David Braben clearly said he doesn't want gankers in the game. We all know that he failed though...There absolutely is, for example not to have ships that can fly through one another or faceplant into another ship without suffering any kind of damage. That would be beyond stupid and I seriously doubt that "Braben's vision" of a "living and breathing Galaxy" was ever supposed to mean that we need to "blaze our own trails" in a parody of Elite: Teletubbies for 3 year old kids.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Sorry, if that's your argument you need to delete the game.
Obviously people would find ways around safety systems, just like they always did and always do. You have been part of the journey long enough to know all the different exploits, that never stopped the game from existing.
Simplest way would be instancing PVE-only flagged players separately from PVP-flagged players. Basically creating Open-PVE mode.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The modes themselves are simply different settings on the matchmaking server which, as well as friends lists, block lists and (I think) being in a Wing, affect which other players a player may instance with.
The invulnerable to others issue was already solved a few pages ago.
Pve players don't end up in the same instance as pvp players. Pve flag would be like a private group without a max player limit.
Pve players don't end up in the same instance as pvp players. Pve flag would be like a private group without a max player limit.
That is clearly griefing. You just report these people and good riddance. Let's assume a PvE Open would be created. A seasoned dev would anticipate a number of trolls and griefers trying to undermine their business. So extra moderation would be on stand by for the first couple weeks, the policies would be enforced more strictly and once the dust has settled the couple dozen renitent griefers and trolls will have been easily banned from the premises - they just go grief elsewhere. You keep some guard around for the uneducatable idiot who tries to work around with alt accounts but that is background noise you just have to deal with.
It's silly that two or more ships, engaged in the same activity, should be subject to different rules.
In practical terms, if I'm in combat with several ships it'd be very silly if I can only engage some of them and not others and it'd be very, very, silly if I could fly through them because they were "ghosts" to prevent them interacting with PvP-enabled ships.
You want to justify implementing a flawed thing on the basis that there are already other flawed things in the game?
I'd prefer it if FDev just tried to avoid adding more flawed things completely.
Pretty sure that's what you'd get with a dedicated PvE mode, without screwing up Open for those who do enjoy the no-hold-barred nature of it.
If your PvE-only switch excluded instancing with people who have it off, then basically it's a separate PvE-only mode what you want. Now that's a whole different idea, worth discussing probably in a different thread.
Basically it is same but more tighter setting as if certain player trawls various netsites and adds named gan... ah PVP'ers to blocklist. Doable even now.
I would keep collision enabled, it's not ideal but still better than flying through ships. It's 100% realistic that weapons in the future stop firing when they are pointed at someone who has some sort of non attack agreement via the pilots federation.
Like I said, delete the game. Everything is flawed. The important question is, how much do we care about something? You don't care at all, that much is clear. I don't care is not an argument though.
It wouldn't screw up Open. I guess you wouldn't even notice it most of the time...
Erm, that doesn't solve the issue.
Instead, it utterly undermines the reason for having a "PvE switch" at all.
People want some kind of "PvE switch" so they fly around in Open, interacting with the largest possible group of other players.
If setting "PvE on" put you in a different instance, you're no longer IN Open.
If that was how a "PvE switch" was to work, FDev might as well set up a formal PvE mode, which players could log into from the main menu.
Oh, for sure.
A dedicated PvE mode would definitely be my preferred choice because it'd be a place where it was unequivocal that you just don't mess with other players.
Some kind of "PvE switch" in Open would almost certainly provide a multitude of different ways for a ne'erdowell to irritate other players and admin's would have a far more convoluted job of sifting through all the reports and trying to judge which incidents were accidental and which ones were malicious.
AFAIK most instancing rules are 'soft' rules. If there are 2 instances, each with 10 players you would be put into the instance with similar settings to yours. If there is just 1 instance with 1 player you would most likely meet him regardless of your settings.
Game rewards SOLO mode, couple examples:
1. Stations - in open constant busy pads in critical points where you need it like CG.
2. CZs:
a) steal kills - game splits reward for kill between cmdrs who did hit, this is really visible in ground CZ. 15k instead 85k reward just because other complete random cmdr made 1st hit by rocket.
b) missed kills - you come to CZ and find out that it is 50% done already by another CMDR - u just missed 50% of reward
those are very important for CG as we deliver bonds, so "open" scenario again better to play solo.
3. materials - only 1 picks.
So basically core game is supposed to play solo. It's not good to play in PG even on big scenarios like CG going today because it will be pure time waste.
So I would play open/no pvp for some chores, but for things like CG I would go solo again just because it is most effective to do counting my time.
1. Stations - in open constant busy pads in critical points where you need it like CG.
2. CZs:
a) steal kills - game splits reward for kill between cmdrs who did hit, this is really visible in ground CZ. 15k instead 85k reward just because other complete random cmdr made 1st hit by rocket.
b) missed kills - you come to CZ and find out that it is 50% done already by another CMDR - u just missed 50% of reward
those are very important for CG as we deliver bonds, so "open" scenario again better to play solo.
3. materials - only 1 picks.
So basically core game is supposed to play solo. It's not good to play in PG even on big scenarios like CG going today because it will be pure time waste.
So I would play open/no pvp for some chores, but for things like CG I would go solo again just because it is most effective to do counting my time.
Last edited:
I'd say let's remove PvP entirely from the game because it leads to combat logging, which is extra work for support.
Well, it's a valid argument, just not a very good one.
And the implication is that this is a common thought and want? And that maybe FDev should give some thought to engaging the whole (not just forum) community on it.
So, my penny. NMS has a very simple and effective answer that is helpful as, despite the game's enormity, you routinely meet others - and it's generally good fun when you do. They have an on/off weapon damage setting for other players.
Would I play in open in ED with such? Yeah, probably. I currently play in Mobius. Albeit I haven't played for quite a while.
A completely separate mode would still be much better because it would not interfere with instancing which is already in an utterly wretched state.
You (kind of, not completely) can achieve something similar using blocking, but only from your point of view while still affecting other people who never asked for the effects of your block in the first place.
A completely separate PvE mode could have certain benefits for Open, since that way the blocking function could be removed (changed to affect only comms, as it always should have been). Also, it would be much easier to get rid of other stupid functions like menu logging.
And that's clearly not something I'd want.
Just reminded me...
I do agree with you regarding the whole "PF members attacking each other" thing.
Said it before but I think that should have been the cornerstone of any C&P system.
Basically, there should be "Pilot's Federation Enforcers" to take action against PF members (players) who act in a sufficiently unsavory manner.
When the topic of C&P comes up, there are always people who say "...but, we're all in the same galaxy so players should be treated the same as NPCs"
That's incorrect, though.
We're not all the same. NPCs aren't members of the Pilot's Federation.
Clearly, in practical terms, players and NPCs don't act in similar ways (you don't get NPCs commiting random acts of aggression) so it seems like "PF membership" could be used as a plausible method of differentiating between the laws as applied to NPCs and to PF members.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It would be functionally identical - other than not mixing with players of a different setting, i.e. the setting would be dictated by mode selection in the launcher rather than a toggleable in-game setting.