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

[Misty_Dark]

She played only open because I play that way. We did some wing trade missions together, the easy stuff so she could get used to the game. Perhaps she choose Open Button because she always had done it before. We had some interactions, friendly encounters with other squadron members. There was no hint that a "gank" could happen in her previous play sessions even that I told her that there are unpleasant players in ED. She could not imagine someone to be that nasty to kill her without any reason (what a naive character you could think ). Point is that it troubled her almost half a day. No comparison to real tragedy of course... But in game actions have influence on real emotions. And I am sure she is not someone special (for me of course she is ) in comparison to the in-general player.

This is not an unusual story, many players have been playing in open for years, and then a similar thing happens to them, and they either quit or starts playing in Solo or seeks out a Private Group like Mobious.

 

[CMDR Egmont]

You would have to be spectacularly selfish to want PvP modes disabled in game which makes avoiding combat almost effortless.

 

[Misty_Dark]

You would have to be spectacularly selfish to want PvP modes disabled in game which makes avoiding combat almost effortless.

Who have suggested that?

And how selfish must you not be to want to make PvP mandatory? Expecially, when we know, that the majoirty of players are NOT interrested in PvP, that is according to FDevs own statement. And this is nothing unique for ED either, most other MMO's out there shows the same data...

 

[Robert Maynard]

You would have to be spectacularly selfish to want PvP modes disabled in game which makes avoiding combat almost effortless.

More or less selfish than those who want existing mode shared content, that everyone bought access to on the same terms when they bought the game (a game where PvP, like other players, is an optional extra), to be retrospectively PvP-gated to Open - effectively removing it from those who don't enjoy PvP (or can't play in Open)?

 

[CMDR Egmont]

More or less selfish than those who want existing mode shared content, that everyone bought access to on the same terms when they bought the game (a game where PvP, like other players, is an optional extra), to be retrospectively PvP-gated to Open - effectively removing it from those who don't enjoy PvP (or can't play in Open)?

Example of something removed from “those who don’t enjoy PvP”…

 

[Robert Maynard]

Example of something removed from “those who don’t enjoy PvP”…

BGS and Powerplay - to name two game features that have been proposed, many times, by players who prefer PvP to be made "Open only", meaning that players in the other two game modes would not affect them.

 

[Misty_Dark]

BGS and Powerplay - to name two game features that have been proposed, many times, by players who prefer PvP to be made "Open only", meaning that players in the other two game modes would not affect them.

Do not forget those suggestions that would remove Solo and Private Group mode entirely, by making Open the only mode available.

Or the suggestions to change block to only be affecting chat messages and not instancing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Do not forget those suggestions that would remove Solo and Private Group mode entirely, by making Open the only mode available.

Indeed. There are those who can't accept that no-one needs to play with them to affect the game.

 

[CMDR Egmont]

Who have suggested that?

And how selfish must you not be to want to make PvP mandatory? Expecially, when we know, that the majoirty of players are NOT interrested in PvP, that is according to FDevs own statement. And this is nothing unique for ED either, most other MMO's out there shows the same data...

PvP is not mandatory. You’re not locked in a box with hostile players like it’s a death match.

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvP is not mandatory. You’re not locked in a box with hostile players like it’s a death match.

That's what the modes, and mode shared galaxy are for....

 

[Misty_Dark]

PvP is not mandatory. You’re not locked in a box with hostile players like it’s a death match.

And yet, who suggested to remvoe PvP?

 

[CMDR Egmont]

And yet, who suggested to remvoe PvP?

OP suggested Open would me more popular if PvP could be disabled by players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

OP suggested Open would me more popular if PvP could be disabled by players.

On a per player basis - not for all players.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

All these examples tell me
a) block is vastly too strong
b) you should never blame me, because I have reasons to kill you and you don't know them
c) there are people who aren't nice in this game (gankers, pad blockers, fleet carrier abductors etc.) Play accordingly.

B. I might ask for your reasons after a fact. Then I might accept those, or classify them as "reasonz" and block your commander for good.
C. Block it very nice thing against those kind of people. Why should I play with them?

 

[TiberiusDuval]

What if I don't pull you to blow you up?
What if I want to pirate you?
If I blow you up, all good, block me if you insist. But if I point my interdictor in your direction or am on some obscure DG2 list, why should you have the right to block me?

If I simply do not want to play with you. Or don't care about getting serial interdicted, and so on. Reasonz, you know.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Example of something removed from “those who don’t enjoy PvP”…

From "those who want to impose their pvp without other sides consent".

 

[TobiasFuzz]

b) you should never blame me, because I have reasons to kill you and you don't know them

For this I would consider you a ganker and deal with you. IF there are in-game reasons that would justify attacking me and I don't know them, it is your fault.
You don't want me to deliver stuff to a specific location because of some strange BGS mechanic (for wich I couldn't care less), you have to tell me and offer compensation for I am not delivering. That's how it should work. It is also Ok to threaten me and not offer compensation. But then it is my choice if I leave you alone, try my luck to pass by you or simple switch to solo / block you. But any attack without conversation is ganking (I could eventually agree that in PP / CZ it is ok)

 

[ethelred]

For this I would consider you a ganker and deal with you. IF there are in-game reasons that would justify attacking me and I don't know them, it is your fault.
You don't want me to deliver stuff to a specific location because of some strange BGS mechanic (for wich I couldn't care less), you have to tell me and offer compensation for I am not delivering. That's how it should work. It is also Ok to threaten me and not offer compensation. But then it is my choice if I leave you alone, try my luck to pass by you or simple switch to solo / block you. But any attack without conversation is ganking (I could eventually agree that in PP / CZ it is ok)

Interesting.

I know that block exists and can be used however you see fit but in your example above you (I think) mention CG lurkers.

Could an argument be made that blocking CMDRs opposing a CG for whatever reason is blocking in bad faith? Especially when there are plentiful PvE PGs or solo?

That presupposes a PvP destruction hierarchy where CZ is the least egregious and a 10km rail attack at Deciat on your wife is the worst example on this "ganker spectrum"

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Interesting.

I know that block exists and can be used however you see fit but in your example above you (I think) mention CG lurkers.

Could an argument be made that blocking CMDRs opposing a CG for whatever reason is blocking in bad faith? Especially when there are plentiful PvE PGs or solo?

That presupposes a PvP destruction hierarchy where CZ is the least egregious and a 10km rail attack at Deciat on your wife is the worst example.

As far I understand many of CG gankers do not care at all which side is winning, they are there only for the booms and lulzes.

As far as I think cz, fair game, pp fair game, cg depends on, BGS, mostly bah, sometimes so and so. Other categories: Reasonz, lulz -> block.

 

[ethelred]

As far I understand many of CG gankers do not care at all which side is winning, they are there only for the booms and lulzes.

Yeah. But to do a CG in open is already clicking past something stating you can be attacked at any point - and then going to a known hotspot...

So, is there a ganker hierarchy and if so, where do CG gankers sit?