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

[Ettanin]

If at all possible could we get a good 5-10 pages on what griefing is exactly because much like the term ganker it's subject to massive abuse on these forums where it means different things to different people and the dictionary definition be damned.

Specifically targeting explorers to cause them to die inside intentionally fits the definition of Schadenfreude and thus the definition of a griefer. The griefer knows what the explorer will lose and the griefer knows that such ships are built on jump range, lacking any defensive and offensive capabilities.

With tools like EDSM it's possible to track down explorers btw

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Specifically targeting explorers to cause them to die inside intentionally fits the definition of Schadenfreude and thus the definition of a griefer. The griefer knows what the explorer will lose and the griefer knows that such ships are built on jump range, lacking any defensive and offensive capabilities.

With tools like EDSM it's possible to track down explorers btw

One thing I have suggested in the past is that any ship that is destroyed leaves a black box that can be recovered for the exploration data. This might mean a long trip back to get the data, but still better than nothing. However I would make exploration more dangerous: black holes that can really suck you in, high temperature planets etc

 

[LeoBartlet]

Specifically targeting explorers to cause them to die inside intentionally fits the definition of Schadenfreude and thus the definition of a griefer. The griefer knows what the explorer will lose and the griefer knows that such ships are built on jump range, lacking any defensive and offensive capabilities.

With tools like EDSM it's possible to track down explorers btw

Sounds a little tragic if people do that but I don't have Junipers diploma so I'm in no position to make a determination on the griefer/gankers mental state at the time.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I play 99% of the time in open. Have been ganked perhaps two or three times with over 1.000 hours of game play.

4600 hrs, ganked may be 7 or 8 times...

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Sounds a little tragic if people do that but I don't have Junipers diploma so I'm in no position to make a determination on the griefer/gankers mental state at the time.

I actually got ganked at Beagle Point while in a PG, in what category do we place that particular cmdr ?
Good thing I had decent shields and hull and survived the gank.

Edit: it was a pure adrenaline rush, and I did panic, but ...

 

[galahad2069]

However, the people are real. The time spent is real. The emotion this generates is real.

I'm assuming from your picture that you live by the sword and die by the sword - which is fine in a game. But not everyone does, and do you take the time to discern the difference in your victims? That's something you maybe need to ask yourself.

When you discover an answer, you might start to understand why a PvP flag (or something similar) is needed.

I don't need to ask anything, lmao. I'm playing a multiplayer game to have fun, totally within its rules. I don't clog and I don't cheat (which, incidentally, cannot be said of all of my "victims" tbh).

A "PvP flag", as I've already said, is not only not needed, it would utterly ruin Open. "Something similar" already exists though, you'll love PG or Solo if "real emotions" generated by a multiplayer video game can terrify you.

 

[LeoBartlet]

I actually got ganked at Beagle Point while in a PG, in what category do we place that particular cmdr ?
Good thing I had decent shields and hull and survived the gank.

I'll consult webMd to see if we can figure out what their boggle is/was.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Yeah, I'm not blaming really... I'm trying to get my head around the mindset, because it's completely alien to me. I don't ever play games thinking "how can I hurt others?"

In my experience they're early to mid teens with a need to 'prove' themselves.
This results in a lot of 'measuring', and colourful comments after the fact.

 

[Juniper]

I don't need to ask anything, lmao. I'm playing a multiplayer game to have fun, totally within its rules. I don't clog and I don't cheat (which, incidentally, cannot be said of all of my "victims" tbh).

I'm not suggesting you're cheating or breaking any game rules. That's entirely beside the point.

A "PvP flag", as I've already said, is not only not needed, it would utterly ruin Open.

I asked this before, but I'll ask again since you didn't answer: how would it "utterly ruin Open"? Surely the potential of more players in-game to visibly interact with is good, no? The fact that you can't shoot all of them, nor they you, is immaterial... because that's not what Open (or indeed E: D itself) is about.

Open is consent to interact. It is not consent to PvP.

"Something similar" already exists though, you'll love PG or Solo if "real emotions" generated by a multiplayer video game can terrify you.

As I've stated previously, PGs have limited size whereas Open does not. Solo means just that... you're completely alone in the universe. They are not the same, and a poor substitute, as you well know.

We are talking about ways in which that can be avoided, without impacting on anyone's chosen playstyle.

Really unsure why that would be a problem for anyone. People (like you) have said they're against it, but haven't articulated why in any meaningful way.

 

[Sellias]

Really unsure why that would be a problem for anyone. People (like you) have said they're against it, but haven't articulated why in any meaningful way.

it has been stated enough times....

1. a huge enormous immersion breaker (impacts other players)
2. all the possible abuse and exploits it brings (just look at New World and this also impacts other players)
3. all the work that needs to be done to constantly plug exploits/abuse

why enter that quagmire when instead you could just create a seperate pve mode that literally won't impact anyone......

 

[Vedmo]

I am a big fan of the current mode system and see no need for any changes to it.

I would like to see some teeth and greater repercussions added to security states, as well as an anarchy alternate being made for the PF, for those that get driven from the PF for repeat homicidal behavior or general lawlessness. Two broad factions could really offer much more to the game in many different ways, mainly opening up piracy as a more supported choice though.

Anarchy (non-government) space should always be the Wild West, where anything goes.

If you don’t want to experience other random players, the accommodations of PG & Solo are more than enough.

 

[shevek]

Specifically targeting explorers to cause them to die inside intentionally fits the definition of Schadenfreude and thus the definition of a griefer. The griefer knows what the explorer will lose and the griefer knows that such ships are built on jump range, lacking any defensive and offensive capabilities.

With tools like EDSM it's possible to track down explorers btw

Maybe the explorer is the griefer dumping a lot of exploration data on a poor innocent player supporting their faction. All that hard work on the BGS destroyed in instant

 

[LeoBartlet]

Open is consent to interact. It is not consent to PvP.

100% agree open is consent to interact and one way of interacting is to interdict someone and shoot them ergo open is consent to pvp.

/thread.

 

[Chaparral]

To answer the OP, yes, I would play more in Open if I could toggle pvp.

 

[Juniper]

1. a huge enormous immersion breaker (impacts other players)
2. all the possible abuse and exploits it brings (just look at New World and this also impacts other players)
3. all the work that needs to be done to constantly plug exploits/abuse

It just needs careful planning and implementation IMO. I don't see how it's a "huge enormous immersion breaker". Immersion is pretty much out of the window with E: D anyway, and has been for a while. Ever since telepresence became a thing, and now a magic teleport out of your ship. So, if it's a game... and only a game... let's concentrate on trying to make it fun for all.

Just a thought.

why enter that quagmire when instead you could just create a seperate pve mode that literally won't impact anyone......

Because as someone pointed out earlier, that may not be technically possible. Though I wouldn't object if it were implemented.

I think a carefully balanced game rule on top of Open is probably the easiest solution for the devs.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Specifically targeting explorers to cause them to die inside intentionally fits the definition of Schadenfreude and thus the definition of a griefer. The griefer knows what the explorer will lose and the griefer knows that such ships are built on jump range, lacking any defensive and offensive capabilities.

With tools like EDSM it's possible to track down explorers btw

Possible yes, though it's a rather small subset that would go to those lengths.
Gankers seem to prefer to sit in a engineer/CG system and shoot fish in a barrel.

 

[LeoBartlet]

Possible yes, though it's a rather small subset that would go to those lengths.
Gankers seem to prefer to sit in a engineer/CG system and shoot fish in a barrel.

I played a game years ago where high-level players would sit in and around new-start systems killing all the low-level players. It got so bad that groups and wings were formed with the intent of dealing with those sorts of players.

 

[Juniper]

If you don’t want to experience other random players, the accommodations of PG & Solo are more than enough.

I don't mind "experiencing" other random players. I just don't want to fight them, or be ganked by them for no reason. PG and Solo are therefore not enough.

I agree that the security states in systems should have more teeth, and the C&P system needs to be overhauled completely, as I just don't think it's fit for purpose.

 

[Sellias]

It just needs careful planning and implementation IMO. I don't see how it's a "huge enormous immersion breaker". Immersion is pretty much out of the window with E: D anyway, and has been for a while. Ever since telepresence became a thing, and now a magic teleport out of your ship. So, if it's a game... and only a game... let's concentrate on trying to make it fun for all.

Just a thought.



Because as someone pointed out earlier, that may not be technically possible. Though I wouldn't object if it were implemented.

I think a carefully balanced game rule on top of Open is probably the easiest solution for the devs.

Ok so its only a game so why be bothered being blown up? it's a game and only a game

So there are a some breakers, so lets make it worse! lets add magic god mode ships to it, it won't be fun for "all" since for a portion of the player base, adding such an enormous immersion breaker is a big deal and then it's not fun for all.

And again take a look at the game New World to see what kind of quagmire and balancing nightmare pvp flags are.

just like the small vocal subset pvp players that want open only, its only a small vocal subset of pve player who refuse to use the provided modes, and push for immersion destroying mechanics.

 

[[VR] TheBlackCat]

If PvP in Elite Dangerous was consensual, ie you had to ask the other player to agree to a duel, then there would be no need for a solo mode. Theoretically Frontier could implement this at any time in Open Mode, but having had a Solo Mode for so long now, it would be a bad idea to scrap it.

For years off and on I played in the Freelancer Discovery mod's 2 RP servers -- both had a rule that PVP had to be consensual via RP. But as small, moderated servers that was easy to enforce.
I really enjoyed those servers, and the PVP that did come out of it (and what I could fast talk my way out of with the Liberty Police players, hehe!).

Sadly, I never even see players in the 2 Mobius groups I'm in (the original, and the US-based one) even at hot spots. Last week's CG: no one. :-/