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

ethelred

ethelred
SergMx said:
Two times no.
1. BUT - PG gives no guarantee that there will not appear ganker.
Yes it can be removed over time and banned, but it is a fact.
2. BUT - How inside the game to choose my desired group?
I want to hire a team in the Pleiades to destroy the interceptors, what should I do? In steps.
Click to expand...

You can't in game. You'd need to use Discord most probably
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Rebel Yell said:
Not fair, but (excluding issues regarding platforms, TZs, etc) I have some legit doubt about fairness when speaking about a veteran player/squadron voluntarly attacking the BGS of an enemy player/squadron and, again, voluntarly not doing that in open to avoid direct confrontation...
Click to expand...
I give just a shrug as much as the average toxidude not caring whether their metachariot they crush unsuspecting players with is fair or not.
 

nrage

nrage
I think it's far too late for any change in ED WRT game modes. (as a casual non PvP inclined player) The model I think should have been implemented is one game mode but with Eve Online style high to low/null security systems.

(I've played a little Eve Online, so I'm no expert and may get some of the finer details wrong here..)

In Eve, in high sec, illegal activity is immediately and ruthlessly punished. No matter what you're flying, how well engineered, or how good you are, do something illegal there and you're looking at the rebuy screen almost 100% of the time with very few exceptions. The end result is that you can fly around high sec more or less without concern. You do have to be a little careful on the borders of lower security systems and if you're in a very valuable ship carrying very valuable cargo as then suicide kills can and do happen, with the attackers all being destroyed by system security but where an ally will swoop in to scoop up the spoils. If the spoils > the loss, then it's worthwhile. If not, it doesn't tend to happen. Random "ganking" in high sec just doesn't really happen, even with players whose only goal is PvP, as the losses would quickly bankrupt those players preventing them from continuing.

In lower security systems, where rewards are greater, so are the risks.

What ED needed, IMO, was more of a difference between high and low security in terms of security response but also (importantly) in terms of the possible rewards for players to go there. I think the losses also needed to be meaningful, especially for illegal activity. Once you disincentivize random killing in "safe" spaces, you can crank up both the rewards and losses in the less safe spaces as then it becomes all about how much risk you individually choose to take. Giving you the freedom to play how you want to play, and giving the galaxy and systems a more unique character.
 

Rebel Yell

Rebel Yell
Northpin said:
Why would they?
If the BGS is the purpose, there is nothing in the BGS that requires to kill another player.
A very weak case could be made about wars and fighting in a CZ.. But that's about it (and it's still faster to win CZ in a PG than to win CZ in open fighting humans).

Who ever wants to win the BGS will do it in PG, else if they fool around in Open wasting time in PVP it means they are not filling the PVE buckets that are making the BGS influence and they lost already

PVP might be fun, but it's disconnected from the game objectives 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

I can agree but I wasn't looking for a generally valid statement... that's 100% true for non-PvP parties but whenever one of the parties isn't PvE-only, the players' behaviour gains weight over game mechanics.

Because there's some kind of psychological (and less factual) advantage in inflicting rebuys, as well as ship destructions to mission stackers, station blockades, loss of explo data, loss of cargo for BGS objectives, loss of bounties etc. it's all part of the deal.

And, this to my experience (dozens of wars here and there), dramatically reduces grinding and attrition as the dispute is quickly resolved... I reckon there's some kind of condescension to the PvE-only environment on this sub, but when browsing the several Discord servers where "diplomatic" talks happen, the stance is completely different and a veteran/squadron faction doing such in solo/PG gets instantly booted to the wall of shame and labeled as [put here a definition].
 

alierum

alierum
nrage said:
I think it's far too late for any change in ED WRT game modes. (as a casual non PvP inclined player) The model I think should have been implemented is one game mode but with Eve Online style high to low/null security systems.

(I've played a little Eve Online, so I'm no expert and may get some of the finer details wrong here..)

In Eve, in high sec, illegal activity is immediately and ruthlessly punished. No matter what you're flying, how well engineered, or how good you are, do something illegal there and you're looking at the rebuy screen almost 100% of the time with very few exceptions. The end result is that you can fly around high sec more or less without concern. You do have to be a little careful on the borders of lower security systems and if you're in a very valuable ship carrying very valuable cargo as then suicide kills can and do happen, with the attackers all being destroyed by system security but where an ally will swoop in to scoop up the spoils. If the spoils > the loss, then it's worthwhile. If not, it doesn't tend to happen. Random "ganking" in high sec just doesn't really happen, even with players whose only goal is PvP, as the losses would quickly bankrupt those players preventing them from continuing.

In lower security systems, where rewards are greater, so are the risks.

What ED needed, IMO, was more of a difference between high and low security in terms of security response but also (importantly) in terms of the possible rewards for players to go there. I think the losses also needed to be meaningful, especially for illegal activity. Once you disincentivize random killing in "safe" spaces, you can crank up both the rewards and losses in the less safe spaces as then it becomes all about how much risk you individually choose to take. Giving you the freedom to play how you want to play, and giving the galaxy and systems a more unique character.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
Many have said so, no one has ever listened.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Rebel Yell said:
.... but when browsing the several Discord servers where "diplomatic" talks happen, the stance is completely different and a veteran/squadron faction doing such in solo/PG gets instantly booted to the wall of shame and labeled as [put here a definition].
Click to expand...
Sounds like those Discord servers are not representative of the player-base as a whole then - as it seems that the vast majority of players don't engage in PvP....

.... and those that they like to label and place on the "wall of shame" have no requirement to share their preference for playing in a particular way when the rules of the game that all players bought does not require it.

That's not to say that they can't choose to make up out-of-game rules to play by with / against other like minded players - just that they can't expect that all other players will play by those same out-of-game rules.
 
Last edited:

Northpin

Northpin
Rebel Yell said:
And, this to my experience (dozens of wars here and there), dramatically reduces grinding and attrition as the dispute is quickly resolved... I reckon there's some kind of condescension to the PvE-only environment on this sub, but when browsing the several Discord servers where "diplomatic" talks happen, the stance is completely different and a veteran/squadron faction doing such in solo/PG gets instantly booted to the wall of shame and labeled as [put here a definition].
Click to expand...

BGS-ers enjoy the "grind"
That what they do. They fill buckets day after day and watch the results day after day.

PVP has no meaning in it, it's just rhetoric

Sure, there is nothing wrong about 2 pvp centric factions deciding to sort out their BGS differences by the means of (more or less) arranged PVP fights.
But that has little to do with BGS.
Actually it has more to do to trying to re-enact the Battle of Endor / Battle of Hoth than to play the BGS.

But it's wrong to dis other players for playing the game by the rules.
 

Rebel Yell

Rebel Yell
Robert Maynard said:
Sounds like those Discord servers are not representative of the player-base as a whole then - as it seems that the vast majority of players don't engage in PvP....

.... and those that they like to label and place on the "wall of shame" have no requirement to share their preference for playing in a particular way when the rules of the game that all players bought does not require it.

That's not to say that they can't choose to make up out-of-game rules to play by with / against other like minded players - just that they can't expect that all other players will play by those same out-of-game rules.
Click to expand...

I didn't speak on behalf of the "majority of players" and bla bla which neither this sub represents for sure considering the number of posters and the one-way arguments... as I've said [countless times] that's somehow peculiar to squadrons having PMFs, and inside this, squadron with PMFs doing PvP and attacking another squadron having a PMF.

The labeling comes because a number of players in that subset has found different ways to communicate and that's what happens there... just saying.
 

Rebel Yell

Rebel Yell
Northpin said:
But it's wrong to dis other players for playing the game by the rules.
Click to expand...

It's not the "rules" (= game design is the definition), it's that some players prefer the comfort zone gameplay (relax etc. call as you want) vs. a potential challenging one: and again, I am not saying what is right and what is good, as it's allowed byt the game design. But it's a matter of fact that choosing solo/PG vs. open play can make a difference in such gameplay.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Rebel Yell said:
... as I've said [countless times] that's somehow peculiar to squadrons having PMFs, and inside this, squadron with PMFs doing PvP and attacking another squadron having a PMF.
Click to expand...
I doubt that all squadrons with PMFs are all PvP squadrons, given the makeup of the player-base.
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Northpin said:
BGS-ers enjoy the "grind"
That what they do. They fill buckets day after day and watch the results day after day.

PVP has no meaning in it, it's just rhetoric

Sure, there is nothing wrong about 2 pvp centric factions deciding to sort out their BGS differences by the means of (more or less) arranged PVP fights.
But that has little to do with BGS.
Actually it has more to do to trying to re-enact the Battle of Endor / Battle of Hoth than to play the BGS.

But it's wrong to dis other players for playing the game by the rules.
Click to expand...
BGS-ers enjoy playing for goals they set themselves. How much they commit varies quite. PvP doesn't have a meaning in day to day gameplay but sometimes it is very good for role-playing. Can also fortify the group goals.
 

Avaruus

Avaruus
@nrage
Totally agree with this idea.

But why would it be impossible to implement it since the C&P system already exists? Dev would have to rework it quite a lot of course (especially because they would also have to rebuild every mission system according this new C&P system). So it would be a lot of work for sure, but doesn't sound like Mission: Impossible to me.
 

SergMx

SergMx
Avaruus said:
@nrage
Totally agree with this idea.

But why would it be impossible to implement it since the C&P system already exists? Dev would have to rework it quite a lot of course (especially because they would also have to rebuild every mission system according this new C&P system). So it would be a lot of work for sure, but doesn't sound like Mission: Impossible to me.
Click to expand...
Stop. You are confused about something.
1. there have been many such suggestions on this forum.
2. Maybe I'm wrong, but the implementation of such is not difficult. Shot at the player, look at the security and arrives, if high it will come 8 pieces ATR, low, coming one clipper, not fast.
3. In light of the theme has long been in the game flag, to report crimes, which in essence is the readiness for pvp.

And I think even one of the proposals was that if they come, in the middle of the screen, in big red letters they write for all: The forces of order arrived and if all violators in 10 seconds do not make fsd jump, they will be destroyed.
 
Last edited:

Rebel Yell

Rebel Yell
Robert Maynard said:
I doubt that all squadrons with PMFs are all PvP squadrons, given the makeup of the player-base.
Click to expand...
Indeed, that's what I've said... there is then a number of outcoming situations from that point (as even pure-PvE squadrons may try to engage in PvP, or call allied PvPers into the fight, etc), but the ones involving PvP have had [to my records] in common one thing: conflicts last for much less time vs. the ones where there's no PvP for various reasons (= platform and TZ included).
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Rebel Yell said:
Indeed, that's what I've said... there is then a number of outcoming situations from that point (as even pure-PvE squadrons may try to engage in PvP, or call allied PvPers into the fight, etc), but the ones involving PvP have had [to my records] in common one thing: conflicts last for much less time vs. the ones where there's no PvP for various reasons (= platform and TZ included).
Click to expand...
That can have a eide variety of reasons.
e.g. they sit down and have diplomacy after they showed each other - role play. Or they move on with stuff they usually do because sitting in space waiting for enemies doesnt get the BGS work done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom