To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Identification Friend or Foe fitted to CMDR’s ships - if you have your transponder switched Off then you’re consenting to getting shot at by other members of the Pilot’s Federation. If you or the other player has it On, then weapons will not fire when pointed at the ship.
Won’t solve the Griefer’s other methods of delivering grief, but then again stuff like the speed limit around Stations didn’t either
Autodocker solves that station ramming problem. It is get out of jail free card. Wannabe griefer rams you with disposable sidey, no problemIdentification Friend or Foe fitted to CMDR’s ships - if you have your transponder switched Off then you’re consenting to getting shot at by other members of the Pilot’s Federation. If you or the other player has it On, then weapons will not fire when pointed at the ship.
Won’t solve the Griefer’s other methods of delivering grief, but then again stuff like the speed limit around Stations didn’t either
Bruce G
B
This is why we can't have nice things.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In terms of lore, we already have experimental effects specifically aimed at avoiding "friendly fire", i.e. the regeneration sequence (healing effect) for beam lasers and cannon / multi-cannon smart rounds (self destruct before impacting) - so weapons that selectively don't do damage to specific CMDRs already exist, while the scanner already differentiates between CMDRs and NPCs.
While the game name includes the word "Dangerous" (delightfully dual-purpose as the "official" reason for the name given by DBOBE relates to the combat rank), the game itself does not require players to face "danger" from other players directly while engaging in any game feature (apart from CQC) - so any danger posed by other players is completely optional while engaging in those features, as it has been from the very beginning.
Those seeking a co-operative game experience, without being engaged by others in PvP, need to find out that Private Groups that would suit their play-style exist out-of game - there's a lack of Private Group "advertising" in the launcher. It's also worth noting that, even in PvE Private Groups, PvP is possible (and has occurred on more than one occasion where individuals (sometimes members of a player group targetting the Private Group) have gained access to PvE Private Groups with the specific intent to break the out-of-game rules that they agreed to when they applied to join the Private Group). Zac Antonaci posted on the forums after one such occurrence to restate Frontier's stance on harassment, which was not well received by some of those who took part.
One possible approach to improving the game for those who play in Private Groups might be the introduction of owner selectable rules e.g.:
For PvP:
- Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
- Increase menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
- Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
- Disable weapon healing effects? [yes/no]
- Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
- Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]
- Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]
For PvE:
- Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
- Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
- Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
- Disable "friendly fire"? [yes/no]
- Session & PG kick player on attacking another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
- Session & PG kick player on destroying another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
- Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]
For all play-styles:
- Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.
Some players insist that playing in Open at all is consent to PvP, for any or no reason - and, as Open is a PvP-enabled game mode where players can choose to shoot at anything they instance with, there's some merit to that insistence. Thankfully, for those who bought the game with no desire to engage in PvP, the actions of players in all three game modes affect the game's features, so playing in Open is not a requirement.
I'll be interested to see how any changes to C&P aimed at providing a deterrent to non-consensual PvP encounters would affect PvE gameplay, specifically criminal acts against NPCs.
Hmm I'd think overall chances to C&P would make game somewhat more realistic. For example doing crimes in high security environment should cause problems, regardless of who is victim, NPC or commander.
I love how you explained to the developer what their own game is about, and what the title they gave represents
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Whether such changes would be well received, or not, might depend on whether the consequences for criminal activity would result in players no longer being able to enjoy engaging in such activities during PvE, bearing in mind that half of players are at or below median skill.
In a discussion on a potential karma system, when asked whether karmic consequences should also apply to players who attack NPCs, Sandro had this to day:
Last edited:
I don't usually bother with the fruitless circular argument over what open is / should be / might be - bar commenting that a dedicated PvE mode is needed other than Mobias - and find it diifficult to understand why, after 7 years of ED, Frontier are still unwilling to provide such.
Is it that you are absolutely aware that such a mode would be the one with the greatest population, because having the choice to either play for combat or play for cooperation would make a cooperative mode most attractive?
Me, most of the time I'll play in a PG as I prefer to actually play the game, even though it does limit those whom I might meet and enjoy time spent with.
C&P doesn't work to dissuade crime... We can make hundreds of millions of credits easily in an hour, notoriety will fade away just sitting in the landing bay of a FC or station
Unsupported use of "should".
I'm happy with being able to alter BGS in all modes according to the game design.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While this is an opinion often espoused by those who don't accept that the galaxy is shared between all game modes, the game we all bought does not require any player to play in Open, if they don't want to, while engaging in any game feature.
The mode shared galaxy means that PvP is optional, even if some of those who enjoy PvP don't accept it.
While some players have been dissatisfied for years with the design of the game that they chose to buy, Frontier have previously been quite clear regarding the modes and game features:
The Kickstarter Pitch:
Powerplay:
Faction gameplay via the BGS:
The BGS itself:
Last edited:
I don't usually bother with the fruitless circular argument over what open is / should be / might be - bar commenting that a dedicated PvE mode is needed other than Mobias - and find it diifficult to understand why, after 7 years of ED, Frontier are still unwilling to provide such.
Is it that you are absolutely aware that such a mode would be the one with the greatest population, because having the choice to either play for combat or play for cooperation would make a cooperative mode most attractive?
Me, most of the time I'll play in a PG as I prefer to actually play the game, even though it does limit those whom I might meet and enjoy time spent with.
C&P doesn't work to dissuade crime... We can make hundreds of millions of credits easily in an hour, notoriety will fade away just sitting in the landing bay of a FC or station
It depends on what metric of punishment the C&P system chooses to use. Credits are going to be of limited usefulness, definitely, but there are other ways. For example, someone with a huge bounty could have dramatically increased NPC police spawn rates, constantly appearing behind them and interdicting them, or jumping in to their location. Get a high enough bounty, and the rates could be high enough that anything but running away becomes functionally impossible. You could make stations and police near stations shoot immediately, too.
IMO there also needs to be tweaks to how the game handles carriers that allow Notorious commanders to dock. Right now they can park their carrier in a hostile system and dock there essentially risk-free. I cannot see factions allowing this; there need to be penalties for players who allow notorious commanders to dock.
Yes, it's really carriers which have broken the previous C&P pass by making notoriety irrelevant.
I often have notoriety through murdering NPCs... I'd not be best amused if my own FC wouldn't permit me to land!
C&P doesn't work, I'm pretty sure that many players hoped that notoriety would only affect PvP players (which would be unfair) and not bother career criminals only interested in PvE. I can't think of any situation, including your system of harrassment of notorious players, that would serve any useful purpose for everyone, after all - not all PvE players choose to be 'squeaky clean' all of the time, so fall foul of the same justice system that others wish to affect PvP players.
I'm glad some tweaks to the C&P system are at least on the table.
My biggest complaint isn't with criminals at all, actually, but rather how it can accidentally hurt non-criminal players; when I'm doing some missions with some weapons(missiles especially), if one ally or police ship flies into my fire, they take enough damage to instantly give me a bounty, turning them all aggressive, and forcing me to flee to an interstellar factor. If you're a criminal, you can ignore this as you do your thing, but if you're trying to be legitimate, this can mean losing 10-20 minutes of play time getting rid of your bounty, and when you get back, it can happen again right away. It can be very frustrating.
I'm not 100% sure what the cure is, but it seems to me that having crimes first take away from your REP would help a lot. IE, if I'm friendly with the local controlling faction, and accidentally clip a police ship when they fly into my missiles, I would lose maybe REP++. Only when my REP drops below a certain point could unintentional actions like that give me a bounty.
Criminals would never get this leeway, because their crimes would(should) quickly lower them to unfriendly REP, and it wouldn't apply to intentional actions anyway, like deliberately targeting a police ship. However, it could also work as a deterrent here, as well, since it would mean local stations quickly becoming hostile, which would be a deterrent in a way that credit bounties simply are not. It wouldn't fix everything, but it would be a good start.
Last edited:
It absolutely should deny you docking. You should at least need to park in a different system from the one you're murdering innocent ships in!