To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
ED contains piracy, there is a big ship that could be pirated if you are careleless where you leave it.
PvE piracy is definitely available. PvP piracy requires others who may not wish to participate. If a Carrier exists then it will be found - and third party apps would easily promulgate their locations.
Its nothing to do with destroying the FC, which is not possible. Its making small ships, BGS, skill etc count by leeching from wealthy players.
Players can only leech from players online and in the same instance, maybe.
 
PvE piracy is definitely available. PvP piracy requires others who may not wish to participate. If a Carrier exists then it will be found - and third party apps would easily promulgate their locations.
And then it becomes a game of cat and mouse, and coming across such a prize would be an interesting twist. That, or restrict your cargo to secure storage where you really are invulnerable (but at a tradeoff with cargo capacity).
Players can only leech from players online and in the same instance, maybe.
Then carriers make no sense, since they are always online. Otherwise its like a jewel thief being prevented from stealing because the shop owner hangs an 'out to lunch' sign.

Remember FCs don't belong to players, they rent them.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And then it becomes a game of cat and mouse, and coming across such a prize would be an interesting twist. That, or restrict your cargo to secure storage where you really are invulnerable (but at a tradeoff with cargo capacity).
It might - if the Carrier implementation was turned on its head to make them able to be affected by other players.

It would likely undermine the DSSA, or other Carriers placed around the galaxy for the benefit of players in general (because some players just love to spoil things for other players).
Then carriers make no sense, since they are always online. Otherwise its like a jewel thief being prevented from stealing because the shop owner hangs an 'out to lunch' sign.
They offer opportunities for co-operative gameplay - which makes perfect sense in a game where PvP is an optional extra.
Remember FCs don't belong to players, they rent them.
5B Cr. is quite the rental deposit then - and it is refunded in full should the Carrier be decommissioned due to lack of available running costs (less any bailiff's fees, of course)....
 
Last edited:
It might - if the Carrier implementation was turned on its head to make them able to be affected by other players.

It would likely undermine the DSSA, or other Carriers placed around the galaxy for the benefit of players in general (because some players just love to spoil things for other players).
Unless the DSSA keep stocks of void opals then how would it? Plus, they can store things securely if they wanted. Plus, if docking permission is revoked and they get blown up, its a long way back.

They offer opportunities for co-operative gameplay - which makes perfect sense in a game where PvP is an optional extra.
And being persistent and across modes would allow for PvE as well if you park in certain places, or are discovered.

This is not about PvP, its making assets like FCs vulnerable.

5B Cr. is quite the rental deposit then - and it is refunded in full should the Carrier be decommissioned due to lack of available running costs (less any bailiff's fees, of course)....
FCs are franchises, you don't own them. You don't pay upkeep on a Sidewinder do you?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Unless the DSSA keep stocks of void opals then how would it? Plus, they can store things securely if they wanted. Plus, if docking permission is revoked and they get blown up, its a long way back.
Docking permissions aren't that granular, i.e. individuals cannot be denied access. If the only thing that could be looted was cargo then trading Carriers would be unreasonably targeted.
And being persistent and across modes would allow for PvE as well if you park in certain places, or are discovered.

This is not about PvP, its making assets like FCs vulnerable.
Carriers are player owned - proposing to be able to affect them is a form of non-consensual PvP directed at an individual player.
FCs are franchises, you don't own them. You don't pay upkeep on a Sidewinder do you?
We pay for repairs due to use, not upkeep per se.

If we don't own them, what is the lease term?
 
Elite is Dangerous. And it NEEDs to be kept dangerous. Why do carebears want to harass whole pvp community? Its PvE supremacy, do not be like that. Lets live in pease both in PvP and PvE

"Bypass" not "Harass". Got no use for them. Perfectly happy never having anything to do with them during normal play. They are perfectly welcome to blow each other up all they want. I will stay in the appropriate mode for what I am doing.
 
Docking permissions aren't that granular, i.e. individuals cannot be denied access. If the only thing that could be looted was cargo then trading Carriers would be unreasonably targeted.
And that would be one of the things I'd change. And why should an FC stuffed full of cargo not be looted? What makes owning an FC a license to move things without worry?

Carriers are player owned - proposing to be able to affect them is a form of PvP directed at an individual player.
A bit like indirect Solo PvP you mean? :unsure:

We pay for repairs due to use, not upkeep per se.
If you don't pay, its taken away. I haven't paid for my ships repairs for ages, it will still be there.

If we don't own them, what is the lease term?
Until your piggy bank runs dry.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And that would be one of the things I'd change. And why should an FC stuffed full of cargo not be looted? What makes owning an FC a license to move things without worry?
Indeed - noting that we don't all want the same things, even if we all bought the same game.
A bit like indirect Solo PvP you mean? :unsure:
Players don't own anything relating to the BGS or Powerplay - so it's not individually targeted indirect and asynchronous PvP - plus we all bought that game.
If you don't pay, its taken away. I haven't paid for my ships repairs for ages, it will still be there.

Until your piggy bank runs dry.
.... in about 5 years in the case of my Carrier (with no dormant services), longer if I were to mothball it.
 
oh another salty psychology expert arrived
also you should hi-wake not a low wake.

Have you healed your heels or are you still experiencing physical pain from this attack?
I don't quite think you grasp the concept of this discussion. That your reverting to calling me 'salty' and the lack of substance to your comments highlights this. But thanks for calling me a psychology expert. Very kind of you.

I assume the high wake comment relates to my mining Python incident? I was mass locked by the asteroids, not the ship attacking me.

You're confusing the use of examples for me moaning. I've been quite clear about this, when I'm in Open I accept I'm vulnerable to a gank and really don't care if I am. I've got 500,000,000 credits. An A-rated Chieftain destroyed in my home system really isnt an issue. The point I'm making regards creating a more enjoyable experience for everyone playing the game, and given that we can already disable PVP (by playing Solo), I don't see how being able to do it in limited situations in Open would be a bad thing? I'd prefer to see more human players on my travels even if I can't blow them up. You still haven't answered my previous question, which despite our ballyhoo and jibes was genuine.
 
Perhaps this proposal has already been. Completely replace private groups with pve mode. Remove the blacklist functionality from an open game. Thus, everyone is happy, gankers will stop salt about the blacklist and instances.
 
And all of that could be done physically in SC via BGS states and more involved SC too- so its really augmenting what exists. In essence beef up the PvE and PvP because the 'moves' are already there. On a higher level you could do things like this (OT mind)- https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ignment-numbers-have-bgs-consequences.543240/

So there your local effort has a knock on effect at a higher collective level. You don't need to understand very much other than support your team.

I don't disagree with this concept in principle, but I do disagree in specifics, since I think this would only tend to result in runaway growth and/or collapse. Ideally, no single point of failure should completely ruin a faction; they should lose in chunks, but be able to fall back and regroup.

That's where introducing some sort of structural level to the bubble would be very important, where territory can be gained or lost as the result of certain key systems.


'Value' in ED is also hard to quantify for an effective reward as well. Stations and assets are valuable, but for many the disappointment lies in the unchanging headspace above 'allied' because...well, nothing changes other than a label in the context of the lore and wider game. You can't place stations or megaships, and FCs although placeable are invincible so can't be leveraged as pieces.

I mean, you can build synergy between superpower / power, system faction and pilot for rewards (I mean FD are there 80% now with Powerplay), its just attaching a reward to the outcome correctly.

True... I personally think that the biggest trouble is, ultimately, even creating assets and the like doesn't really do anything. So you make a new station; so what?

That's a direction Fdev could really stand to expand. This is the sort of territory I think could be done quite well with Procedural Generation. You already have a wide variety of assets that just generate randomly across the surface of planets, not to mention installations and satellites in space, and so on. All you need is a system whereby players can modify a sliding scale by which these assets are procedurally generated in specified areas, with each having preset buffs that players are interested in acquiring.

For example, say you improve a Refinery system. This would increase the profits of selling minerals there, but would do so even moreso for members of the controlling Power. Then you improve high-tech systems, further increasing the demand for refined minerals. All of this would be indicated visually by the gradual procedural generation of refineries, installations, factories, and so on.

Then you can have simple ways for enemies to benefit from attacking, instead; the wealthier and more generated a system, the larger the rewards in terms of credits and materials and infamy enemy players get for taking it over.

---

At that point, all you really need is a serious long-term credit sink for players to invest in. Credits have little value for endgame players right now, because there's basically nothing to spend them on after a certain point. Since credits or materials are the only real way to reward players, that means rewards are also meaningless.

By adding something like colonization, which could also be done almost completely procedurally, you could create an entirely automatic way for players to spend almost unlimited time and credits achieving something permanent and meaningful in the galaxy.
 
I don't disagree with this concept in principle, but I do disagree in specifics, since I think this would only tend to result in runaway growth and/or collapse. Ideally, no single point of failure should completely ruin a faction; they should lose in chunks, but be able to fall back and regroup.

That's where introducing some sort of structural level to the bubble would be very important, where territory can be gained or lost as the result of certain key systems.
If the BGS was more joined up (i.e. factory stations, high tech) and that having one in system was tied to a tangible outcome (say, better yields of goods for faction x) then you could do that in theory with most of the BGS now.

True... I personally think that the biggest trouble is, ultimately, even creating assets and the like doesn't really do anything. So you make a new station; so what?

That's a direction Fdev could really stand to expand. This is the sort of territory I think could be done quite well with Procedural Generation. You already have a wide variety of assets that just generate randomly across the surface of planets, not to mention installations and satellites in space, and so on. All you need is a system whereby players can modify a sliding scale by which these assets are procedurally generated in specified areas, with each having preset buffs that players are interested in acquiring.

For example, say you improve a Refinery system. This would increase the profits of selling minerals there, but would do so even moreso for members of the controlling Power. Then you improve high-tech systems, further increasing the demand for refined minerals. All of this would be indicated visually by the gradual procedural generation of refineries, installations, factories, and so on.

Then you can have simple ways for enemies to benefit from attacking, instead; the wealthier and more generated a system, the larger the rewards in terms of credits and materials and infamy enemy players get for taking it over.

---

At that point, all you really need is a serious long-term credit sink for players to invest in. Credits have little value for endgame players right now, because there's basically nothing to spend them on after a certain point. Since credits or materials are the only real way to reward players, that means rewards are also meaningless.

By adding something like colonization, which could also be done almost completely procedurally, you could create an entirely automatic way for players to spend almost unlimited time and credits achieving something permanent and meaningful in the galaxy.
If a framework could be found that leverages that into the BGS then I can't disagree at all with that. Again I suppose you could do that in rough via the expansion system- when a station reaches 'critical mass' you have perhaps mini versions of station repair where areas can be improved via collecting data, materials or trade cargo perhaps.
 
Back
Top Bottom