised tournaments or whatever, and can be more fun in my opinion - it can allow asymmetry, winning against odds, etc, where organised things are always set up to be fair)

Sadly, in my opinion, Elite is set up in such a way as to prevent this kind of open world combat gameplay happening - but i wish that wasnt the case.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

I'm not asking for "approval", I'm asking for a justified factual response, and not an attempt to create a logical fallacy.

Try to keep up, please.

It's FD's turf.

It is justified, and if you don't like their answer, cope.

Sorry, but that's how it works.

 

[Sylveria]

It's FD's turf.

It is justified, and if you don't like their answer, cope.

Sorry, but that's how it works.

That's not a justification, that's a statement. And the statement isn't based on factual representation to support a conclusion. It's based on a lie to support an opinion of what some want the game to be, not what it is.

There's nothing to "cope" with because it's a logical fallacy.

No need to be sorry that you're wrong.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

That's not a justification, that's a statement. And the statement isn't based on factual representation to support a conclusion. It's based on a lie to support an opinion of what some want the game to be, not what it is.

There's nothing to "cope" with because it's a logical fallacy.

No need to be sorry that you're wrong.

Bruh, FD makes this game.

Literally everything they say about the game is law, in effect.

How do you not understand this? You're trying to exert your opinion over someone else's property.

 

[Sylveria]

Bruh, FD makes this game.

Literally everything they say about the game is law, in effect.

How do you not understand this? You're trying to exert your opinion over someone else's property.

I'm not exerting an "opinion", I'm stating a fact.

The game isn't "Dangerous" because other players. If it was, Solo wouldn't have been intentionally programmed into the game even before release.

If they're going to make statements that contradict their own release, then that's an internal matter.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

I'm not exerting an "opinion", I'm stating a fact.

The game isn't "Dangerous" because other players. If it was, Solo wouldn't have been intentionally programmed into the game even before release.

If they're going to make statements that contradict their own release, then that's an internal matter.

It's an always-online game.

These types of games never stay the same over time.

Seriously, you need to get used to this. Things change and if you don't like it, well honestly I don't think anyone can help you.

This is a thing where you need to accept that things happen that you don't like.

There are things I don't like that weren't always as is now in the game. But we're both at the bottom of the pyramid, so to speak.

Let me make this clear: your thoughts are opinions, not facts. And both us being lowly common players, have an opinion that is pretty much worthless.

 

[Sylveria]

It's an always-online game.

And that doesn't suddenly make Solo disappear.

These types of games never stay the same over time.

Seriously, you need to get used to this. Things change and if you don't like it, well honestly I don't think anyone can help you.

This is a thing where you need to accept that things happen that you don't like.

There are things I don't like that weren't always as is now in the game. But we're both at the bottom of the pyramid, so to speak.

Let me make this clear: your thoughts are opinions, not facts. And both us being lowly common players, have an opinion that is pretty much worthless.

Accept whatever you wish. Not everyone is going to do the same.

The game is contradictory to itself as long as Frontier takes the stance that "Dangerous = Other Players" and Solo exists.

PS - I never solicited your "help", either.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Let's discuss the post not the poster please.

 

[Ettanin]

So now that we've established "Dangerous" = / = "Other Players", what other real justification is there for Open continuing to be "de facto" PvP instead of PvE again?

Or is Frontier planning on removing Solo mode from the game to continue retconning the game's history and lore?

Well, Frontier tried to do what's best for their bottom line, but instead they ran themselves into a dead end.
They cannot remove Solo mode without refunding their Kickstarter backers.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Well, Frontier tried to do what's best for their bottom line, but instead they ran themselves into a dead end.
They cannot remove Solo mode without refunding their Kickstarter backers.

Pretty much.

Same reason you won't be seeing the drastic changes to Open that some people want.

 

[Sylveria]

Well, Frontier tried to do what's best for their bottom line, but instead they ran themselves into a dead end.
They cannot remove Solo mode without refunding their Kickstarter backers.

Exactly. So now they've painted themselves into a corner with an "official" stance, unless of course Bruce decides to either retract his statement, or say it was his personal opinion and not the position of Frontier Developments.

They're not going to be able to retcon the game's history and development. Again, it's a logical fallacy. The best they're going to be able to manage is alienating part of the player base- (and it's going cost them if they do) or retract the stance and accept that PvE players have just as much right to "de facto Open" as PvP players do.

 

[Brrokk]

Pretty much.

Same reason you won't be seeing the drastic changes to Open that some people want.

To be accurate, I haven't seen anyone propose drastic changes to Open in this whole thread. Or even minor changes. That's just a straw man.