It's obviously not irrelevant to gankers.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
No, it's neither wrong nor "sociopathic".
The thing is that you simply saying "wrong" or "sociopathic" will not make it so.
No, it's you.
Hint: he was talking about something having been said ten thousand times, not by ten thousand people. You just made that up.
There is a rather large gap between NPCs passing a Turing test and NPCs with a bit more verisimilitude. As it stands a given NPC may as well not even exist beyond a momentary tactical encounter, and even within those laser-beam-narrow confines, still don't seem real. They ill-disguised props and stage dressing...flying pinatas of materials and credits that vanish or are swapped out should the spotlight drift from them for even a moment.
I can excuse the inability of being able to hold a protracted conversation with an NPC, or not simulating their entire virtual lives in minutiae, but this game revolves around mercantile activity and combat, yet NPCs are asleep at the wheel even here.
Granted - the Turing test comment was a light-hearted aside. I pretty much agree with you (as well as my point about preferring NPCs that were a combat challenge); I get the impression that FDev's attitude is "NPCs only provide gameplay due to being there to shoot at or shoot at you, so making them more than that is a waste of time."
You can roleplay an armchair psychologist on a public forum about other people's intentions and motivations in a video game, but it's uttely pointless because other people's intentions and motivations are totally beyond your control (and frankly it's not even your business).
What you can control is your own actions within the rules and mechanics of the video game in question.
Do you expect a small game developer to create an AI that is acting like a human?
Companies around the world invest bilions to achieve that for cars, planes, drones etc. and they are not even close. Telling that something is wrong with PvE because you can see the difference between an AI and human controlled vehicle or character is insane.
That's interesting approach, but it's hard to achieve that kind of zen attitude
For some reason I doubt even you approach games like that.Imagine NPC calling your mother a ***** (any degratory noun). It's hard to treat that kind of scripted behaviour personally, but when player does it, it's different and even if you'll be able to distance yourself from that kind of childich behaviour and ignore it, the fact that some person does something aimed personally at you is not the same as just playing the game with predefined rules and behviours. For better or worse, another player in the game is not the same as AI. If that would be true, we would not need other people for anything - computers and their scripted behaviour would suffice.
When I choose to be in Open I don't mind other people initiating PvP against me in the game - but when those people break the fourth wall in some way, whether by saying some things, or acting in some way that does not fit into the game - that's when they actually break the game for me - something a game itself rarely does if it's not seriously bugged. And that's what griefers do - they try to spoil your game in any way they can. Game and it's pixels are fine until a person somewhere does something, knowing that it will affect you in some way. If you can ignore it, then kudos to you, but most people are not that aloof.
That's why I really appreciate Elite modes, so I can avoid those people entirely when needed.
Also, if we ignore ability to use the game in unintended ways to spoil your gameplay, players in game like Elite add unpedictability in sense that they are not scaled to your "level", as opposed to everything else in the game - they can be so far above your league, that encountering them might be almost gamebreaking. Even if you treat them as pixels and part of the game, it can get pretty irritating if the game starts throwing high level bosses at you, that you can't defeat.
Regarding the original question and the thread topic:
Speaking for myself, YES, I would play in Open instead of Mobius or Solo if there was a way to disable PvP. Not everyone loves player vs player, though a huge portion of the playerbase would love a more cohesive cooperative mode to be standardized.
I personally think, at a minimum, ED should have built in modes for playing both PvP and PvE without the need for an outside person to manage a huge Private Group to allow it. Whether that comes in the form of one Open Mode with a PvP / PvE toggle, OR in the form of two Open Modes: Open PvP and Open PvE, either form would be effective and fine with me. Just give the players a standardized option AT THE MENU to play the way they want to with other people. Private Groups are not the same thing!
It's never going to happen though. Frontier has their mind made up and it is what it is. Plus I don't think they'd bother putting the effort into changing it now because there's no way they could monetize such a feature, so why bother?
"To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?"
Speaking for myself, YES, I would play in Open instead of Mobius or Solo if there was a way to disable PvP. Not everyone loves player vs player, though a huge portion of the playerbase would love a more cohesive cooperative mode to be standardized.
I personally think, at a minimum, ED should have built in modes for playing both PvP and PvE without the need for an outside person to manage a huge Private Group to allow it. Whether that comes in the form of one Open Mode with a PvP / PvE toggle, OR in the form of two Open Modes: Open PvP and Open PvE, either form would be effective and fine with me. Just give the players a standardized option AT THE MENU to play the way they want to with other people. Private Groups are not the same thing!
It's never going to happen though. Frontier has their mind made up and it is what it is. Plus I don't think they'd bother putting the effort into changing it now because there's no way they could monetize such a feature, so why bother?
It's not really a zen approach, it's actually what's happening if you think about it. All kind of things are happening with your pixels for a number of reasons including AI, bugs or other players, but all these reasons have one thing in common: you cannot control them. What you can control is your own actions. Why should anything else matter to you then?That's interesting approach, but it's hard to achieve that kind of zen attitude
I agree that calling you all those asterisks for no reason is a pretty stupid thing to do.
Tbh it's stupid for multiple reasons, not just because it's rude but also because it's very counterproductive in organic PvP: you'll just give your opponent free time to escape (or shoot you down, depending on who's doing the asterisk-talk). It's basically just a "barking dog does not bite" situation.
Last edited:
I don't even expect this game developer to implement something they've been demonstrated to have.
Human like behavior is not what's being aimed for here, nor would it even be a rational target. In many ways, humans have long since been surpassed when it comes to many of the narrow tasks relevant in these areas. Even that beta Tesla autopilot that's killed a dozen people in the last few years is still killing fewer people per mile driven than human drivers are.
That's all beside the point though.
The goal, presumably, is to create an immersive setting populated with characters that are supposed to be human. Any facsimile that falls short of that is a problem to be solved. That such solutions are currently impossible doesn't change this.
What's less excusable is deliberately or neglectfully failing to even attempt believable NPC behavior. The design philosophy of the PvE aspect of this game is the problem, far more so than any lack of ability to script superficially credible behavior or abilities.
Would you answer me if somebody would tell you that I'm not a person, but a bot?
Why should it matter to you? You're just writing what you think either way. But for some reason answering a bot seems pointless, doesn't it?
It does require specific approach to treat things controlled by people in game the same as everything else. Mostly, because it's hard to not see the difference. And when you do it's not just you interacting with the game - it's you interacting with other people through the game.
All true.
The difference between other players and NPCs isn't irrelevant to gankers though. At least, I've seen them say so lots of times, and I also think they prove it by their actions.
both EVE and Sea of Thieves have you covered here.
Forced PvP is unbalanced for the peaceful victim. They stand no chance on survival unless they give up efficiency while the ganker doesn't have to.
The ability to block players from instancing with you and the availability of Private Mode and Solo Mode is Frontier's easiest way out of that dillemma. At the expense of those gankers though (for which i don't shed a tear.)
The ideal way would be a Open PvE mode to also cover players that are not interested in PvP combat at all. Something that Mobius, somewhat, fills the niche with, but the PvE playerbase of such mode would be larger if it wasn't a hassle to join it. (Just push a button instead of filling out a form and wait).
Last edited:
Not for new players for which, with minimal effort, Frontier has set up a protective bubble back in April 2020 after seal clubbers ruined the game for them. Still, it only delayed the inevitable. And you cannot evade hostile players on hotspots such as CG locations. You either die on them or jump outside, hindered at doing your part.
Even Blizzard decided to abandon forced PvP with Battle for Azeroth.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some enjoy the PvP-attack minigame, the frisson of potential PvP - some don't. This game does not force those who don't to play the way those who do want them to.
Cool story. You need the shield and hull bloat to survive. You can't outlive someone who has engineered one or both of them. Without either, you are done for in a few hits if the attacker has engineered weapons.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The optionality has been clear from the outset - and if another attempt was made to force players to play with each other (CQC being the first one, and not very successful) there's no requirement for those who would not welcome such a development to continue to play the game....
I've not been playing much of late (a bit over 5000 hours to date), but still wander onto the forums here from time to time. I always enjoyed the 'Hotel California' threads, and consider this one to be of the same ilk. The same old stories/arguments do get a bit stale after a few years though.
IMO it always comes down to playing the game the way you want to. I do (when/if I ever play again). The fact that my playstyle bothers some people is just icing on the cake.
IMO it always comes down to playing the game the way you want to. I do (when/if I ever play again). The fact that my playstyle bothers some people is just icing on the cake.
