If you want to make a proper proposal with all the use cases, I will certainly try and examine it, despite the fact that I don't like the concept. I DON'T think it is feasible and I don't think Frontier would see it as anything more than a hot potato to be avoided.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Nothing wrong with that, but I think that's why Frontier included PGs
'Interest' may be overstating the case a little but my factual statement was that you can't diagnose whether someone has a personality disorder based on a few posts about a computer game on an internet forum, or indeed your impressions of their actions in a computer game.It may interest you to know I have a psychology diploma. Best not to attack people with "factual statements" when you know nothing about them.
This is why the psychology of gankers interests me, and why I'm keen to know what they think they get out of it. Because the target of their attack always gets nothing.
You've made several frank statements that people are sociopaths, I'd sincerely hope that your diploma covered the fact that you're in no position to make such an assessment of any of them. Regardless of whether you're actually equipped to make such a diagnosis in an appropriate clinical setting.
I do understand your interest in the topic based on what you've said there, but still think you should be a little less strident in making bold and unverifiable claims.
For either flip direction? The attacker could have just finished the 24 hours and the defender be stuck in PvP mode, so the attacker can swap to PvP mode and gank to their heart's content.
Because unless you're not going to drop any explo-data, or successfully making a mission, or redeem bounties... there's no "peaceful content in the game".
All those actions have consequences on INF of BGS/factions... and every faction (PMF or NPC) does have enemies.
So any time you drop data, missions, bounties supporting INF of a faction it is an HOSTILE action against the enemies of such faction.
Last edited:
Sacred words indeed!
I was not talking about any individuals... more of a homogenous group and a mindset. And yes, I'll be absolutely frank about that.
"Ship go boom" isn't really an explanation, because lots of ships can go boom in the same way that aren't human players not looking for PvP, but it's the best anyone's come up with so far.
Anyway, best to drop this line entirely & discuss the OP's suggestion instead... because there are obvious pros and cons to it.
Evidently not, it also seems 'explorers' are unwilling to learn from those who operate in the populated regions and not leap to false assumptions.
There are plenty of quiet places to sell data (which you might have found out had you asked anyone) and I'm perfectly aware of how annoying it is to be ganked.
As for reaching sparse areas, we have carriers now, no jumpaconda can reach that even with a double engineered FSD.
As stated a label of sociopath can only be applied to those over 18, I can't think of many gankers that old. What they get out of it, you'd have to ask them.
Not everyone wants to play the game peacefully. The mechanics allow PvP anywhere. Weapons destroy other players ships. That's how the game works and the only way around that in open is avoiding being attacked in the first place. The game is 7 years old so basic fundamentals are not going to change.
This thread might as well have started with 'Once upon a time...'
This thread might as well have started with 'Once upon a time...'
This did not answer why one must be playing with others around, "not necessarily get harassed" though, and it's a shame when one chosen not to?
Last edited:
That's mostly unrelated to PvP though.
Except that it is relevant, but you need to understand it first.
told u:
A few years ago an explorer with his incompetent flight crushed my sister on the planet.
Now I have sworn revenge on all explorer ships. Removing them I making lives of defenseless people on planets safer.
and haha ship go boom.
Combat against other players and the unpredictability it brings. You know what an NPC will do but a player could surprise you. Could be they fight back, could be the ship is unkillable before a high-wake. Adds more excitement when the ship goes boom.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Same with the mode shared galaxy that everyone experiences and affects - yet that doesn't stop those seeking to PvP-gate base-game content from making proposals....
Yes, sure there are and the open mode is made for these people, then I ask the same question. Why those choosed to play the game peacefully so shameful and must be forced to open?
Simply 'selling the data' isn't always the goal though - it's also who you sell it to. Yes, you can sell it on the edge of the bubble, away from all people, but the benefits (besides money) to the player are limited to say the least.
I don't like carriers and will never own one. Galactic litter. And I hate the concept of upkeep with a hot burning passion. But that's another thread.
I have been doing, or did you miss it?
OP, these forums are not the best place to get this question answered. As has been repeatedly demonstrated over the last 20+ years, the official forums of any game are where the zealous die-hards gather. They are not a representative sample of the population of the game as a whole, asking this group won't give you the real picture.
To answer your question, there have been many polls on this subject in other locations, and the consensus seems to be, about 80% of the players play in Solo or in Private Group mode, and the overwhelming reason given for that is the desire to avoid nonconsensual PvP.
So, yes. I strongly suspect if they did away with the Private Group option and instead had two login options for Open, those being PvP Enabled or PvP Disabled, you'd quickly see a lot of people moving over from Solo.
To answer your question, there have been many polls on this subject in other locations, and the consensus seems to be, about 80% of the players play in Solo or in Private Group mode, and the overwhelming reason given for that is the desire to avoid nonconsensual PvP.
So, yes. I strongly suspect if they did away with the Private Group option and instead had two login options for Open, those being PvP Enabled or PvP Disabled, you'd quickly see a lot of people moving over from Solo.
People who give the most salt here are those who have never played Open or have played it twice. Just saying.