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

[Jack Winter]

It's an interesting situation. Two camps, but one has what it wants already and the other doesn't. Saying "let's all carry on playing how we like" only satisfies one side. Normally this would be an unstable situation, but here all the power lies with FD and neither camp can affect the situation; this and only this makes the unstable situation stable, without stopping the salt generation.

Maybe most groups don't get what they want.. Some PvE players would like to have a cooperative mode to do things together without being attacked, some PvP players would want everyone in open so they have the maximum of targets, other PvP players would want consentive PvP fighting. Maybe the only ones that get what they want are the solo players..

Especially considering Bruce's comment, maybe the best way is a revision of the C&P system.. For instance you seal club another commander then you have to pay his rebuy and cargo/data, you get in trouble with local / galactic powers / the pilots federation, you get a bounty for other PvP players to collect, etc. I'm sure there are long threads on the subject already.

Maybe a career path for the commander that turns to the dark side. He'd have to hang out in anarchy/low sec systems (kill on sight in a high sec), he'd get missions for criminal powers, etc, etc.

All in all I think the system is working pretty well in its current form, though getting griefed in open is a bit of a turn off, and MobiusEU seems very empty. It's not very fair that someone is allowed to seal club an unengineered ship and the losing commander loses time, progress and credits, while the fully engineered commander gets the lulz with practically no consequence..

Personally I think what's really missing are a good C&P system and game mechanics to encourage PvP and PvE.

 

[galahad2069]

Especially considering Bruce's comment, maybe the best way is a revision of the C&P system.. For instance you seal club another commander then you have to pay his rebuy and cargo/data, you get in trouble with local / galactic powers / the pilots federation, you get a bounty for other PvP players to collect, etc. I'm sure there are long threads on the subject already.

You already get a bounty if you shoot down anyone who is flying crimes on, and in theory it's collectable by anyone. In practice it's not gonna be collected though, unless the wanted PvPer is dead drunk and/or deliberately allows you to collect it. This (ironically) is because fdev gave potential gankees extremely powerful tools to survive and generally made it ridiculously easy to escape.

As a matter of fact, it's pretty funny that after all these years there still are people who apparently cannot use these tools and feel the need of crying for an invulnerability mode on the forums, while the Pilots' Federation could just decide to take the more cost-efficient route and revoke the membership of anyone after the 3rd insurance claim.

 

[Brrokk]

You already get a bounty if you shoot down anyone who is flying crimes on, and in theory it's collectable by anyone. In practice it's not gonna be collected though, unless the wanted PvPer is dead drunk and/or deliberately allows you to collect it. This (ironically) is because fdev gave potential gankees extremely powerful tools to survive and generally made it ridiculously easy to escape.

As a matter of fact, it's pretty funny that after all these years there still are people who apparently cannot use these tools and feel the need of crying for an invulnerability mode on the forums, while the Pilots' Federation could just decide to take the more cost-efficient route and revoke the membership of anyone after the 3rd insurance claim.

It's a common trope, but look carefully: no-one is "crying" here. The last few pages have actually been quite reasoned discussion of alternatives and their possible undesired effects. It's all academic because FD will do whatever they choose, or nothing, but I think we all know that. The "crying" is just a thing dreamed up by people who wish it was true.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You already get a bounty if you shoot down anyone who is flying crimes on, and in theory it's collectable by anyone. In practice it's not gonna be collected though, unless the wanted PvPer is dead drunk and/or deliberately allows you to collect it. This (ironically) is because fdev gave potential gankees extremely powerful tools to survive and generally made it ridiculously easy to escape.

Indeed - the free choice of game mode is a very powerful tool - as is the block feature. Regarding escaping, it depends on outfit.

As a matter of fact, it's pretty funny that after all these years there still are people who apparently cannot use these tools and feel the need of crying for an invulnerability mode on the forums, while the Pilots' Federation could just decide to take the more cost-efficient route and revoke the membership of anyone after the 3rd insurance claim.

Some players got bored of the ganker mini-game before the game even launched - and have no inclination to waste their game time playing among them as, because gankers offer their targets no fun (unless their targets are fellow PvPers), they're not worth the effort.

How many players would be expected to continue to play in multi-player if they lost their ship (and engineering modifications) after the 3rd insurance claim?

 

[Jack Winter]

How about seal clubbers losing their PF membership and insurance after the second claim?

 

[Sylveria]

How about seal clubbers losing their PF membership and insurance after the second claim?

What and actually have to exercise some trigger discipline?

 

[Jack Winter]

You already get a bounty if you shoot down anyone who is flying crimes on, and in theory it's collectable by anyone.

Well that bounty isn't even worth the electrons used to create it..

 

[TiberiusDuval]

You already get a bounty if you shoot down anyone who is flying crimes on, and in theory it's collectable by anyone. In practice it's not gonna be collected though, unless the wanted PvPer is dead drunk and/or deliberately allows you to collect it. This (ironically) is because fdev gave potential gankees extremely powerful tools to survive and generally made it ridiculously easy to escape.

As a matter of fact, it's pretty funny that after all these years there still are people who apparently cannot use these tools and feel the need of crying for an invulnerability mode on the forums, while the Pilots' Federation could just decide to take the more cost-efficient route and revoke the membership of anyone after the 3rd insurance claim.

Well there are tools. Yes. Those same tools though make your ship basically not very good in anything but gank surviving. When I'm doing say exploration I want ship that can with minimum of engineering grind jump as far as possible, and be capable of working months in deep black. I do not want bloated heavy shields and boosters encumbering said ship. Basically due to ganker minigame every other player except ganker needs to downgrade their ship's abilities.

 

[AEBRAM]

I dig those three suggestions, but I do think a toggle would work for the interdictors. It has the same effect, but enables more PvP if desired. A blanket, "Interdictors don't work on player ships" will have a chilling effect I don't think is reasonable.

New players may learn the hard way about that toggle - like they do much of anything in the game - and that's not at all bad. They'll activate it if PvE-inclined (like myself) and probably not take it off, but others will leave it off or once comfortable with the game turn it off for the sake of opportunity. That said, a toggle presents the need for timers that further complicate the whole process.

(I love playing both sides, sorry)

Because a toggle can be abused. Rush in, do some PvP, then toggle so there can't be any reprisal. If we're only worried about ganking and criminal PvP, tie the toggle to notoriety and boom, you're done. If you have notoriety, the toggle is forced to stay off and you can be targeted, in-line with expectations. Lose notoriety and you can go 'safe' again for supercruise. All the other opportunities aforementioned remain as normal.

If we're worried about general abuse, the toggle needs a timer: either based on weapons fire against another player (a la EVE Online timers) or just from the toggle being thrown. If you turn it off, for example, it's got a 15min cooldown to be flipped back on. Or an hour. I dunno...like I said, it gets complicated when you have toggles. I'd still be pro-toggle for the original reasons listed rather than straight, "No interdicting player ships" but recognize it makes any change that much harder.

And changing anything relative to PvP is already hard enough in any game.

One problem with the toggle option is the accessibility and frequency in which players can turn the toggle on/off. The next would be the in-game accessibility mechanic e.g. Ship menu or a Boolean toggle under Control Settings. Lastly, how many scenarios come into effect when players begin switching the toggle on/off freely outside being docked; and even then, being docked to control the frequency would have an availability problem outside the bubble. The difficulty of the toggle may not be worth the actual implementation effort, and should a toggle become implemented then the player majority may simply turn the toggle off and forget about it. This would effectively achieve 99.9% PVP free open world gameplay. Also. A timer on the toggle would encourage the majority player to toggle the PVP mode to off without second thought; but only the few would engage in the on/off status of the toggle.

However, when you implement the 'Interdictors do not work on player ships' than it achieves the same results when the PVP toggle stays off e.g. traveling the deep black in Supercruise without conflicts. All combat engagements occur in 'real' space and would be PVP unrestricted. This would be far better than any toggle switch to keep the deep black dangerous v. PVP hostile encounters.

Squadrons could implement a PVP mode option where their minor faction governance could turn the governed system into PVP zones e.g. an overriding rule that voids the 'Interdictors do not work on player ships' through the BGS. This would cause some BGS control conflicts amongst the player driven minor factions. This could generate interesting results on who controls the bubble; but I would default all the engineer workshop systems to remain neutral e.g. squadron governance cannot force PVP mode on players.

The BGS and governance change could be an addition in future Update releases. I feel the developers should implement a KISS approach implementing PVP limitations. The three suggested changes may encourage the risk v. reward atmosphere of the game without excluding PVP; For these reasons, I feel Frontier should not implement any PVP toggle setting; Changing the FSD Interdictor modules seems to be one KISS options; and the later BGS options would allow PVP oriented players options in the minor faction governance simulation. Maybe implement open PVP blockades/allowance starts to erode their economic, political or combat influence.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Well not exactly. We do not have that co-op PVE mode, but we do have solo-mode, efficient blocking, menu logging and so on. PVP players have only co-op mode without limits, but they do not have open only bgs, powerplay, community goals and so on. Basically each side has something, but on other some aspects are missing, and some are fully excluding other sides concerns.

The items you list are merely fig leaves;
Open CGs would fail due to pressure on landing pads alone and would only benefit the campers who aren't interested in the CG in the first place.
Open BGS shows a failure to even understand the basics of BGS work (combat is actually detrimental to factions) and affects all players regardless of mode or platform.
PP is the only item that could reasonably be made open only, though only if the modules were divorced from it and transferred to tech brokers.

 

[galahad2069]

Well there are tools. Yes. Those same tools though make your ship basically not very good in anything but gank surviving. When I'm doing say exploration I want ship that can with minimum of engineering grind jump as far as possible, and be capable of working months in deep black. I do not want bloated heavy shields and boosters encumbering said ship. Basically due to ganker minigame every other player except ganker needs to downgrade their ship's abilities.

What are you exploring in the Bubble in a jump range minmaxed paperplane, especially in Deciat or Shin, pray tell?

 

[Bantha]

Depends what I’m doing.
I like taking screenshots. And if I am flying around just doing my thing, and come across a screenshot opportunity, I have to log out of Open and in to Solo just so I can take a 4k screenie.
So now I fly a lot in Solo to save me the hassle, which isn’t as much fun as Open.
Add 4k screenshots to Open mode please.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Squadrons could implement a PVP mode option where their minor faction governance could turn the governed system into PVP zones e.g. an overriding rule that voids the 'Interdictors do not work on player ships' through the BGS. This would cause some BGS control conflicts amongst the player driven minor factions. This could generate interesting results on who controls the bubble; but I would default all the engineer workshop systems to remain neutral e.g. squadron governance cannot force PVP mode on players.

Squadrons don't "own" Minor Factions - and multiple Squadrons can affiliate with the same Minor Faction.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

What are you exploring in the Bubble in a jump range minmaxed paperplane, especially in Deciat or Shin, pray tell?

Basically it reduces to the point where doing anything in Open is essentially shooting oneself voluntarily to leg. Wanna mine? Yes you can mine in open, just gimp your ship so that it is way poorer as miner than same ship in solo. Wanna trade in Open again same thing. Explore, same thing, about only thing NOT affected is combat, though good pve combat ship is not always good pvp combat ship.

 

[galahad2069]

Basically it reduces to the point where doing anything in Open is essentially shooting oneself voluntarily to leg. Wanna mine? Yes you can mine in open, just gimp your ship so that it is way poorer as miner than same ship in solo. Wanna trade in Open again same thing. Explore, same thing, about only thing NOT affected is combat, though good pve combat ship is not always good pvp combat ship.

That's not true, combat is affected pretty much the same way. For example, it's possible to build an absolutely minmaxed shieldtank combat ship full of GSRPs and enjoy your 10k+ MJ shield - until you happen to get shot at by phasing weapons or reverb cascade.

You cannot seriously say that this is the right way to haul cargo and anything else is "gimping' your ship:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znqv1c1dL0w

The problem is not that you need to use more reasonable builds in Open, it's that NPCs are so weak that these braindead builds are viable in Solo.
For comparison, my Cutter can "only" haul 720 tons of cargo, but it still has 4k+ MJs of shields and it definitely cannot be destroyed by 3 PA volleys.

 

[Bigmaec]

That's not true, combat is affected pretty much the same way. For example, it's possible to build an absolutely minmaxed shieldtank combat ship full of GSRPs and enjoy your 10k+ MJ shield - until you happen to get shot at by phasing weapons or reverb cascade.

You cannot seriously say that this is the right way to haul cargo and anything else is "gimping' your ship:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znqv1c1dL0w

The problem is not that you need to use more reasonable builds in Open, it's that NPCs are so weak that these braindead builds are viable in Solo.
For comparison, my Cutter can "only" haul 720 tons of cargo, but it still has 4k+ MJs of shields and it definitely cannot be destroyed by 3 PA volleys.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

That's not true, combat is affected pretty much the same way. For example, it's possible to build an absolutely minmaxed shieldtank combat ship full of GSRPs and enjoy your 10k+ MJ shield - until you happen to get shot at by phasing weapons or reverb cascade.

You cannot seriously say that this is the right way to haul cargo and anything else is "gimping' your ship:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znqv1c1dL0w

The problem is not that you need to use more reasonable builds in Open, it's that NPCs are so weak that these braindead builds are viable in Solo.
For comparison, my Cutter can "only" haul 720 tons of cargo, but it still has 4k+ MJs of shields and it definitely cannot be destroyed by 3 PA volleys.

NPC's are what they are because quite many players do not want your rando npc pirate hobo being more challenging. You can probably find even on these forums calls to nerf down even current ones. I understand that somebodies want this game to be thrilling on edge combat shooter, but it clashes directly with types who want play "Eurotruck Simulator - Space", game. Current approach is compromise.

 

[AEBRAM]

Squadrons don't "own" Minor Factions - and multiple Squadrons can affiliate with the same Minor Faction.

I am just learning about the BGS, so please forgive me here. From what I've seen in-game, squadrons have the ability to control/govern ownership of stations, or however that all works to tag their name to it. Navel blockades was inspiration for mentioning the idea. I am no actual expert on BGS/PP but on the subject to PVP, the concept would be an interesting twist for PVP oriented squadrons to "blockade" a system. Again. It was a shared concept.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I am just learning about the BGS, so please forgive me here.

From what I've seen in-game, squadrons have the ability to control/govern ownership of stations, or however that all works to tag their name to it.

Affiliating a Squadron with a Faction doesn't give the Squadron any such abilities. All players affect the BGS and can affect the influence of Factions in a system, which may result in station ownership changing from one Faction to another - that does not require any player to be a member of a Squadron.

Navel blockades was inspiration for mentioning the idea. I am no actual expert on BGS/PP but on the subject to PVP, the concept would be an interesting twist for PVP oriented squadrons to "blockade" a system. Again. It was a shared concept.

Blockades don't work, in this game, because players can travel in any game mode. Players can role-play blockades if they wish, of course.

 

[TobiasFuzz]

That's not true, combat is affected pretty much the same way. For example, it's possible to build an absolutely minmaxed shieldtank combat ship full of GSRPs and enjoy your 10k+ MJ shield - until you happen to get shot at by phasing weapons or reverb cascade.

You cannot seriously say that this is the right way to haul cargo and anything else is "gimping' your ship:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znqv1c1dL0w

The problem is not that you need to use more reasonable builds in Open, it's that NPCs are so weak that these braindead builds are viable in Solo.
For comparison, my Cutter can "only" haul 720 tons of cargo, but it still has 4k+ MJs of shields and it definitely cannot be destroyed by 3 PA volleys.

Unrelated to bad design by FDev... Can you give me a reason why someone should haul cargo at a CG in open in a tradeship with 50% of the possible cargo space and have to restart the run from the star multiple times after high-wake in comparison to use 100% cargospace and don't be interrupted in solo?

I am surely not a "play solo" advocate, but I can understand why some people stay in solo when aiming for the higher participant levels.