don't cut it out of context
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Where is it out of context? You were in disapproval of the blocking function because players seem to use it to avoid non-consensual PVP Interactions.
If you want non-con PVP, EVE is a better game for it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some things change, some things don't.
The list of things that are worth rethinking likely differs for every player - as we don't all want the same things, even if we all bought the same game.
Well my experiences with other pilots, occasional o7, somebody interdicting me, blam blam I'm at rebuy screen, later on when I got sturdier engineered ship someone interdicting me, boost, high jump. Or like some time ago me doing little pirate harvesting in hazres, "why the h**l my shields are dropping way too fast, okey hollow triangle, lets high jump..." Basically PVP does not exactly add to my "fun factor"
From Eva, I just said that as far as I know, the security services in the systems work well there and save the player from attack
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not if the attacker is prepared to lose their ship....
How many people have so many opinions, so I don't see the point in these debates, nothing will change in the game from this =)
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Different people do indeed have different opinions - so those seeking to have the game changed to suit their play-style preference by taking the game away from those who don't share their play-style preference will meet with opposition, especially if the play-style preference in question is PvP - as no player needs to even tolerate PvP to play the game that they bought.
well, pvp also happens differently, the war between squadrons is also pvp, I would love to participate in this, but because of the same solo and private modes, it all doesn't work, you just don't meet people in conflict zones because they don't fly in the open, but they affect the bgs
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - because the BGS is shared by all players, regardless of game platform or game mode, it does not belong to those who play in Open any more, or less, than it does to players in Solo and Private Groups. Same with Powerplay, CGs, etc..
That's at the core of the design of the game that every single player bought (or backed) whether they accept that, or not.
This is the truth.
Is the issue that solo/PG players can affect the BGS and that you cannot stop them? There are multiple ways to influence BGS and conflict zones are just one. Do you want traders and data couriers to fly in open so that you can destroy them as their legal activities adversely affect you? You can always just run your own missions to gain influence to counter them.
Steve 07.
It is not stupid, it is about letting players play how they like, and not letting other players controllering how they should play.
I cannot force you to play with me. but I can ASK you top play with me. I can send wing invite, team invite, multi crew invite, and you decide if you want to accept those. Same goes with PvP, I can invite you to some Pew-.Pew, but if you are not interrested, you say no to my attempts to engage you in PvP.
And if you find my invites to play with me annoying or negatively impact your enjoyment of this game, you can block me.
So no matter what I desire, I cannot force you to accept to play with me.
so NO, block function is not stupid. what is stupid is players that thinks that they can FORCE their desired way of playing the game onto others.
What about all those players that you can NEVER see, despite them playing in Open?
I talk about that there is no crossplay between platforms, and yet we share the same galaxy.
I talk about how the instance manager, very rarely instance players from Asia/Australia with European/American players.
I doubt regurgitating the same thing to users who pretend to have reservations does anything to explain your stance to them. This isnt why they keep posting here.
Part of the playerbase disagrees with the proposed changes. Only the company knows how large or financially significant each faction really is. I for myself am content with the options available now and wish for it to remain so. You can battle with your buddies all day long but those who prefer not to be drawn into that ought to be none of your concern. Just let it go. On the other side of the equation, to the developer, the potential loss of that faction is a concern so you need a much more convincing argument than your partial satisfaction to sway them, anyway.
so what do you suggest?
Just asking, for my curiosity to weight your contribution to the argument... how many wars against other player squadrons/factions did you fight so far?
#1 none
#2 less than 10
#3 between 10 and 20
#4 between 20 and 100
#5 more than 100
To be intended as systems where you did face players' opposition to take/keep control or presence of your faction.
Tbh ganking puts the dangerous in elite dangerous. NPCs are weak, there is really no part of elite where u can say "im in danger" except when ur interdicted by 2 FDLs in a DBX. I play open only because i like the chance to be forced to make a quick decision, of fight or flight. NPCs arent strong enough to really scare me. (I can slap a elite anaconda in a sidewinder). That is why i am open to being ganked it gives the rush that nothing else in elite does.
PvP in elite is fun, you shouod try it. Also killing gankers in the CG to protect other CMDRs is something i enjoy. I see it as being "CG security"