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

[Agony_Aunt]

Shinrarta Dezhra not a dangerous area?
Is there another Shin Dez other than the notorious haunt of gankers?

Last few times i went through SD in Open didn't see anyone in SC and nobody tried to attack me either arriving or leaving.

I guess they gankers were all hanging around deciat or CGs or something.

 

[CMDR Nathan Atterlein]

The only 'dangerous places' IMO should be anarchy or lawless systems. Shinrarta Dezhra is the Founder's system, home of the Pilot's Federation, where Founders and the Elite can gather... ostensibly 'safely'.

In any event, it makes no difference. It put me off open play, and the equally pointless Guardian gank simply confirmed it.

If people want more folks in Open, they need to 'PVP' by the lore of the game, and not just hunt for victims minding their own business. It's not for the victims to change their playstyle, its for the gankers to actually be normal people & not sociopaths.

Classical open-incompatible mindset. You made the right choice playing in private.

 

[Juniper]

Classical open-incompatible mindset. You made the right choice playing in private.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to play alongside other people. But I stopped playing EVE years ago, because it encourages sociopathic behaviour, and E: D went the same way unfortunately due to the rubbish C&P system.

Victim blaming (which is always seen in these threads) though isn't cool.

 

[Zieman]

Problem is, the BGS is affected by almost any action, so we are really back to square one.

Only problem there is that any player action has at least 1000 times too much influence.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Only problem there is that any player action has at least 1000 times too much influence.

Not sure what you mean by that: try expanding from a system with a large population on your own, it takes weeks of work.

 

[X80]

....

If people want more folks in Open, they need to 'PVP' by the lore of the game, and not just hunt for victims minding their own business. It's not for the victims to change their playstyle, its for the gankers to actually be normal people & not sociopaths.

This is the whole point! I'm afraid, they will never change.

What I'm wondering is, don't those who ask more players to open, have friends. I play with my friends in private group.

 

[CMDR Nathan Atterlein]

Don't get me wrong, I would like to play alongside other people. But I stopped playing EVE years ago, because it encourages sociopathic behaviour, and E: D went the same way unfortunately due to the rubbish C&P system.

Victim blaming (which is always seen in these threads) though isn't cool.

You're victimizing yourself. I hope dying in a videogame was the worst thing that happened to you throughout your time in Elite.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

It's not for the victims to change their playstyle, its for the gankers to actually be normal people & not sociopaths.

I really wish you had avoided that word 'sociopath' - it's just not applicable in a video game, especially when you select open mode of your own accord, and can't see that the attacking player is just 'playing the game'.
Having said that, I do agree with your points about the C&P system.

 

[Northpin]

Classical open-incompatible mindset. You made the right choice playing in private.

Well... Multiplayer does not necessarily mean pvp. Most of the time means coop or even a pure social setup - o7, how are you today etc

PVP-ers are a minority, but one minority that can ruin other players gaming experience or at least make more or less miserable

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Yay, let's exchange the old arguments again. For the 100th time.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Open and no-PvP is just a contradiction ...not considering all the other kinds of "nteraction" between players the game allows (ramming, blocking pads, etc.).

 

[Zieman]

Oh, it's the time again?

Modes - The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

There have been several threads on the topic of switching between solo/private groups/open. This thread is going to be the merge target for all other threads on the topic, no matter how 'unique' the thread creator may think their thread is. Creating a poll is not unique. Posting in here has...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Modes - The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes': Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Modes - The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes': Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Modes - The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California

Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes': Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[CMDR Nathan Atterlein]

I really wish you had avoided that word 'sociopath' - it's just not applicable in a video game, especially when you select open mode of your own accord, and can't see that the attacking player is just 'playing the game'.
Having said that, I do agree with your points about the C&P system.

Back when i started off, and got canned by someone, i used the same word falsely.

You just have to accept that his universe contains a f@ckload of people with completely different preferences, different hobbies, motivations. Your own existence is in no way more valid or valuable than anyone else's in open. That's the one rule everyone should facedesk into their skull. Play safe, enjoy the adrenaline, learn from your mistakes, and remember, that you alone are responsible for wanting to take part in an experience like this. The place where you pretty much become a side character with zero plot armor.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

When will you guys understand that we simply don't want to spend outr play time with you. It's getting kinda weird.

 

[CMDR Nathan Atterlein]

Well... Multiplayer does not necessarily mean pvp. Most of the time means coop or even a pure social setup - o7, how are you today etc

PVP-ers are a minority, but one minority that can ruin other players gaming experience or at least make more or less miserable

You still don't get why the analogy you're following is completely hollow. I will stop replying to you from here out.

 

[babelfisch]

The initial argument was that people left because they were unable to coop. Then the poster gave PGs as coop environment. Now you write that PG is good enough for PvP as well. I disagree. Coop usually means knowing each other and organizing a team, which is not usually the case for PvP. Part of the PvP experience is the thrill to meet people you never met before, and engage in fights with them. So no, PG is not good enough for PvP, not in the context of this hypothetical situation (Open "removed" via something like PvP flag).

All my coop experiences in Elite are with people I never met before, in Open, and they are were quite good. I could not have that experience in PG because I would not have met these people. The argument remains invalid, unless you can improve it.

 

[Bigmaec]

Shinrarta Dezhra not a dangerous area?
Is there another Shin Dez other than the notorious haunt of gankers?

I'm a staunch open is dangerous proponent and I defend my right to getting ganked to the blood.

That aside, ShinDez being a ganking hotspot ist ridiculous and should be changed. System states should have a meaning, and Shin dez should be the last system gankers should gank you.

A PvE Mode isn't the solution though, persistent ATR patrols, engineered system defense forces and system wide blocks/revoked landing rights for notorious CMDRs, paired with a lawless game path should be the solution.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

The only 'dangerous places' IMO should be anarchy or lawless systems. Shinrarta Dezhra is the Founder's system, home of the Pilot's Federation, where Founders and the Elite can gather... ostensibly 'safely'.

In any event, it makes no difference. It put me off open play, and the equally pointless Guardian gank simply confirmed it.

If people want more folks in Open, they need to 'PVP' by the lore of the game, and not just hunt for victims minding their own business. It's not for the victims to change their playstyle, its for the gankers to actually be normal people & not sociopaths.

'Safely' is an assumption on your part. The Gankers gather where there is a concentration of traffic. (Contrary to expectation the populated anarchies seem to be some of the quietest systems in the Bubble)
The Guardian system would have been a 'Lawless Anarchy' surely? Even then there's only a couple that you're likely to encounter anyone at.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

I gonna drop the obvious from my side:

Open would be negatively impacted if PvP would be disabled.
No, I do not think a pacifist mode would benefit the game.

Also, comparing Elite to Fallout is comparing apples and bananas or whatnot.
If we want to look at a comparison, we can compare Elite and Eve, which have way more similarities than Elite an Fallout have.
First, Eve is a space genre kinda of game, Fallout is not. Secondly, the communities of Elite and Fallout are very different whereas Elite has parts of the Eve community within as quite a few players enjoy both, Elite and Eve at the same time.

So I would say that looking at what was "shocking" for Fallout has little analogy to what might be "shocking" to Elite.

Now with that in mind, let's imagine what would happen to the better comparison example if it would disable PvP.
It would die. Instantly. Eve without PvP is not Eve. The community in Eve greatly engages in PvP and without it, many would drop it.
Elite might not be as hardcore and dedicated as Eve but it certainly is closer related to Eve than it is to Fallout.
Thus, no, I don't think there should be a pacifist option for open. People who dislike PvP but still want to meet players can join Mobius. People who generally dislike PvP can play in Solo. Open is for everyone, PvPers included.

Currently, the status quo with the modes is mostly tolerated. Shifting it to either side will cause unhappyness within at least one group of the Elite community. For the game, it's probably for the best to not touch game modes.
For me personally, I would appreciate a shift towards Eve's design of multiplayer.

 

[babelfisch]

Make a point, otherwise I'll just assume you've nothing.

I'll try to explain:

There are (at least) two reasons a place could be dangerous:

1. Because it makes sense from an in game perspective (civil war, leading criminal factions, etc)

2. Because it's a popular place and from a perspective outside of the game it's easy to meet people you can blow up.


For someone who isn't that much interested in PvP it doesn't make much sense to get blown up at some ancient ruins. The only reason why the place is dangerous is because it's popular and not because it's dangerous within the game world.