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

[SteveWW57]

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.

That would have to be #1, so my contribution to the argument could be classed as having no weight. No issue with that.

I only started BGS activity at the beginning of December, so I know little or nothing, just learning. Not fought any wars against other player squadrons/factions, just supporting anarchy minor factions of my choice. I have been trying to avoid interactions with active squadrons/factions as I have no desire to fight that kind of war or cause them problems. So far I have successfully turned one system into an anarchy, a second supported anarchy minor faction has just gained control of the only station in the system, and in a third system the anarchy minor faction I am supporting is in civil war for control. Most of the influence has been gained by non combat missions.

Steve 07.

 

[galahad2069]

It's a fundamental aspect of the game design

The effect of blocking on instancing is such a fundamental game design that it took them like 3 or 4 years to make it work like it does now IIRC (before that it used to be essentially a comms block - at least that's what it should always have been).

Sometimes it's already a pain in the rear to set up an instance even when everyone is on everyone else's friendlist, but blocking totally messes up instancing. You cannot just block one person, you'll essentially block everyone else who is instanced with that person. And you won't block them only for yourself, but also for everyone else who is unlucky enough to be present in your instance. Seriously, it's one of the worst features ever implemented in a multiplayer game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The effect of blocking on instancing is such a fundamental game design that it took them like 3 or 4 years to make it work like it does now IIRC (before that it used to be essentially a comms block - at least that's what it should always have been).

It got there in the end - as Frontier realised that it needed to be improved.

Sometimes it's already a pain in the rear to set up an instance even when everyone is on everyone else's friendlist, but blocking totally messes up instancing. You cannot just block one person, you'll essentially block everyone else who is instanced with that person. And you won't block them only for yourself, but also for everyone else who is unlucky enough to be present in your instance. Seriously, it's one of the worst features ever implemented in a multiplayer game.

Thank those who are not fun to play with for the fact that it exists....

 

[galahad2069]

It got there in the end - as Frontier realised that it needed to be improved.

Which means it's not a "fundamental game design", only something they improved up.

Thank those who are not fun to play with for the fact that it exists....

Those who use it are the people who are not fun to play with, actually.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which means it's not a "fundamental game design", only something they improved up.

In the context the quote was taken from it relates to the fact that other players are optional in this game - even in Open. The block feature was somewhat cumbersome to use at first and of limited effectiveness though - as noted, that's been improved over time.

Those who use it are the people who are not fun to play with, actually.

Possibly a few of them too, given that the use of the block feature is not limited to players of one particular playstyle - it's a bit like shooting at anything one instances with, not all players will like the consequences of a player choosing to use a particular game feature the way they want to.

 

[Rebel Yell]

That would have to be #1, so my contribution to the argument could be classed as having no weight. No issue with that.

I only started BGS activity at the beginning of December, so I know little or nothing, just learning. Not fought any wars against other player squadrons/factions, just supporting anarchy minor factions of my choice. I have been trying to avoid interactions with active squadrons/factions as I have no desire to fight that kind of war or cause them problems. So far I have successfully turned one system into an anarchy, a second supported anarchy minor faction has just gained control of the only station in the system, and in a third system the anarchy minor faction I am supporting is in civil war for control. Most of the influence has been gained by non combat missions.

Steve 07.

No problem for that, I've just asked because BGS wars between factions can take/result in a wide range of scenarios/situations and besides I reckon "countering the BGS" etc. is 100% valid, what happens in the game follows some "common" patterns depending on what is the extent of the engagement opportunities between the involved parties.

As a general case: the lesser the parties can engage directly, the longer is the time needed to conclude the war. The shortest wars (either concluded because one side was "defeated" or just retreated from the war) happen when parties have a very high chance of ending up in some kind of direct confrontation (same platform, same time zone, etc.). Why I do mention "time" is because long lasting conflicts in most cases translate into frustration and can really burn/break players' commitment, willingness to play, etc. (ok, may be one of the parties can adopt this "indirect siege" strategy... but it's double edged). Why I do mention "direct engagements"? Because even from the ones who have lost a war, most of the times the stories are "it was a big fun anyway".

Now, you can think what you like and keep you opinion... but if I'd have to answer to my question, I'm on #5 with a multiplier.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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"

I have tried it, not my cup of tea. I'm not a competitive person by nature, i prefer to cooperate. However, when i do want PvP, then it want it fast and hard (ooo err missus), so arena games are my my thing. Even CQC is better than main game PvP.

 

[Brrokk]

The effect of blocking on instancing is such a fundamental game design that it took them like 3 or 4 years to make it work like it does now IIRC (before that it used to be essentially a comms block - at least that's what it should always have been).

Sometimes it's already a pain in the rear to set up an instance even when everyone is on everyone else's friendlist, but blocking totally messes up instancing. You cannot just block one person, you'll essentially block everyone else who is instanced with that person. And you won't block them only for yourself, but also for everyone else who is unlucky enough to be present in your instance. Seriously, it's one of the worst features ever implemented in a multiplayer game.

I've often been in AX wings, sometimes big groups with more than one wing, and we haven't noticed any problems just instancing together. There have been other problems: wing beacons not working, so we had to drop on low wakes; Thargoids being alive for one player and dead for another, but nothing that could be ascribed to block.

I suspect that people only get significant instancing problems when they're actually on others' block lists. Then, IMO, it's down to them and can be seen as "working as intended".

I think the game design controlling encounters by instancing criteria is quite clever. Improvements are no doubt possible and there have been some in recent patch notes. I'm fairly happy with how it works now though.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

The effect of blocking on instancing is such a fundamental game design that it took them like 3 or 4 years to make it work like it does now IIRC (before that it used to be essentially a comms block - at least that's what it should always have been).

Sometimes it's already a pain in the rear to set up an instance even when everyone is on everyone else's friendlist, but blocking totally messes up instancing. You cannot just block one person, you'll essentially block everyone else who is instanced with that person. And you won't block them only for yourself, but also for everyone else who is unlucky enough to be present in your instance. Seriously, it's one of the worst features ever implemented in a multiplayer game.

It is very effective "gankstopper".

 

[galahad2069]

I've often been in AX wings, sometimes big groups with more than one wing, and we haven't noticed any problems just instancing together. There have been other problems: wing beacons not working, so we had to drop on low wakes; Thargoids being alive for one player and dead for another, but nothing that could be ascribed to block.

I suspect that people only get significant instancing problems when they're actually on others' block lists. Then, IMO, it's down to them and can be seen as "working as intended".

I think the game design controlling encounters by instancing criteria is quite clever. Improvements are no doubt possible and there have been some in recent patch notes. I'm fairly happy with how it works now though.

I'm playing PvP not only "often" but nearly exclusively (not counting obligatory engineering "gameplay" runs).
Mostly organized PvP (wingfights in rings), where literally all the participants are PvPers, everyone is on everyone else's friendlist and everyone has an empty block list, and still sometimes (quite often) it's a major PIA to get 2 wings in the same instance.

It's just that broken, even under ideal circumstances. In organic it's much worse, sometimes I'm in discord voice with multiple wings and I know for sure that multi-wing battles are going on, it's just that the game insists on putting my (or someone else's) wing in empty supercruise instances.

In such a mess a single block can be the last nail in the coffin.

 

[galahad2069]

It is very effective "gankstopper".

In a multiplayer game you yourself should be the "gankstopper", not the hand of god.

 

[Brrokk]

I'm playing PvP not only "often" but nearly exclusively (not counting obligatory engineering "gameplay" runs).
Mostly organized PvP (wingfights in rings), where literally all the participants are PvPers, everyone is on everyone else's friendlist and everyone has an empty block list, and still sometimes (quite often) it's a major PIA to get 2 wings in the same instance.

It's just that broken, even under ideal circumstances. In organic it's much worse, sometimes I'm in discord voice with multiple wings and I know for sure that multi-wing battles are going on, it's just that the game insists on putting my (or someone else's) wing in empty supercruise instances.

In such a mess a single block can be the last nail in the coffin.

But what you describe is instancing problems in the absence of block. That can't be ascribed to block!

 

[galahad2069]

But what you describe is instancing problems in the absence of block. That can't be ascribed to block!

What I described regarding organized PvP was instancing problems without blocking.

Add blocking on top of that and you'll get organic.

 

[Brrokk]

In a multiplayer game you yourself should be the "gankstopper", not the hand of god.

I am, I click on the ganker's name and...

More seriously, this is all just a symptom. Gankers are why we can't have good instancing, pleasant interactions, RP player piracy, open multiplayer events, and general "nice things". I don't particularly blame them as they can't help being what they are; I blame FD for letting them do so much damage to the game.

 

[galahad2069]

Gankers are why we can't have good instancing, pleasant interactions, RP player piracy, open multiplayer events, and general "nice things". I don't particularly blame them as they can't help being what they are; I blame FD for letting them do so much damage to the game.

I keep playing with these so-called 'ganker' dudes and the interactions I have are absolutely pleasant.
We can't have RP player piracy not because gankers but mainly because of combat logging.
Open multiplayer events exist, whenever players organize one. Ironically, "gankers" are pretty active organizing such events.
Also gankers don't do damage to the game: bad/half baked game mechanics and bugs that never get fixed do.

Even CQC is better than main game PvP.

Au contraire, lmao. CQC is an utter crap, main game PvP is (can be) fun.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I keep playing with these so-called 'ganker' dudes and the interactions I have are absolutely pleasant.
We can't have RP player piracy not because gankers but mainly because of combat logging.
Open multiplayer events exist, whenever players organize one. Ironically, "gankers" are pretty active organizing such events.
Also gankers don't do damage to the game: bad/half baked game mechanics and bugs that never get fixed do.


Au contraire, lmao. CQC is an utter crap, main game PvP is (can be) fun.

Its a good thing we can have differing opinions on things isn't it?

My opinion is gankers and griefers are a stain on online gaming in general. This is not to say all PvPers are gankers and griefers, far from it. But as is often the case, a small minority can ruin things for the majority.

 

[gorankar]

I remember hearing long gone voices years ago warning the gank crews what would happen if they could not keep themselves and their compatriots from murder hoboing their way across the stars. They did not listen, and it happened. Fdevs response was slow, but when it came, it was as effective as it was heavy handed. Block is as it is now because gankers could not keep their guns holstered, and just letting people prevent a ganker from instancing with them again was the easiest and most effective thing for Fdev to do. Active moderation, tweaking c&p systems, making security ratings mean something, etc., are apparently too difficult and/or cost too much money.

 

[Misty_Dark]

In a multiplayer game you yourself should be the "gankstopper", not the hand of god.

LMAO,

What hand of god are you talking about? becuase it looks like you are the one playing good and telling everyone else how they should play to suit you... How you want to change the game to suit yoiur desires, to the detriment of other players enjoyment, Adjusing a game to fit a minority of playersd at the cost of the majority of players enjoyment.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I keep playing with these so-called 'ganker' dudes and the interactions I have are absolutely pleasant.
We can't have RP player piracy not because gankers but mainly because of combat logging.
Open multiplayer events exist, whenever players organize one. Ironically, "gankers" are pretty active organizing such events.
Also gankers don't do damage to the game: bad/half baked game mechanics and bugs that never get fixed do.


Au contraire, lmao. CQC is an utter crap, main game PvP is (can be) fun.

And what causes combat logging. Well the fact that most player interdictions are straight ganks. Not a piracy. Likewise same that causes player take immediate evasive action, and not reading possible comms. You just do not linger unless you want to see rebuy screen. And that makes pirate's job pretty hard. You after all need your target to stop and consider your comms.

 

[St0rmFury]

Don't be like this guy.