To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
If you want be prepared to all game situations it's only way...
I think if you go historical on the data you'll find that ganking before Odyssey was as endemic as it is now; meaning much ado about nothing.
Open only would greatly simplify a lot of things.
For instance, BGS conflict...an area I'm particularly interested in, would be a great deal more interesting, rewarding, and challenging if others couldn't simply undermine from the safety of PG's/Solo. A PMF ought to be able to defend itself directly. Meaning, actually being able to employ tactics such as blockading and intercepting attackers.
Since modes arent going away...
To break it out with a bit more nuance...
I'd structure what can happen in what modes (roughly) like this:
Attacking/defending an NPC faction? Any mode.
Attacking a PMF? The defender should have the option to dictate what mode bgs impact can occur in. If they're a PVE only PMF they can exclude Open.
Or defenders could opt for Open as the conflict mode enabling actual tactics versus just the logistical/strategic layer of BGS. (extend these thoughts to PP as well)
You could add further nuance by allowing PMF's to preemptively declare support for certain npc mf's in order to add a bit of strategic projection into the game. Admittedly this is a little muddy in terms of how to implement it for me atm...
Something along these lines ^ would potentially give an emergent and dynamic impetus for the PVP aspect of this game. Versus the current paradigm where it just exists in an irrelevant vacuum. You may even see ganking become a myth by virtue of giving actual tactical value to PVP/Open engagement. A lot of this game is fractured generally in a similar fashion actually.
This still favors the more gargantuan PVE predominant PMF's so maybe implement a risk/reward paradigm in terms of allowing for a BGS bonus for actions completed in Open.
As you well know it's a real snooze-fest when a large PVE pmf decides to steamroll smaller pmf's all without even a semblance of real engagement.
Last edited:
I'm perfectly aware of such, as you know well also. I am also perfectly aware that Frontier are reluctant to make any change to their original 'all modes are equal' to exclude or enforce activities on a mode-specific agenda.
Shame that a dozen or so players can be steamrolled by a thousand or more... A bit like real-life that, wouldn't you say?
Indeed. Hence force multipliers. I think ED would be a far more vibrant game if PVP was actually worked into the warfare paradigm versus the utterly abstract model that currently exists.
Of course. It seems that this "great ganking plague" is a significant reason why a to me unknown, but supposed relevant player number is rejecting open mode.
Indeed, you may think so, as I may disagree.
Me, I would find it to be even more mind-numbing than BGS play, and that is incredibly so.
If you look way back in the thread you'll see that by the (imperfect) numbers it's an absolute rarity event that occurs in a very few well-known hotspots.
And unless something has changed open is still the most populous game mode.
If I only take this thread for a calculating basis (I have no other source so far) without exactly counting (what would be interesting to know but I am not the one with time and effort for this) it seems to me that regulary and not quit seldom players here wrote that they do not play open because of gankers.
And that's fine. Just like in real life some of us aren't interested in the strategic & tactical aspects of warfare.
In this milieu shooting at each other because of concrete strategic reasons is quite engaging ime. And being that warfare is modeled in-game, and considering the fact that engineering is already exponentially more robust than PVE requires, I don't think it's too much to ask that those of us who can ought to have the option of engaging our attackers directly.
I didn't say "take this thread for a calculating basis." Within the thread was a discussion regarding a veritable sampling group. Within that sample, the occurrence is incredibly rare.
That option surely does exist now... If they chose to engage.
ETA: Or are you suggesting that players should be forced to engage with others?
Tedious? Possibly. Some of the comments on here are downright stupid IMO, but then some make me laugh a bit with my morning coffee. It's all good.
The majority of comments here make me laugh (including my own, of course), morning coffee or not!Tedious? Possibly. Some of the comments on here are downright stupid IMO, but then some make me laugh a bit with my morning coffee. It's all good.
(Maybe because I thoroughly enjoy seeing the dead horse being continually beaten)
And I think that this statement is without a reliable counting very debatable.
I think the defender should have the choice in how to engage. Attack wisely.
Your argument in essence is, "in light of the fact that I have no numbers to substantiate my point your numbers are no good."
So, you are agreeing that you think that players should be forced to engage with others. I thought that is what you inferred.
We disagree on aspects of the game, unsurprisingly, debating these differences will have no effect today or in the forseeable future - but it is good to talk, thanks.
Well no. If you know the defender will choose to defend in open then you have the choice not to attack them.