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

[denispage]

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.

One thing that could help to improve that is make the criminals wanted in all systems and searchable in the bubble (like they're doing in Star Citizen).
Afterall, If a criminal enters in a system with a beacon, it should be replicated to every station.
It would be nice to have more information to bounty hunters

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

One thing that could help to improve that is make the criminals wanted in all systems and searchable in the bubble (like they're doing in Star Citizen).
Afterall, If a criminal enters in a system with a beacon, it should be replicated to every station.
It would be nice to have more information to bounty hunters

SC doesn't have a "bubble" - it's just one star system with few bodies.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Why continue to troll the forum for a game you no longer play?

How about we make a recurring show of it? You try to figure that out every episode but it's of course in vain. Just like everyone else ever asking this question. We can invite them as guest stars even.

 

[Moon dog]

I'm under the impression that a lot of people, including myself, prefer to play Solo mode all the time, not because we don't want to play with others, but simply because we don't want to PVP others.

For comparison, let me talk to you about of one of the worst launches in recent years, Fallout 76, which to the surprise of some has actually redeemed itself (at least to some extent), but owes it survival to its community, which stood during awful first year fo the game, but also a community that confused Bethesda because the devs were convinced their players wanted more PVP... and they were proven wrong, best depicted through many of the ironic headlines that gaming journalism used to deliver the "shocking" revelation:

Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other​

Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other

Bethesda was surprised to learn that Fallout 76 players didn't care much for PvP, and how the game has evolved reflects that.

www.forbes.com

Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'​

Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'

"It's a smaller percentage of our player base than we thought."

www.gamingbible.co.uk

Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP​

Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP

Bethesda VP Pete Hines reveals that the company was surprised to find that players preferred to avoid PvP in Fallout 76 in favor of PvE.

gamerant.com

Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP​

Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP

We just want to be friends.

www.pcgamer.com

Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don’t murder each other​

Why is everyone being so nice?

Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don't murder each other

When Bethesda was designing Fallout 76, it expected players to murder each other, but it turns out they'd rather just work together.

www.pcinvasion.com

Don't misunderstand: Fallout 76 do had (still has to a small degree) griefers and gankers, but the vast majority of players simply preferred not to engage in PVP.

Keeping things short, today many of the ways to engage into PVP have been disabled, pacifist mode is a menu option that makes it almost impossible to engage in PVP, and while the game's reputation will forever be tarnished by its launch, its actually in a better than many people expected (which can't be said for games like EA's Anthem, which already threw the towel and cancelled further development). It still is no substitute for a proper Fallout 5, but as a casual time waster with a Fallout theme: it's passable.

Back to Elite Dangerous, I think a lot more people would like to try playing in Open Play with random strangers in Elite if they had the choice to opt out from PVP, like having an aforementioned pacifist mode that disabled PVP interactions.

But that's just my impression, and I would like to hear what other thinks on this matter:

Do you think that Open Play would be negatively affected if PVP could be disabled?

Do you think Elite could benefit from having more people try to play & cooperate with others in Open Play?

Most definitely!!

 

[Moon dog]

I'm under the impression that a lot of people, including myself, prefer to play Solo mode all the time, not because we don't want to play with others, but simply because we don't want to PVP others.

For comparison, let me talk to you about of one of the worst launches in recent years, Fallout 76, which to the surprise of some has actually redeemed itself (at least to some extent), but owes it survival to its community, which stood during awful first year fo the game, but also a community that confused Bethesda because the devs were convinced their players wanted more PVP... and they were proven wrong, best depicted through many of the ironic headlines that gaming journalism used to deliver the "shocking" revelation:

Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other​

Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other

Bethesda was surprised to learn that Fallout 76 players didn't care much for PvP, and how the game has evolved reflects that.

www.forbes.com

Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'​

Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'

"It's a smaller percentage of our player base than we thought."

www.gamingbible.co.uk

Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP​

Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP

Bethesda VP Pete Hines reveals that the company was surprised to find that players preferred to avoid PvP in Fallout 76 in favor of PvE.

gamerant.com

Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP​

Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP

We just want to be friends.

www.pcgamer.com

Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don’t murder each other​

Why is everyone being so nice?

Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don't murder each other

When Bethesda was designing Fallout 76, it expected players to murder each other, but it turns out they'd rather just work together.

www.pcinvasion.com

Don't misunderstand: Fallout 76 do had (still has to a small degree) griefers and gankers, but the vast majority of players simply preferred not to engage in PVP.

Keeping things short, today many of the ways to engage into PVP have been disabled, pacifist mode is a menu option that makes it almost impossible to engage in PVP, and while the game's reputation will forever be tarnished by its launch, its actually in a better than many people expected (which can't be said for games like EA's Anthem, which already threw the towel and cancelled further development). It still is no substitute for a proper Fallout 5, but as a casual time waster with a Fallout theme: it's passable.

Back to Elite Dangerous, I think a lot more people would like to try playing in Open Play with random strangers in Elite if they had the choice to opt out from PVP, like having an aforementioned pacifist mode that disabled PVP interactions.

But that's just my impression, and I would like to hear what other thinks on this matter:

Do you think that Open Play would be negatively affected if PVP could be disabled?

Do you think Elite could benefit from having more people try to play & cooperate with others in Open Play?

On second thought heck no I love to pretend I’m a real spacer and and if u intend to merge severs then h to no no

 

[Misty_Dark]

I'm under the impression that a lot of people, including myself, prefer to play Solo mode all the time, not because we don't want to play with others, but simply because we don't want to PVP others.

For comparison, let me talk to you about of one of the worst launches in recent years, Fallout 76, which to the surprise of some has actually redeemed itself (at least to some extent), but owes it survival to its community, which stood during awful first year fo the game, but also a community that confused Bethesda because the devs were convinced their players wanted more PVP... and they were proven wrong, best depicted through many of the ironic headlines that gaming journalism used to deliver the "shocking" revelation:

Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other​

Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other

Bethesda was surprised to learn that Fallout 76 players didn't care much for PvP, and how the game has evolved reflects that.

www.forbes.com

Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'​

Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'

"It's a smaller percentage of our player base than we thought."

www.gamingbible.co.uk

Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP​

Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP

Bethesda VP Pete Hines reveals that the company was surprised to find that players preferred to avoid PvP in Fallout 76 in favor of PvE.

gamerant.com

Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP​

Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP

We just want to be friends.

www.pcgamer.com

Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don’t murder each other​

Why is everyone being so nice?

Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don't murder each other

When Bethesda was designing Fallout 76, it expected players to murder each other, but it turns out they'd rather just work together.

www.pcinvasion.com

Don't misunderstand: Fallout 76 do had (still has to a small degree) griefers and gankers, but the vast majority of players simply preferred not to engage in PVP.

Keeping things short, today many of the ways to engage into PVP have been disabled, pacifist mode is a menu option that makes it almost impossible to engage in PVP, and while the game's reputation will forever be tarnished by its launch, its actually in a better than many people expected (which can't be said for games like EA's Anthem, which already threw the towel and cancelled further development). It still is no substitute for a proper Fallout 5, but as a casual time waster with a Fallout theme: it's passable.

Back to Elite Dangerous, I think a lot more people would like to try playing in Open Play with random strangers in Elite if they had the choice to opt out from PVP, like having an aforementioned pacifist mode that disabled PVP interactions.

But that's just my impression, and I would like to hear what other thinks on this matter:

Do you think that Open Play would be negatively affected if PVP could be disabled?

Do you think Elite could benefit from having more people try to play & cooperate with others in Open Play?

This is a re-occuring theme with online MMO style games.

Where the majority of the player base is not interested in PvP, and prefer to play along side other players, and it have shown that even teaming up have got less and less desired, as more and more players seems to prefer to blaze their own path through the games, mostly solo.

And we have seen countless of examples where a vocal minority is trying to influence the game design of MMO's, to suit their preferred game style, but since they are a minority, they are not enough players to sustain their preferred playstyle on their own, so they have to rely on forcing the majority of players to engage in their playstyle.

And we can make a list of games that tried to cater to this small player group, where the developers time after time, got a surprise when the majorioty of players simply stopped playing their game, since it was no fun for them. And without these players, there are not enough players left to sustain the game. Which forces the game change, to adapt to what the majority of players wants, and if the game make a comeback, and if the players returns due to these change, so does that vocal minority, who is now demanidng the game to cater to their playstyle over and over.



Alof of playes of MMO's, are former players of offline games...
Elderscrolls Online, old Skyrim/Oblivion/Morrowing players.
Fall Out 75, old Fallout players
Elite Dangerous, old Elite players


And what did most of these players want, if anything they wanted to enjoy these games with friends, doing stuff together, helping each other out, but very rarely, did these players want to destroy their friends. And often many of these players had limited amount of time to play the game, so had to use every opportunity to enjoy they game they could, and that meant for the most part to play solo, as trying to coordinate their limited playtime with their friends limited playtime, was very time consuming. And if you spent your limited playtime only helping your friends, you made no progress on your character. This is also something we see reflecting in many MMO's, more annd more stuff is now doable solo, that used to be group only content.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Again... are we going backward? It's all about a trade off... how many "high threat" systems do we have in the game? Few, and threat can be easily avoided switching game mode. But, the point is that the trade off between open play and solo means to avoid any kind of player interaction vs the very limited probability of encountering a ganker with a full combat ship. Unless you're not looking to have any kind of interaction (fair enough) it just looks like a poor choice renouncing to any kind of [random] interaction in exchange of a unrelevant probability to meet a ganker.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Again... are we going backward? It's all about a trade off... how many "high threat" systems do we have in the game? Few, and threat can be easily avoided switching game mode. But, the point is that the trade off between open play and solo means to avoid any kind of player interaction vs the very limited probability of encountering a ganker with a full combat ship. Unless you're not looking to have any kind of interaction (fair enough) it just looks like a poor choice renouncing to any kind of [random] interaction in exchange of a unrelevant probability to meet a ganker.

Welcome to Hotel California...
Assuming that gankers are the reason players stay in solo it is true they are generally limited to a handful of systems, though the players in question would have to be aware of exactly which systems those were in advance in order to know that switching modes was prudent.
The other option would be to pass the balance in the interdiction phase back from the interdictor to the interdictee making it a request for PVP rather than an imposition of PVP.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Again... are we going backward? It's all about a trade off... how many "high threat" systems do we have in the game? Few, and threat can be easily avoided switching game mode. But, the point is that the trade off between open play and solo means to avoid any kind of player interaction vs the very limited probability of encountering a ganker with a full combat ship. Unless you're not looking to have any kind of interaction (fair enough) it just looks like a poor choice renouncing to any kind of [random] interaction in exchange of a unrelevant probability to meet a ganker.

Going backwards?
Just look at the numbers, look at other MMO's, how successful are those MMO's that is focused mainly on being PvP? Why do you think that the block function have been strengthened several times?

It is quite simple, PvP is not the mass driving force to attract and keep players, PvE stuff is, and that is the lesson Fallout 76 and New World had to make, and these are not the only MMO's that had to learn this lesson. So who is trying to move backwards here?

 

[NinjaClarinet]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34RPwDfLpKg

 

[Robert Maynard]

Again... are we going backward? It's all about a trade off...

Direction of travel depends on ones point of view. What "trade off"?

how many "high threat" systems do we have in the game? Few, and threat can be easily avoided switching game mode.

Presuming that the threat relates to other players, yes, few regular ones, however the threat of players is not restricted to those systems - hostile players can potentially be met anywhere in the game, e.g. Sag-A*, Distant Worlds 2, etc..

But, the point is that the trade off between open play and solo means to avoid any kind of player interaction vs the very limited probability of encountering a ganker with a full combat ship. Unless you're not looking to have any kind of interaction (fair enough) it just looks like a poor choice renouncing to any kind of [random] interaction in exchange of a unrelevant probability to meet a ganker.

Even in Solo one can engage in system chat - which is a form of interaction. During recent CGs the "system" chat continued even when my CMDR was several systems away. That some players expect other players to accept all interactions, good and bad, does not mean that those players need to accept them, hence the game modes and block feature.

That the slim chance of meeting a ganker is enough to make some players play in modes other than Open is a consequence of the continued existence of gankers (plus the fact that there's no Open-PvE mode).

Which game mode to play in is for each player to decide, on a session by session basis (and when to leave that session).

 

[ethelred]

Going backwards?
Just look at the numbers, look at other MMO's, how successful are those MMO's that is focused mainly on being PvP? Why do you think that the block function have been strengthened several times?

It is quite simple, PvP is not the mass driving force to attract and keep players, PvE stuff is, and that is the lesson Fallout 76 and New World had to make, and these are not the only MMO's that had to learn this lesson. So who is trying to move backwards here?

Doom?

Unlike the other games you mention the beauty of ED is the tri-mode system, negating any need for the PvE crowd as their needs are catered for.

The base assumption (confirmed by FDeV on this very thread) is that the tri-mode system isn't going to change. Complete California to think it will.

But, in the same way PvEr's want a no cap Mobius or PG (even to the extent of removing PvP damage in its entirety), the majority of sensible PvPers are looking for an update in the mechanics of the game to make PvP meaningful. Whether that is a PP or BGS overhaul or something new, any change has to bear in mind the existing modes.

Bounty hunting, terrorism, smuggling and piracy should be viable careers, no matter what mode - but these all need major updates.

Gankers gonna gank no matter what changes are done (if any) - fortunately there are enough tools for pilots to remove them if they want.

 

[Irongrip]

The problem is there is literally zero reprecusions for the ganker. I can't set a bounty on the guy that killed me such that he gents constantly interdicted by NPCs and players alike. Everywhere he goes he isn't instantly hunted. I could block the ganker but I'd have to first have had an interaction with him. There is no public list of people who have been blocked and or reported for ganking. I can't load up a pre-made blocklist that would remove people by steam account from my game.

I can not make the ganker suffer IRL so I will not play Open. It's as simple as that.

 

[danslb]

Yes I would.

 

[galahad2069]

I can not make the ganker suffer IRL so I will not play Open. It's as simple as that.

You are playing games to make other people suffer IRL? Pretty weird approach, lmao.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

The problem is there is literally zero reprecusions for the ganker. I can't set a bounty on the guy that killed me such that he gents constantly interdicted by NPCs and players alike. Everywhere he goes he isn't instantly hunted. I could block the ganker but I'd have to first have had an interaction with him. There is no public list of people who have been blocked and or reported for ganking. I can't load up a pre-made blocklist that would remove people by steam account from my game.

I can not make the ganker suffer IRL so I will not play Open. It's as simple as that.

1) You find PVP distasteful; you assume this is true for the ganker, hence the bounty hunting idea. Alas that's what they want so rather than discouraging the behaviour it encourages it.

2) Given the gankers tend to congregate in particular systems and don't seem to be the quiet type it isn't too hard to engineer an instance and thus develop a blocklist for a particular purpose.

 

[Brrokk]

You are playing games to make other people suffer IRL? Pretty weird approach, lmao.

Ironic.

 

[Misty_Dark]

You are playing games to make other people suffer IRL? Pretty weird approach, lmao.

but that is what we know several players are after, they live for the negative reactions their victims feel when they destroy their stuff.

There plenty of recordings that shows players in many different games showing off how they make fun of their victim, how show all signs of bullying when doing this. And if they are online with their victim, they get extra enjoyment out of recording them being sad/upset/etc over how their stuff is getting destroyed, there is a reason why we have the "mine salt" saying, and that comes from making the other player so upset/sad that they cry, salty tears.

So the number one reasons for players to avoid Open, are the players that go out of their way, to hurt other players emotionally, and then they ridicule them even more, by saying, it is just a game.




I do not condone anyone hurting anybody else, but to find the biggest bullies in a game, go look among the PvP players, as here you can routinely find, the meanest bullies that get a kick out of emotionally hurting other players, And if you are a PvP player, you should definitely be well aware about this, so when you now try to make fun of this behaviour, is quite telling about what kind of player you are, "but it is just a game"...

 

[galahad2069]

but that is what we know several players are after

Lol no, you don't know that and it's not even true.
Getting your space pixels shot down in a video game is not "suffering". Not even close.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Lol no, you don't know that and it's not even true.
Getting your space pixels shot down in a video game is not "suffering". Not even close.

And here it is, in its full glory, taking stuff out of context and then making fun of it. Classy, really classy.