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

[Rubbernuke]

I'm not talking about powerplay, I'm talking about any form of cooperation. The number one complaint I've heard about Open isn't the gankers, it's that it's impossible to find anyone to play together with. The most common encounter with another player is being blocked from using the only large pad on a Megaship. The second most common is almost running into them going in or out of a station. At no point is cooperation even remotely easy.

Playing with other players is the entire point of Open, yet it's nearly impossible to actually realize, and that's very, very sad.

Players should not need entirely separate services like Discord or Twitch, just to organize what should be very simple events, like getting together to bounty hunt or do Xeno combat. We already have the service ingame, for multicrew. It just needs to be expanded to other forms of gameplay.

I do see your point, but at EDs advancing age and the maturity of INARA, forums and squadrons etc I don't think we'll see much more.

But saying that for many its playing against others which is the lure of Open- its not working together but being in potentially more dangerous situations just as much as wanting to play together.

 

[Zannry]

Really interesting conversation, thanks for raising this one. I'll throw in my two cents.

I can't see a version of Open where PvP can be toggled off, even if there are many who would like to play that way. IMO, it would go against the spirit of Elite and certainly against the idea of "Dangerous". It's also not easily explained through in-game lore.

However, I do sympathise with those who would like to encounter and interact with other players during their sessions without getting killed. Obviously there are private groups for that, but it's understandably not quite same since you could only meet people you already know.

Overall, I think the solution to this would be better coming from adjustments to the crime and punishment system to make sure there are meaningful risks/deterrents in place for non-consensual PvP encounters rather than from a binary PvP on/off toggle.

If you do take another pass at C&P I have few suggestions for what they are worth.

1) Get rid of or rework notoriety so that it acts a a negative reputation modifier resulting in exponential reputation loss. (not influence, just your reputation)

2) Keep Hostile Faction interactions the same, shoot on sight. No docking at faction assets.

3) Starting at unfriendly and increasing frequency at hostile add NPC faction enforcers spawning randomly like NPC Bounty Hunters or PP Adjusters do now. If you are a known enemy of a faction they should want to even the score. Sided against the terrorist in the last war? They want Payback. Made a fortune stacking pirate massacre mission? Don't be surprised that they took up a collection to send an assassin your way.

4) Give NPCs teethe. We have NPC spawn tables that consider combat rank/ship flown. They need to add engineering level spawn to tables. EDO shows in the shipyard the number of engineered modules my ship has. Maybe don't spawn a vanilla NPC against a ship with a dozen engineered modules.

5) Throw the rules out. When Hostile with a faction the kid gloves should come off. The NPC spawn tables should not be restricted by Combat Rank or ship flown at that point.

6) Other consequences; starting at unfriendly I would like to see some minor consequences to remind you that you are supposedly part of a living galaxy. Give me the occasional passive aggressive flight controller that puts my dock request at the bottom of the queue with a snarky comment about bad behavior. Or when I'm planet side spawn some non-hostile scavengers to spray paint/vandalize my ship. I can shoot them and be a criminal setting in motion everything above again or just suck it up and fly my ship with "CMDR Zannry Sux. Scav life Rulz!" until I can get to a friendly port and repair my paint.

Honestly, I can say that C&P is broken. I've been RPing a freedom fighter bouncing around between the ED Union systems for the last week. Players that engage in comms and are not active collaborators go free. Those that try to run, open fire or actively confess to supporting EG union I run off or destroy.

The million credit bounty is meaningless, the notoriety 7 (decayed from 10 while doing the last CG) equally meaningless. I'm even still allied reputation wise with EG Union from work I don't even remember doing at some point in the past. System security is a minor nuisance at best as I try to fly and type. They pose little to no danger to me even in my Viper III.

Honestly, I think they are a liability to players who embolden by the 5:1 odds in there favor decide to open fire in a ship not fit for open. ATR have some teethe but don't really have the desired affect. A soft touch like me can't stick around bantering endless with a player with them shooting at me. A true griefer isn't going to open comms. ATR pushes role players out and incentivize the shoot first and hit hard types to kill and dash. When a systems security forces intervention results in more danger for the players they are supposed to protect that's a problem.

The one time I was at all mildly annoyed/Inconvenienced was at the CG. I played both sides and ended hostile with one. I couldn't turn in the mission to collect the rewards. Being denied docking even with silent running was the only time I felt like my actions had any real meaning.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The side effect of that would be using the BGS to ensure your properly aligned faction has a base close to where you're murdering all those hapless imperialist dopes.

Conversely, the emperor's jackbooted minions could attempt to crush freedom by nefarious means.

And some of us could accidentally sell weapons drugs or plain old food to all sides for a tidy profit.

The problem is all crime is treated as being local, when as others have pointed out it should sensibly escalate.

Once I was hostile to both Feds and Imperials, and expected a hard time- but it was the opposite and everything was hyper local.

Only indie systems should behave like that (being the equivalent of Wild West towns), while attacking a Fed system should trigger all Fed systems- otherwise whats the point of s.power alignment?

 

[DemiserofD]

What about Colonia? No superpowers there at all, thankfully.

Independent systems could just have their own 'superpower bounties', which would only apply to places where their faction has influence. Colonia has a limited enough set of systems that anyone committing crimes there would quickly run out of places to go.

I do see your point, but at EDs advancing age and the maturity of INARA, forums and squadrons etc I don't think we'll see much more.

But saying that for many its playing against others which is the lure of Open- its not working together but being in potentially more dangerous situations just as much as wanting to play together.

True, but I can't help but feel that's a chicken and egg situation. People don't go to Open for cooperation because they can't go to open for cooperation.

I'd be less hopeful for changes of this sort if we didn't already have an existing ingame matchmaking system that works pretty well. Multicrew is eminently functional, at least as far as the actual matchmaking component is concerned. It seems that expanding it would be much simpler than designing something from scratch.

Just queue up for cooperation under a certain category, and the game automatically lets players nearby know about you, and lets you wing up with a press of a button. Pow, instant friendship!

 

[Rubbernuke]

True, but I can't help but feel that's a chicken and egg situation. People don't go to Open for cooperation because they can't go to open for cooperation.

I'd be less hopeful for changes of this sort if we didn't already have an existing ingame matchmaking system that works pretty well. Multicrew is eminently functional, at least as far as the actual matchmaking component is concerned. It seems that expanding it would be much simpler than designing something from scratch.

Just queue up for cooperation under a certain category, and the game automatically lets players nearby know about you, and lets you wing up with a press of a button. Pow, instant friendship!

And I hope they do, because it would be useful. The issue will always be expressing and advertising people in a way that won't descend into anarchy

 

[ethelred]

The problem is all crime is treated as being local, when as others have pointed out it should sensibly escalate.

Once I was hostile to both Feds and Imperials, and expected a hard time- but it was the opposite and everything was hyper local.

Only indie systems should behave like that (being the equivalent of Wild West towns), while attacking a Fed system should trigger all Fed systems- otherwise whats the point of s.power alignment?

Yep completely agree. All 3 powers should be exclusive (in that your rep with the "others" degrades over time so you can't be a king, admiral and er, first speaker(?) at the same time)

With regard to independents I guess rep there is at the factional level and again in anarchy systems no rep damage occurs.

I don't think independents should have superpower like bounties at all.

That should be enough to give all players somewhere they can jump to locally where they can escape the heat, with the added bonus of doing some BGS expansion/defence work on top.

Above even that, would be a PP meta.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yep completely agree. All 3 powers should be exclusive (in that your rep with the "others" degrades over time so you can't be a king, admiral and er, first speaker(?) at the same time)

With regard to independents I guess rep there is at the factional level and again in anarchy systems no rep damage occurs.

I don't think independents should have superpower like bounties at all.

That should be enough to give all players somewhere they can jump to locally where they can escape the heat, with the added bonus of doing some BGS expansion/defence work on top.

Above even that, would be a PP meta.

If done like that it would make being aligned to a superpower actually worth it.

What with FCs these days (which are mobile stations really) FD can afford to make the BGS more hostile / exclusive really.

 

[V'larr]

Really interesting conversation, thanks for raising this one. I'll throw in my two cents.

I can't see a version of Open where PvP can be toggled off, even if there are many who would like to play that way. IMO, it would go against the spirit of Elite and certainly against the idea of "Dangerous". It's also not easily explained through in-game lore.

However, I do sympathise with those who would like to encounter and interact with other players during their sessions without getting killed. Obviously there are private groups for that, but it's understandably not quite same since you could only meet people you already know.

Overall, I think the solution to this would be better coming from adjustments to the crime and punishment system to make sure there are meaningful risks/deterrents in place for non-consensual PvP encounters rather than from a binary PvP on/off toggle.

I can state with absolute certainty, no amount of improvement to the C&P system will encourage me to move from Mobius to Open play.

Amongst the many things I've maintained over the years is the view that Mobius should not be carrying all the weight of providing a PvE experience, when you at Fdev could do it yourselves.

Look at how Fallout 76 has turned out. Bethesda has (finally) had the sense to listen to players wanting a cooperative PvE experience in their universe, not a PvP one. I think you should listen, too.

 

[DemiserofD]

I can state with absolute certainty, no amount of improvement to the C&P system will encourage me to move from Mobius to Open play.

To be fair, the objective is not to make Open appealing to everyone, just appealing to those who are fundamentally capable of being appealed to.

I personally don't particularly mind being attacked now and again, I just don't see any point in an experience where the ONLY difference is being attacked. There need to be plus sides, too. And that means cooperative content, and tools to make it happen.

 

[Bigmaec]

To be fair, the objective is not to make Open appealing to everyone, just appealing to those who are fundamentally capable of being appealed to.

I personally don't particularly mind being attacked now and again, I just don't see any point in an experience where the ONLY difference is being attacked. There need to be plus sides, too. And that means cooperative content, and tools to make it happen.

I had a wonderful experience of killing a Hydra yesterday in open in a group of 5 totally unknown CMDR plus one friend together.
Made over 100 Thargoid kills and 150 million in bonds. And with the new plasma chargers AX pilots don't even have to worry about a lone ganker dropping in such an instance, they now have enough firepower to blast them away (didn't happen yesterday though).

AX combat is really where open shines.

 

[Crook]

In such a long thread my opinion doesn't matter - when does it even - but I think there should be a protected core of systems where your weapons won't fire on other commanders in random space. If you drop into a has res, they're open as you chose it but piracy and attacks on anyone are forbidden - including NPC's - in random space or planets etc. This would make me play in open because I can choose to go the dangerous routes or places but generally I know where to be safe, which is mostly everywhere. I would like to meet and interact with more commanders, but the chances of attack by more dedicated players is always too high. There needs to be a nice social core to the game, fostered by denying weapons fire. It has an easy lore addition for the 'mersion crowd as well. Your systems don't allow for it because of a new system wide control, with a mandatory new module in all ships.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

On the BGS, it affects all players so must be available to all players to affect. The recent case regarding Peregrina being a perfect example.
On Power Play, restricting it to open would close off access to associated modules so that would need resolving.
On co-op gameplay, it's difficult to organise anything via open with randoms however a large sqn does offer this gameplay far more effectively and often has its own PG. Certain Events may also offer this service.

 

[Robert Maynard]

On the BGS, it affects all players so must be available to all players to affect. The recent case regarding Peregrina being a perfect example.

Indeed - players should not be affected by something that they cannot affect, and we all bought a game where we are told that "each player’s unique journey influences the connected gaming experience".

On Power Play, restricting it to open would close off access to associated modules so that would need resolving.

If, as Sandro indicated twice before he left the project, Frontier are considering changing the way that players can affect Powerplay, and if that change were to involve making it such that only players in Open could affect Powerplay, I'd hope that players who could not affect Powerplay from their preferred game mode (if that game mode is not Open) would equally not be affected in any way by Powerplay.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

....

FD should therefore IMO put energy into better and more exciting gameplay instead- and that is either modes become 'unique' (i.e. Open has a role separate to solo / PG) or that NPCs / tasks become so difficult (over time or through extended effort) working together keeps things moving.

Can't really imagine open with a separate role. And pimping NPC, forcing ppl to play MP will bleed players off very quickly.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Can't really imagine open with a separate role. And pimping NPC, forcing ppl to play MP will bleed players off very quickly.

Its quite simple- Powerplay Open is about traversal of hostile space, which only really works with other players because NPCs have rubbish persistence and no place to ambush others. Making PvE harder is also a no brainer if you price in difficulty- if you take on more you should face better opponents.

Right now you have players in god like ships pitted against 2014 era opposition, which is dull. The basic grind with this repetition is what kills Powerplay.

 

[Mengy]

I can't see a version of Open where PvP can be toggled off, even if there are many who would like to play that way. IMO, it would go against the spirit of Elite and certainly against the idea of "Dangerous". It's also not easily explained through in-game lore.

However, I do sympathise with those who would like to encounter and interact with other players during their sessions without getting killed. Obviously there are private groups for that, but it's understandably not quite same since you could only meet people you already know.

Overall, I think the solution to this would be better coming from adjustments to the crime and punishment system to make sure there are meaningful risks/deterrents in place for non-consensual PvP encounters rather than from a binary PvP on/off toggle.

Sigh, such a shame this is still FDev's stance after all these years.

In my opinion design decisions like this keep holding the game back. Private Groups are not a solution for the problem but rather a workaround, and a shoddy one at that. Implementing an official Open PvE mode is the solution, yet FDev simply does not want to bother with it.

NOTE having an Open PvE does not mean people have to use it, Open PvP would still be there unchanged! It would simply give the huge number of non-PvP players an actual option to play cooperatively from the menu.

Ah well, with FDev's stance on this it's unfortunately an issue which will never go away nor be solved. Sadly it pushes away cooperative non-PvP players from the game. Maybe that is the intention though?

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Basically putting up on NPC difficulty is not easy thing. As ED does not have clear way to determine player skill level. Combat rank after all is more like grind reward. Shoot enough opponents to pieces by whatever hamfisted way, and you get Elite rank in combat. That does not tell anything about actual skill.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Its quite simple- Powerplay Open is about traversal of hostile space, which only really works with other players because NPCs have rubbish persistence and no place to ambush others. Making PvE harder is also a no brainer if you price in difficulty- if you take on more you should face better opponents.

Right now you have players in god like ships pitted against 2014 era opposition, which is dull. The basic grind with this repetition is what kills Powerplay.

My concern is that FD doesn't have any good choice of difficulty, so I expect they just shove in more bulletsponge. Open powerplay has its merits, but i wouldn't know how to handle the current reward structure in that.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Only way I see how to make it possible without alienating some players is to give PVE difficulty level setting. Choose your own level from easy to extremely hard.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Basically putting up on NPC difficulty is not easy thing. As ED does not have clear way to determine player skill level. Combat rank after all is more like grind reward. Shoot enough opponents to pieces by whatever hamfisted way, and you get Elite rank in combat. That does not tell anything about actual skill.

It's in this version of the game as it was in the previous games in the series, i.e. combat rank is more of a long service award rather than any measure of skill.

Plus the fact that three of the five Elite ranks that can be earned in-game don't require the player to fire a shot in combat - so players can play the game without ever engaging in combat.