Having commanders divided into solo, PG and open doesn't require the same kind of explanation as having invincible commanders all in one mode. It's a question of diegesis. The game doesn't have to explain why I can't kill you in solo, because I can't see you.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Sure, but every additional gear reduces the jump range of an explorer and every shield cell bank reduces the cargo load and jump range. Like I said, to be able to jump out, players need to adapt to PVP, if they are interested in it or not.
Also I dont think 10 seconds is enough to jump out of a combat situation after an interdiction (even if submitted). low wake could be maybe possible if the attacker does not mass lock you.
there were multiple other porposals to avoid invulnerable ships. one easy way to solve this, as many times proposed, PVE players cant see PVP players ingame and PVP players cant see PVE players, then no PVP player will have to deal with invincible ships. FD did the same with solo mode.
Last edited:
I have a couple of comments about the recent discussion:-
About extreme builds. I can see situations where PvP could meaningfully take place between pirates, haulers, mission runners etc., but those extreme ganker builds full of HRPs and with no cargo space and minuscule jump range - the irony about them is that they're no use for playing the game. All they're designed for is to destroy other players. For any PvE play they're pretty useless. They're not for playing ED, they're just for stopping other people from playing ED. I regard this as just daft.
Someone mentioned the time spent engineering before one can PvP. I've come to the realisation that this is actually a good thing. It stops those daft gankers from just starting over with a new account whenever they've got onto too many block lists.
About extreme builds. I can see situations where PvP could meaningfully take place between pirates, haulers, mission runners etc., but those extreme ganker builds full of HRPs and with no cargo space and minuscule jump range - the irony about them is that they're no use for playing the game. All they're designed for is to destroy other players. For any PvE play they're pretty useless. They're not for playing ED, they're just for stopping other people from playing ED. I regard this as just daft.
Someone mentioned the time spent engineering before one can PvP. I've come to the realisation that this is actually a good thing. It stops those daft gankers from just starting over with a new account whenever they've got onto too many block lists.
No need to be snarky, I was replying in good faith based on my reading of Bruce's comment. The OP proposed a PvP flagging system and that's what the comment was referring to.
Sure you could make it so that PvP and PvE flagged people 'couldn't see each other', but then they needn't be in the same mode or instanced together, wasting bandwidth without being able to interact. So once again we come back to the idea that multiple modes work best.
*Edit, perhaps you're working on the premise that P2P can handle more players instanced than it can? Given how shaky it is its best to make sure players get where they want to be via a menu option rather than trying to ad-hoc invisibility into existing instances.
After the first gank I just learnt that If I wanted to survive in open I needed to spend some time in solo engineering my ships so I did that. I then learnt that I had to follow a method of escape without panicking. I still would say Rinzler's method is fairly sound. I then decided in a mixture of groups and solo how to use fixed weapons and manage pips and fly some FA off. (I should throw my X52 away and go Mouse KB) My eventual aim was always to fly in open and find organic pvp. I also eventually did some of the organised pvp. As to getting killed it's a re-buy. One night's wing fight's in San Tu can see them find the re-buy screen probably 4 or 5 times so that's what 25 mill with stock armour or 50 mill with anything else. To this day I still just cant see the point in flying none combat ships in open & certainly not in Deciat, Shin or any CG's. One thing I never did was think that open should be anything else but open and I still don't. I suppose the one amusing thing would be if you had PVE open that would be the end of SPEAR as they wouldn't have a purpose anymore.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which sounds like combat is still the prime role with anything else being a secondary consideration.
It was a consequence of the modular ship outfitting system before engineering was introduced. Not sure it would see any changes now.
Combat players don't need to compromise in any way to minimise the risk to themselves from other players when in combat mode - all other roles would need to compromise their build due to the existence of those who optimise for combat.
Military slots would remain empty on ships in non-combat roles - due to the waste of mass associated with filling them.
Regardless of how Frontier changed the current system, if they chose to do so this late in the day, one or more meta-builds for each role would be found - and significantly changing it now would inconvenience players who have already built and optimised their ships.
It's still a compromise on the trade side, and more than is needed against NPCs.
Where do the PVPers have to compromise their builds for the role they want to play? Sure, they'll have no cargo and probably poor jump range but they're not compromising combat ability, whilst you're arguing traders or explorers should compromise their abilities.
Now I don't disagree that having to make some compromises is a bad thing, there's just no real downsides for the pewpewers.
edit: Should read the rest of the thread after the one I'm replying to because I see pretty much the same thing has been said.
Ideally you simply ignore the issue. Whilst I prefer, in theory, everything neatly explained and fitting in, in practice it's sometimes better just to handwave it away, at least if the alternative is twisting yourself in knots by introducing telepresence etc.
Of course they're unlikely to change it now, but they could and should narrow the power spectrum. Pre-engineering it was at least marginally more difficult to instagib player ships.
Not sure why you read it that way. I also have ships optimised for many other roles, and some survivable multi-role ships.
It's true that the existence of combat focused players colours the ships you can safely fly in open, but the existence of trade focused ships affects your success in CGs, moving influence or merits etc. Jump range is universally handy for all players. Everyone's making compromises, even the most single minded of gankers.
Can it be that we see the same solution to this issue and just discuss it from two different sides?
OP had the initial idea to add a PVP flag, I agree this would be difficult. So the seperate mode has been proposed and I think we both see this as a possible solution. Of course PVP would saty on in CQC when entered from PVE-mode
Yes, I've been pro separate modes for many years now, it's the only solution that ultimately allows players of diametrically opposed preferences to get what they want without affecting each other's suspension of disbelief. I only started posting in this thread to try and counter people who suggested invulnerability tags in open, then just carried on because I've got too much free time on my hands.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which would involve changes to the current system - which seem rather unlikely.
It read as "combat preparedness first, compromises need to be made for other roles".
Combat players don't need to compromise their builds due to the existence of players flying ships optimised for other roles.
Yeah that's what I said about 5 pages ago. We don't seem to disagree on anything major then. I think the OP's framing of their request is problematic and was read differently by different people depending on their individual bias.
Unless they also are trying to move the BGS or compete in a CG, no, not much. But they're still making compromises relating to other aspects of the game.
Perhaps your view would change if NPC assailants were more effective and everyone had a PvE incentive to protect themselves to a certain degree. Your point seems to hinge on the source of the compromise. The gulf in efficacy between player and NPC ships is fairly jarring. Frontier's design seems to suggest that hostile NPCs are to be expected, the fact that they're so feeble is another story.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Other players are the source of the requirement to compromise (if one wishes to play in Open) - and the last time Frontier significantly changed the non-opt-in challenge posed by NPCs they changed it back quick smart (presumably after looking at their playtime stats).
It is indeed - Frontier set the challenge posed by NPCs taking all players into account, not just the highly skilled - and don't give them significant levels of engineering either. NPCs are there for "fun" - players, not so much.
Personally I find players in any capacity much more fun to have around than the lacklustre AI, including the danger posed... but this is the beauty of having multiple modes, subjective opinions can find their comfy niche more easily.
There is no "extreme ganker build with miniscule jump range". Those 2D FSD builds are tournament only nowadays. Gankers have to highwake too.I have a couple of comments about the recent discussion:-
About extreme builds. I can see situations where PvP could meaningfully take place between pirates, haulers, mission runners etc., but those extreme ganker builds full of HRPs and with no cargo space and minuscule jump range - the irony about them is that they're no use for playing the game. All they're designed for is to destroy other players. For any PvE play they're pretty useless. They're not for playing ED, they're just for stopping other people from playing ED. I regard this as just daft.
Someone mentioned the time spent engineering before one can PvP. I've come to the realisation that this is actually a good thing. It stops those daft gankers from just starting over with a new account whenever they've got onto too many block lists.
Gankers sacrifice jump range ( fast boot or shielded FSD and fuel scoop, guardian booster), and any PvE utility out of necessity, so as you say, they are pretty useless for PvE.
It's as much a specialised build as any shieldless trader or 3D shielded explorer or whatever. It's just they sacrifice things the PvE player conveniently omits because there is no danger at all in PvE*.
*AX combat excluded, and it's funny you nearly never find AX players here complaining about getting ganked, because
a) their (CZ) ships are built to survive the single most dangerous PvE foe, a Hydra, which is fundamentally more dangerous than any player ship,
b) they have mastered traits like highwaking (thargoids mass lock you always), full FA off hitscan firing (gauss) and various skills like evasion, heat sink usage and situational awareness.
It's almost like having a strong foe makes CMDRs git gud, having weaksauce PvE jokes makes CMDRs stay in their comfort zone never getting better.
Which is why modes are brillant. Not everyone wants to become a FA off hitscan lord, but diluting open, the only mode making you actively gitting gud,
is the very wrong way as FD obviously understood.
Yeah maybe if i could turn off pvp, i would play open, or if Fdev introduced a security system in the bubble similar to how eve has Hi, Low, and null sec, then yeah i would play open. As it stands, there is 100% no benefit to playing in open if you dont have any intention to pvp.
So even if pvp was disabled, there still is no incentive to me playing in open still.
So even if pvp was disabled, there still is no incentive to me playing in open still.
What about o7'ing all those cool guys like me who don't want to blow you up*?
*most of the times, but beware of kill warrant scanners in Carcosa
