I wouldn't have any problems on Open itself, if the certain parts PVP group would be LESS trigger happy, and attack for some valid in-game reasons only. Not for the reasonz like "I shoot everyone having a docking computer" "I'm bored" "Lets ruin this guys game session".
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
I wouldn't mind the two galaxies, although I also don't think FD would consider it because of the extra work. There would be some puzzles though:But without the drama we saw from some people defending the "all modes are equal". People was really... vocal, let's say this for respect on the fact we are all human beings technically.
But still to have different things would benefit both sides in my opinion (and that's MY opinion, maybe some other people should remember that their opinions are their very own).
I see that the main issue for some players is avoiding PvP. Cool, I can dig that.
To other people the issue is dealing with invisible enemies.
The two things are clearly not compatible so... two galaxies, two CMDRs, then anybody can chose. I don't see anything wrong in the possibility of choosing. Some other people clearly do, too bad they are the very same people they claim that other people wanna make them play their way...
And again: we'd get the gankers, you'd be in your Open Friendly mode. That would be perfect for everybody. This thing would be the most reasonable thing to ask to FDev to solve this long, tiring and limiting feud.
Would exploration tags be the same in the two galaxies?
Could Thargoids destroy a station in one but not the other?
Could CG results differ between the two?
How would ED Market Connector work?
Would Galnet articles appear in both galaxies?
Then there would be unintended consequences. For myself, even though I play in Open sometimes now, I'd give it up and focus on the "Mobius" galaxy. Judging from other games with PvP servers, I think the Open galaxy would end up abandoned and empty.
Well, that's something you can't really control with an algorythm.
But I think that right now security levels are a joke, and I even wrote a thread about that months ago, especially to make this kind of situations at least less possible. In my opinion Very High Security Systems should be extremly safe for players in Open Play (Powerplay would be not included of course), High Security Systems very safe, Medium and Low well... it's game on
This thing would make gameplay, even between players, much more rich, especially if medium and low security systems would present the best opportunities to have greater gains for the lawful players, where very high and high would be the best ones for unlawful. But of course survival would be totally optional, for both sides.
I agree on the questions you made, and that's the reason why I don't think they would do that.
In fact my last (and for now definitive) proposal was to make Powerplay itself the "Open Only PvP affected game mechanic" in Elite Dangerous, mostly by separating it from BGS (leaving maybe just minor effects to give more "flavour" to the different systems), making Powerplay modules available from tech brokers, putting in powerplay missions to cover all the different game mechanics, and making systems turmoil singularly (for a much more detailed proposal go search for that thread if you are interested).
That would be a decent compromise imho.
They've run Twin Galaxies before, and are actually running Three now: Base Game, Horizons, and Odyssey. They plan on merging it all into Odyssey when it fully launches, whenever that is.
They have the experience and resources for managing twin galaxies.
For OP's Question: Totally. What goes on between two consenting individuals is of no business of mine, and I'd rather not it be made my business.
Those galaxies though run on same storyline and so on.
No, those aren't separate galaxies in the sense we were discussing. All the faction states, power states, Thargoid behaviours, exploration tags, CG results etc. are identical on all those platforms.
Well they actually did run two in the past during beta periods
I think it would be technically viable, difficult to maintain for sure, because they'd soon diverge substantially.Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... and that divergence would mean that exploits would be trivial if players could switch between them with anything in their ship.Well they actually did run two in the past during beta periods
I would very happily play in Open, wouldn't even play any other mode if it was possible to disable PvP.
In Forza Horizon, you can meet random strangers on the roads, but you can't collide with them. They can't ruin your experience but you can team up with them if you choose so. Same world, opportunity to meet others, engage in any activity (even PvP), yet it's perfectly relaxed. The same goes for The Crew 2.
In Microsoft Flight Simulator, you can see others in the air, or even at airports on the ground, but you can't collide with them. They can't ruin your experience of flying, yet you can still find other players. I think this is the best social experience in any given virtual world. Meeting others but only engage in direct interaction if everyone agrees to it. And it's all by default, you don't have to make extra effort to defend yourself from hostile players, like wall yourself in a private group with a few others and fracture the community. I would love to see the same attitude towards social gaming in Elite as well.
In Forza Horizon, you can meet random strangers on the roads, but you can't collide with them. They can't ruin your experience but you can team up with them if you choose so. Same world, opportunity to meet others, engage in any activity (even PvP), yet it's perfectly relaxed. The same goes for The Crew 2.
In Microsoft Flight Simulator, you can see others in the air, or even at airports on the ground, but you can't collide with them. They can't ruin your experience of flying, yet you can still find other players. I think this is the best social experience in any given virtual world. Meeting others but only engage in direct interaction if everyone agrees to it. And it's all by default, you don't have to make extra effort to defend yourself from hostile players, like wall yourself in a private group with a few others and fracture the community. I would love to see the same attitude towards social gaming in Elite as well.
You didn't read me apparently. As I said many times before: the character and advancement wouldn't be shared between the two galaxies (if not maybe for the first hours of gameplay, just to make the Open Only CMDR not a total noob).
They could offer a one-time wealth transfer, like from Console to PC
I'm sure I'm not the only one that'd be willing to go through the grind again if it means a more positive experience all around.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We agree about that at least.
I am going to go with loud minority. You guys are the ones that start these threads most of the time.Minority or simply the most silent opinion? I remember years ago when ObsidianAnt tried to put a poll on one of his posts. Thousands of votes and the "all modes are equals" was the lower of the three alternatives.
Like saying that the only ones who starts discussions about Health Care, are the ones who cares about Health Care
Welcome, Cpt. Obvious
"Optional" is a recurring word in these threads... but so what? Lol! Everything in Elite is optional so the word has no meaning at all. On the other side, a big part of the engineering design is clearly PvP focused as either inefficient for PvE or simply ineffective (flaw?).
So why FDEVs should have put such effort into these game features if not to allow players to enjoy them and shoot each other for fun? Optional fun... may be, but the concept is subjective. For you is PvP... as for me it's the Xeno combat, or exploration... but look that I am not going to move "optional" critics against xeno hunters or explorers.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but: yes. everything in Elite is optional. There's rather obvious pattern, isn't there?
In Elite every danger player might encounter is a consequence of their choices, whether that's hauling cargo and risking being intercepted by NPC pirates, visiting Xeno Combat zone or choosing Open Play in main menu.
Yea no it's not but thanks for playing.
Heaping ridicule on those who don't like random unprovoked attacks against their pixel ships, but crying foul when your pixel politics go pear-shaped because someone influences it you haven't invited to your party. And whining about toxicity when being called out on the hypocrisy. Yeah, right. Off to real work, till next time.
Last edited:
Look I agree with your point but fallout76 is A bad example , i think more sea of theifs were people aviod actually being a pirate and enjoying grinding togetherI'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?