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

[Ettanin]

They can ban people, certain boy wizard character for example was banned from open. He can play all he want. In solo.

Well, unless it really makes the news or is sourcable from anything that is printed to the journal (i.e. chat), FDev won't act because they have no sufficient evidence. They cannot see what exactly and how it transpired in-game. There is no server that records each move and keeps it for a replay.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

So we get to the point where blocking really is only recourse. I'm all in for reinforced C&P, if someone trolls you after that, just block the troll. Said feature should be advertised more.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Block the ganker, block always the ganker. And block the troll too.

 

[Ettanin]

So we get to the point where blocking really is only recourse. I'm all in for reinforced C&P, if someone trolls you after that, just block the troll. Said feature should be advertised more.

Good thing I have a dedicated IPv4 address which means my instancing wouldn't be crippled

Block the ganker, block always the ganker. And block the troll too.

Exactly. Build your own Open PvE mode as long as FDev won't do it for you.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

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?

Difference between Fallout 76 and ED:

Fallout 76 requires you to subscribe to a Fallout 1st to access private servers, where you are "safe" from PvP, if that is what the group decides. This was also not available at all for quite some time after release.

ED has had private groups and solo since Launch. And neither require paying a subscription.

OP, this is not the excellent comparison you think it is. In fact, it just highlights players unwilling to use features offered to them for no extra cost, where in Fallout 76, you must pay for it.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Fallout 1st was/is effectively pay to win which isn't where Fdev wants to go.
PVP is not directly enabled in 76 except under certain circumstances. Return fire, activate workshop, get a bounty.
Alas the PVP consequences of doing that isn't apparent beforehand, and given lockpicking is a core game activity somewhat difficult to anticipate.

 

[ethelred]

Yes killing noobs is not against TOS, probable inventing creative ways to burden really innocent party with C&P punishments either is not against LETTER of TOS. Thats the point were human decision is needed. I'm moderator in some forums. And I DO punish people who may behave in strictly speaking within letter of rules but are still disruptive and negative influence for forum community.

If you get your fun from trolling people, I say your fun is something community does not need.

This is where we differ, I think.

The TOS is everything. If it's allowed by the TOS then it's ok in my book.

I may, like you, think things are a jerk move bit that's on the world owner, FDEV, not the player as they allow it.

I guess we can argue about defining trolling or ganking if you like, lol?

In your moderation example - your rules need to be clearer if they don't cater for negative and/or disruptive behaviour. I too moderate and run some online communities and I've made the rules absolutely clear so my mod team have clear instructions and definitions of jerk behaviour that we don't tolerate.

 

[Rebel Yell]

what youngsters think about c&p system in the game?))

Well, they literally don't care... they do not even care about "losing" something in the game, as they don't feel like "I am investing my time in the game to achieve this or that". Whilst we (including myself) have a different perspective... they seem to be aware that playing a video game is by definition a "waste" of time, whatever you do in the game.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

This is where we differ, I think.

The TOS is everything. If it's allowed by the TOS then it's ok in my book.

I may, like you, think things are a jerk move bit that's on the world owner, FDEV, not the player as they allow it.

I guess we can argue about defining trolling or ganking if you like, lol?

In your moderation example - your rules need to be clearer if they don't cater for negative and/or disruptive behaviour. I too moderate and run some online communities and I've made the rules absolutely clear so my mod team have clear instructions and definitions of jerk behaviour that we don't tolerate.

Basically whatever the rules are, there are always loopholes, that allow somebody have unwanted negative behauviour. And that is where you need somebody to use some judgement. If your gameplay consists of only trolling people you should meet consequences. And as Elite does not have mechanism to place players to trash tier instancing (meaning you would instance just with other trolls...) solution should be banning those people to solo. There they can troll npc's as much as they ever want.

 

[galahad2069]

Basically whatever the rules are, there are always loopholes, that allow somebody have unwanted negative behauviour. And that is where you need somebody to use some judgement. If your gameplay consists of only trolling people you should meet consequences. And as Elite does not have mechanism to place players to trash tier instancing (meaning you would instance just with other trolls...) solution should be banning those people to solo. There they can troll npc's as much as they ever want.

Shooting at other players in Open for whatever reason is NOT unwanted negative behaviour, let alone a bannable violation of EULA/TOS.
If you have a problem with that, you can go to Solo/PG.

 

[Zak Gordon]

The more you tighten your grip Tarkin, the more systems slip though your fingers.

'Balance' in the force is just that. A game also needs balance.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Shooting at other players in Open for whatever reason is NOT unwanted negative behaviour, let alone a bannable violation of EULA/TOS.
If you have a problem with that, you can go to Solo/PG.

I do not say anything about shooting. I say about that stuff like suicidewinders, ways to manipulate C&P against innocent side and so on. While suicidewindering MAY be within TOS, it certainly is trolling. Basically all that "if we make more robust C&P such and such would game it against noobs" stuff. You do that and you should be banned for good.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

For gankers there is block feature, they can go and shoot some others.

 

[Jmanis]

I do not say anything about shooting. I say about that stuff like suicidewinders, ways to manipulate C&P against innocent side and so on. While suicidewindering MAY be within TOS, it certainly is trolling. Basically all that "if we make more robust C&P such and such would game it against noobs" stuff. You do that and you should be banned for good.

Can't agree with that.

Suicidewindering is perfectly avoidable by not speeding. Can't say I'm aware of whether or not there's anything in FD's TOS specifically about the new player systems (and if not, there should be, and would be a major shortcoming), but anything outside of those systems is fair game, because the mechanics are there to avoid it. That people ignore those rules is at their own detriment.

(Though, the whole suicidewindering thing was brought about by player demand for "speeding" rules as a result of ram-kills. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes I guess.)

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Can't agree with that.

Suicidewindering is perfectly avoidable by not speeding. Can't say I'm aware of whether or not there's anything in FD's TOS specifically about the new player systems (and if not, there should be, and would be a major shortcoming), but anything outside of those systems is fair game, because the mechanics are there to avoid it. That people ignore those rules is at their own detriment.

(Though, the whole suicidewindering thing was brought about by player demand for "speeding" rules as a result of ram-kills. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes I guess.)

That has all ready been discussed. Push target so that it momentarily gets above speed limit. This far only two things work. Fly at crawl speed or use docking computer. Especially the first option makes game really "funny" for other players.

 

[Jmanis]

That has all ready been discussed. Push target so that it momentarily gets above speed limit. This far only two things work. Fly at crawl speed or use docking computer. Especially the first option makes game really "funny" for other players.

And I fall back to my original statement; if it's outside the new player bubble? Fair game.

Trolling is all about the intent. You can't discern that from a game action within the rules, and I don't see FD announcing this as an exploit, so unless FD change the mechanics, or announce it's an exploit.

You simply cannot hold people accountable to unwritten rules.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Basic problem is that there is no way to make mechanical ruleset that could hinder this kind of behauviour. That is where human judgement is needed. "okay this player seems to have a LOT of accidents while flying paperthin sidey. And seems that said player is an experienced one, not a noob with his first ship...)

 

[Jmanis]

Basic problem is that there is no way to make mechanical ruleset that could hinder this kind of behauviour. That is where human judgement is needed. "okay this player seems to have a LOT of accidents while flying paperthin sidey. And seems that said player is an experienced one, not a noob with his first ship...)

Then it should be explicit in the rules. It's not hard to write "Suiciding, the act of deliberately ramming another ship to destroy yourself in order to incur a bounty against another target, in range of a station so they die, is against the TOS"

If it isn't, then play on.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

One IRL story about trolling: In my home city lives one guy, who has rather irritating and dangerous hobby. He would irritate people to the point he got assaulted. And then he would make a criminal complaint of those people. He ran that "game" for years. Untill police decided to make unofficial policy. They would not investigate his complaints at all, unless he was really beated badly. That stopped said hobby.

Technically he was a victim, and technically police made a crime themselves by not investigating his complaints.

 

[galahad2069]

I do not say anything about shooting. I say about that stuff like suicidewinders, ways to manipulate C&P against innocent side and so on. While suicidewindering MAY be within TOS, it certainly is trolling. Basically all that "if we make more robust C&P such and such would game it against noobs" stuff. You do that and you should be banned for good.

That's not a violation of the TOS either, therefore it's not bannable, no matter how you feel about it.

It's not even widespread in the least, I cannot even remember when the last time I could see a suicidewinder was.
But I do remember people using trainers, including a PvE Vette which stopped taking damage at 50% hull.
That is bannable behaviour (a.k.a. cheating), not suicidewindering or shooting down noobs in Deciat.