Oh my bad, it was sociopath.Who is calling someone a psychopath?
It's not any better though, so don't call them that either.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
It's not any better though, so don't call them that either.
Tbh this whole thread is just another request for an "easy mode".
Open is for players that enjoy an environment that comes with risk and dynamic interaction.
Hostile players are just part of the game, removing this singular danger would be the end of ED for many.
Open is for players that enjoy an environment that comes with risk and dynamic interaction.
Hostile players are just part of the game, removing this singular danger would be the end of ED for many.
Oh my bad, it was sociopath.
It's not any better though, so don't call them that either.
I didn't call anyone that either. Whether someone thought it was aimed at them or not... well, frankly that's on them. Hitting home a bit maybe?
So, in addition to that WRONG slur against me, let's recap:
You've stated that there exists in-game a means to avoid PvP and still play multiplayer.
WRONG. No such facility exists.
You've stated that PG is a substitute for Open play.
WRONG. Group size limits and the size of the galaxy means they are not even close to being equivalent.
Your 'solution' to avoid being ganked is to play in Solo, or PG which you wrongly thought could avoid it also.
WRONG. The whole point of E: D is that you play the game your way. It even says on the website and on all the promotional material for the game.
You've stated that explorers should just sell their data at the first available system.
WRONG. See above.
Are we done here? Can we go back to talking about fixing Open now?
Last edited:
I boosted and pancaked into the wall of a station on accident recently in my unshielded Cutter.
Took about 33% damage.
Oh no, anyway....
And a whole new dawn for many, many, many more.
If toxic & hostile players choose to quit over it - meh. Game would be far better for it.
Open is for players who want to interact with other players. PvP would still be eminently possible - it would just have to be consensual, as it should be.
Last edited:
I like meeting players in Open.
I play Solo when I’m unable to commit to possible player interaction. For example, only an hour to play. I don’t want to get started into something social (PvP or co-op) and then have to log out. So solo is more about me being courteous.
I play Solo when I’m unable to commit to possible player interaction. For example, only an hour to play. I don’t want to get started into something social (PvP or co-op) and then have to log out. So solo is more about me being courteous.
And a whole new dawn for many, many, many more.
If toxic & hostile players choose to quit over it - meh. Game would be far better for it.
Open is for players who want to interact with other players. PvP would still be eminently possible - it would just have to be consensual, as it should be.
Being toxic and being hostile are two completely seperate things.
Why should PvP be only consensual?
Sounds a bit sterile and limited to me.
Why play in an open world environment if all the risks are removed?
I didn't call anyone that either. Whether someone thought it was aimed at them or not... well, frankly that's on them. Hitting home a bit maybe?
Actually you did:
Unless I can say, for example, "whoever wants a PvP flag in ED is an idiot" without calling you or anyone else an idiot, your "WRONG slur" statement will be false.To me, it's self-evident. People who do this, whether in real life, or in an immersive computer game like E: D, are sociopaths. Maybe people don't like the word, but then maybe the truth hurts.
Well, I can do it no sweat, even in Open. If you can't, all I can say is that you need to try harder.
Group size seems to be large enough not to affect the number of players you can encounter in your pacifist private group, see @Agony_Aunt 's post above.
Well I thought that in possession of such a powerful diploma as yours that can make its owner capable of diagnosing sociopathy over a video game without the slightest shred of doubt, it really should not be a problem to be able to invite the right people to your private group. Seriously, if you cannot avoid being ganked in your PG, then what can I say, there really is very little hope, the world is probably about to end.
You mean the "blaze your own trail" slogan? Sure, play the game the way you want. The game. This game, the existing one. Within its rules and mechanics. Not a random game that only exists in your imagination.
Never have I said that they should do that and only that. I said that was one of their options. Among many others, like selling their data in Solo, using a better ship, or just getting gud enough to outfly and/or outsmart any possible attackers. You seemed to like none of them, for some inexplicable reason.
No reason to fix something that's not broken.
So, um...just food for thought...
Why should it be consensual?
It's a proven game design that works well for PvE-centric titles. Non-consensual PvP models naturally attact a certain audience of gamer. That audience tends to be a vast minority for the overall PvE-centric market of gamers. Strictly speaking from a business perspective, non-consensual PvP is rarely wise if the objective is to build a PvE-centric title. Can it be done? Of course, Elite's that way and it's a target rich environment (or was). Should it? Eh...
Sounds a bit sterile and limited to me.
Well, is that because lack of non-consensual PvP would significantly expose how shallow Elite's overall multiplayer design is? Or is it because anything with consensual-PvP is inherently boring? That's a gross oversimplification, but you can see my point. Consensual PvP isn't boring. PvP in Elite is boring by design. Making it consensual, ironically, might actually signficantly amplify its enjoyment and interaction.
That said, CQC is consensual and we call know how that feature went. Which, again, begs the question...is Elite's primary market (PvE-centric) actually interested in non-consensual PvP when it clearly doesn't support structured, consensual PvP? It's easy to point out CQC's many flaws as to why it failed - and those are good points, too - but it doesn't change the fact that FDev obviously saw no need to invest in it further. We can infer from this either, A) FDev doesn't think it's target audience cares for consensual PvP or, B) FDev thinks that the target audience prefers non-consensual PvP.
Given the current design, it'd be easy to assume B - after all, ganking is supported in Open Play. Except that's the catch: there is an open play mode. So perhaps we've got an option A that is modified to capture a larger target audience. The majority don't like non-consensual...so we have PG and Solo...and Open Play exists for memes, free marketing, and the PvP crowd. It's not hard to see how this model is now reaching its critical mass for sustainability.
Why play in an open world environment if all the risks are removed?
That's a great question! Let's refer to my initial answer to your second question. Is the open world environment actually risky? Or just the gankers? I've often trumpeted one of Elite's failings is that 'dangerous' is only in the title, not the game. If gankers are the only risk in the game...doesn't that seem a bit of a flimsy design ethos?
If consensual PvP removes the risk from Elite, that's not a PvP balancing issue. That's a game-wide balancing issue. This isn't EvE Online (and yes, I'm a bittervet of that venerable title). PvP is not the core design of Elite...or, at least, it wasn't originally pitched to be that way. Yet that is what Open Play has devolved into. Why work on CQC when Open Play does it for you? Solo mode and PG take care of everything else. The only downside for FDev is a community that is confused about their approach to balancing (anything) and their inability to sort out the BGS across these modes.
Because Elite is a PvE-centric game with a non-consensual PvP model that doesn't work.
Your questions are fair and they need to considered. The first step, though, is acknowledging PvP is not the foundation of Elite.
If it is that foundation - and FDev may well think it is, ask them! - then Elite is horribly designed to support that audience.
Can you imagine a PvP-centric Elite? Really now, think about it. It would be glorious!
Powerplay that actually incents PvP as a method of influencing powers and the BGS, rewarding skill and hunting prowess, or defensive strategem.
Engineering that was evenly balanced across all weapons with distinctive, but fair, advantages and disadvantages.
Parity across all ship sizes and classes, enabling wing strategies for support, tackle, tank, and penetrating.
Squadron objectives, destructible squadron assets, fleet carrier mechanics that support and influence PvP.
Glorious.
That isn't the game we have though, is it? Now, don't get me wrong, I'd love to see that game...but it's important we all acknowledge that this game - the PvP-centric Elite - cannot coexist with what Elite we have: filled with space truckers and miners, passenger liners and unarmed deep space explorers, pirate hunters and thargoid defenders. Many have tried. None have succeeded.
PvE-centric audiences want consensual PvP.
PvP-centric audiences want non consensual PvP.
They are, truly, mutually exclusive. They'll try each other's titles, obviously, but when a developer tries to blue that line...PvP always wins in the end, but the money is with PvE-centric if you want to keep the game alive.
Anybody can make Call of Duty, Fortnite, PUBG, DotA, <name that ancient game that is PvP only you haven't played in a decade>. PvP-centric models aren't new and they do not last for long. That's what makes them fun to play and explore! A 1:1 galactic simulator does not bend well to such a demand.
And it shows.
Cards on the table.
Consensual pvp is where the highest levels of skill ever seen in this game are put on display for the whole community to see, and it is glorious.
The last Prism v Nomads league final on pc and the Haaands final IED vs Faze on Xbox are shining examples of this.
Organic pvp can also be equally amazing when pvp centric squads go at it in giant furballs.
This is usually consensual but not always.
Non consensual pvp gets a lot of negative airplay because a large section of our playerbase just don't seem to realize that every ship in the game can be fit with guns, and some folk are gonna use them.
This random threat of bumping into a hostile, aggressive and fully kitted murder hobos adds the only real preventative measure against this game sliding backwards into a skill less click-fest in a sea of brain dead AI
Consensual pvp is where the highest levels of skill ever seen in this game are put on display for the whole community to see, and it is glorious.
The last Prism v Nomads league final on pc and the Haaands final IED vs Faze on Xbox are shining examples of this.
Organic pvp can also be equally amazing when pvp centric squads go at it in giant furballs.
This is usually consensual but not always.
Non consensual pvp gets a lot of negative airplay because a large section of our playerbase just don't seem to realize that every ship in the game can be fit with guns, and some folk are gonna use them.
This random threat of bumping into a hostile, aggressive and fully kitted murder hobos adds the only real preventative measure against this game sliding backwards into a skill less click-fest in a sea of brain dead AI
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?
I play Elite for fun with friends in PG because I have no time or desire to take part in PvP.
It's the same reason I never played the "Crucible" in Destiny, I was all about the Co-op PvE.
If FDev ever decides to make PvP in Open consensual, then yeah - if I could opt-out of all PvP and just play PvE I would.
But they never will, and therefore I'll always play with friends in PG, or in solo if I'm unable to do co-op missions, etc.
I've never wanted to be a pro (or semi-pro) gamer, just like I never desired to be a pro in sports, chess, cards, or any other game.
Games for "me" are a way to have fun with friends, and take a break from work (programming and teaching.)
And unlike gamers like Harry Potter who've admitted they play Elite Dangerous several hours every day, my role on this earth is not to spend my days entertaining myself, but to help people better themselves by passing on what I've learned.
"Highest level of skill" only in one dimension of the game, though; personally I'm more impressed by people who have plumbed the depth of the BGS, cracked difficult, puzzles, etc. which IMO are more fundamental to the game than PvP.
Random "agressive murderhobos" are boring to me. Encounters with off-meta commanders or pirates that talk to you are actually fun for me, as is purposeful direct opposition a la hauling for a powerplay expansion. I had a lot of fun trying to ram a shieldless mine-dropping cobra with a weaponless passenger hauling beluga recently even though I knew it was almost certainly going to end up with a rebuy for me. Silent Bob in a meta-DL? yawn.
See, I'm not sure that actually hits what you were probably aiming at.
It might be true that PvP is, at it's best, a good example of skill in ED but if it's the only way to demonstrate skill in ED, who's fault is that?
I might be the best sprinter in the world but if the only event in the Olympics is the shot-put, I'm boned.
I think it's probably fair to say that everybody who plays ED enjoys flying pretend spaceships.
It's probably also fair to say that everybody who plays video games enjoys some level of challenge.
ED claims to offer a diverse range of activities that all involve flying pretend spaceships but if players can't do anything, aside from pew-pew, in a way that provides any worthwhile level of challenge, that's really on FDev rather than on the players who enjoy stuff other than pew-pew.
Trouble is, FDev haven't really managed to come up with any way for players to
About the closest we get is (unless I'm forgetting something) occasional delivery CG, where being the best at hauling cargo is rewarded (poorly).
Aside from that, there's nothing you can't achieve in ED, eventually, as a result of repitition rather than skill.
I guess PP and player-faction related stuff also provides some competitive gameplay but, again, aside from the pew-pew they rely on repetitive tasks rather than challenging ones.
Here's a wacky thought...
Maybe the ranks in ED should be re-worked so that, instead of being awarded arbitrarily, they're awarded for being in a certain percentile of the player base?
For example, only the top 5% are considered Elite, top 75% to 95% are considered Deadly, top 50% to 75% are Dangerous etc.
Not suggesting that would be a complete solution to the lack of challenge in anything other than combat but it would, at least, provide players with some basic, ongoing, challenge in whatever their field of interest is; trading, exploration and combat.
Seems like ED could really use some more challenging things worked into the core elements of the game, though, so that players who're skillful at every activity in the game would be acknowledged as such.
Last edited:
What I meant by highest level of skill related to piloting ability, build integrity, teamwork, reflex/adaptability, communication and strategy.
All players at this level have long since moved past the core "features like trade, bgs, explore etc.
It's the flight model itself that held this section of the community together.
If ED had occasionally listened to the apex characters in these competative groups regarding balancing, design, mechanics, c&p etc... the game would be in a far better shape imo
All players at this level have long since moved past the core "features like trade, bgs, explore etc.
It's the flight model itself that held this section of the community together.
If ED had occasionally listened to the apex characters in these competative groups regarding balancing, design, mechanics, c&p etc... the game would be in a far better shape imo
Even if you're not into pvp, have a look at the prism v Nomads final from inside the cockpit and tell me you can fly that well. I can't
FWIW, I recently got myself an Oculus Quest 2 and, without wishing to brag, that's really taken my pew-pew to the next level.
I might be wrong but, after playing in VR, I honestly don't think it's possible to do as well using flat screens.
You just have vastly more situational awareness in VR and the simple ability to move your head to track a target, and then guide your ship/crosshairs onto a target, makes combat far more fluid.
Just a shame that I rarely use VR when playing because of the faff of swapping from VR to a screen for the FPS parts of the game.
Oh, and the galmap absolutely sucks in VR.
There is already an "easy" mode as you put it.
Its more of a thread to allow "easy" mode to also be played in Open by those who choose it. For those who don't choose it they would still be able to pew pew at others who didn't choose it.
I don't think it would be a big issue most of the time except in busy systems, for example, at a CG. Then your instancing could possibly get filled up with people that can't be shot at instead of people who could be shot at.
I suppose one way to deal with it would be that the game didn't instance people who had PvP turned off with people who had PvP turned on. That way it wouldn't affect anyone.