Oh yes, I do use private groups to play with friends without PVP interruptions. ED provides all the right options solo, private and open.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
So Frontier claimed in a throwaway comment in the Kickstarter, yes, but they said a lot of things in the Kickstarter which turned out not to be how the game ended up in practice.
It does often amuse me that Frontier managed to - if you believe their statements - name their game after a feature which has never been implemented and which they've no intent to implement.
(Certainly it doesn't mean that the game actually contains danger either, though that at least is more in line with the marketing expectations they were trying to make people believe)
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - PvP players chose to buy a game where PvP is an optional extra (apart from in CQC, of course) - and some can't accept that the mode shared galaxy is shared with players in Solo and Private Groups, so propose / demand that the game is changed to penalise / remove the effects of players in Solo and Private Groups on the galaxy that we all share.
Co-op and PvP are both 'optional extras', whatever you mean to imply by that. This view held by a small subset of PvP players isn't the topic of this thread, this thread is a small subset of PvE players wanting the game to be changed to suit their vision. Two sides of the same pointless coin.
I have to say that you referencing this at this juncture pretty much just fans the flames of mistrust and polarisation between two segments of the playerbase. I'm a PvP player and I have no interest in 'forcing' unwilling people to share a space with me, nor does anyone I regularly fly with. The game already offers options for people with differing preferences to find their niche. The options aren't ideal, but are limited by the realities of P2P instancing.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - the fact that other players are optional, because of the game modes, ensures this.
It seems to be - and it's the other side of the coin relating to how players are allowed to affect the game. Some don't like being attacked by other players, some don't like the fact that players they can't shoot at can affect the game.
It's already part of the thread - if one reads back far enough.
Then why oppose an Open-PvE mode? Players can already choose to "not play" with those in Open - and have been able to since launch. Adding an Open-PvE game mode, or lifting the membership cap on Private Groups could improve the game for those who don't / won't play in Open, yet it is often opposed by those who insist that Open is fine as it is (who then probably complain about the block feature and delayed menu exit being available in Open).
If you read back, I didn't.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Apologies - I took the comments relating to cost / benefit of implementation to be a form of opposition.
I was attempting to do two related things:
1 - explain why frontier might not have bothered with this hitherto.
2 - point out that some people have an unrealistic vision of what an open PvE mode would actually do to change their day-to-day gaming versus existing options.
I have no problem with the concept of a dev-sanctioned Mobius equivalent, or removing player caps on PGs or allowing PG groups to publicise in game. I just think the effect this would have on people's experience versus existing methods is blown out of proportion by some commentators.
1 - explain why frontier might not have bothered with this hitherto.
2 - point out that some people have an unrealistic vision of what an open PvE mode would actually do to change their day-to-day gaming versus existing options.
I have no problem with the concept of a dev-sanctioned Mobius equivalent, or removing player caps on PGs or allowing PG groups to publicise in game. I just think the effect this would have on people's experience versus existing methods is blown out of proportion by some commentators.
There doesn't need to be one. The earlier Elite games were solo as well.
Alcohol!
But you can choose your own level of danger in solo, whereas in open the level of danger can change depending on other players. Open kind of pushes you to fly ships kitted in a certain way if you are concerned about other players. In solo (or PG) you can equip yourself to suit your own preferred level of risk.
Want to go and try your hand in a CZ in a Sidewinder in solo? Sure! That provides a certain level of danger. Want to do trading in an unshielded type 9? Sure, there is a bit of risk there as well (although mainly from getting stuck in the slot). But in open? You want to risk going into that CZ in a sidewinder only to get popped by someone in a FdL gankship?
And a lot of the time, people don't care for danger at all, they just want to chill. Why does there always have to be danger? You want danger, you're welcome to it, and the opportunities are there. But if not, then cool, you can happily go do what you want without worrying about things too much, just chill and enjoy the game.
Nothing you've said here changes what I've stated already. The benefits outweigh the downsides.
Oddysey sounds to be in a quite experimental stage as of yet. Give it time, and an end to the waves of plague affecting everything.
Player groups are not and never will be sufficient compared to an official, fully supported PvE game mode.
Instancing and P2P have nothing to do with it, it's about sheer population size. In Mobius, I have a chance of running into maybe 20,000 CMDRs who may or may not be active - in the entire Milky Way Galaxy. In an officially supported PvE game mode, I would have a chance of meeting millions of CMDRs.
The problem isn't "solved" just because you deem it so and are accepting of the status quo.
Imagine flipping this situation on it's head - where Open/PvP mode would only be possible through private groups. Would you still be here in threads like this pretending like there's no issue with not having an official, fully supported game mode for that?
Last edited:
one word : over the top Engineering. That why i don't Do online. if it was Flight base against enginnering base i would go flight base everytime,
Flight base : vanilla ships without engineering mods installed, only time i need a engineered weapon was against ai ships
engineered : equals to overkill ratio's
Flight base : vanilla ships without engineering mods installed, only time i need a engineered weapon was against ai ships
engineered : equals to overkill ratio's
First, you're overestimating how many people play this game and the platform divisions. You'll never meet millions of CMDRs, believe me, I've tried.
Second, you can already communicate with people on your platform from across modes and organise PvE activities ad-hoc, which is what people have to do even in open mode because of sparsity, P2P limitations, stability and a vast and disparate spread of interests. 9 times out of 10 if I see another player in open outside of an organised encounter they'll ignore me completely, and I them. If you want the opportunity to silently pass someone in supercruise every 10 hours or so then fair enough, but that really is about the size of it.
Third, you're right that if this situation were reversed another subset of people would complain, and yes PvP people would then organise themselves into private groups.
The difference is that in the flipped scenario default open mode would then have diegetic issues affecting suspension of disbelief. The game would continue to signpost and support competition, you'd see it happening physically in front of your nose while being unable to counter it due to 4th wall breaking rules. For better or worse Elite is a game that often resists 4th wall breaking even in situations where it'd be beneficial. This isn't a value statement, it's just immersion and suspension of disbelief is a significant factor and probably explains why things are the way they are rather than the opposite.
Again, I've got no problem with the concept of a PvE mode, provided it didn't interfere with the parts of the game I enjoy.
Last edited:
This is a huge issue affecting emergent encounters, yeah. There are plenty of people who justifiably would never submit to unwanted violence regardless of a more carefully balanced ecosystem, but for those players who are on the fence the power discrepancy between low level and high level ships is absolutely ridiculous.
Source: https://i.imgur.com/PZdy3ol.png
For example. It's just unhealthy.
+1000
No, it's a small subset of various Mobius PGs who'd quite like to be pooled together in an extra launcher option called Open PvE.
There would still be Open PvP, Private & Solo options.
That's not changing the game, just offering the players another option.
Different people are proposing different things but the OP and the people I initially responded to suggested Open but with a PvE toggle. Once again, a de-capped mobius PG gets no complaints from me.
You're speaking hyperbole.
Of course I'm not going to actually meet a million CMDRs all of a sudden. Such an absurdity is not the point.
I shouldn't be required to use a horde of third-party tools just to connect with other players in-game to even a minimal degree. I shouldn't have to rely purely on 'organized' activity for organic moments to happen.
It's not necessary to do those things in Open except for the largest organized events, which naturally introduces a wholly different situation that doesn't enter into the discussion here - that's it's own issue.
If you are happy ignoring other players, that's your business. That's no reason to try gating anybody else's experience.
The rest of your argument is subjective semantics at best. Vague concerns about 'suspension of disbelief' are not worth the cost of denying players the opportunity to encounter and play together without having to jump through multiple third-party hoops - which ironically should be your largest concern when it comes to 'suspension of disbelief'.
For not having a 'problem' with the idea, you're spending a lot of words and energy putting down the necessity of a solution. As you yourself point out, it wouldn't interfere with what you enjoy, so you can relax.
I've been very unlucky in Open, been ganked more often than not when I do venture into that mode. Most recent was in my unengineered Chieftain against a PA, Prismatic FDL. I stayed and fought, actually had some fun. One shot just about lowered my shields, I held out for quite some time but obviously I lost dreadfully.
I play in Solo because that Chieftain was built for combat and didn't last long. An unengineered trade or exploration ship would be wiped out in seconds. With people interdicting and just attacking it isn't much fun. However, I do enjoy the friendly interactions you get in Open and enjoy playing in it, which is why I hop back in when not doing something too vital and won't be annoyed if I get blown up. So yeah, if I could disable PVP I'd play in Open all the time rather than Solo.
I play in Solo because that Chieftain was built for combat and didn't last long. An unengineered trade or exploration ship would be wiped out in seconds. With people interdicting and just attacking it isn't much fun. However, I do enjoy the friendly interactions you get in Open and enjoy playing in it, which is why I hop back in when not doing something too vital and won't be annoyed if I get blown up. So yeah, if I could disable PVP I'd play in Open all the time rather than Solo.
yes, let's just disable things if we can't win in it
You aren't required to, you can use system chat or the squadron tools. Many things in Elite are easier for every player with third party tools. I wholeheartedly agree it would be nicer to have more in-game solutions available, absolutely.
I agree, and yet the game rarely serves up 'organic moments' even in Open. The number of interactions available between players is fairly limited and depends at all times on the goodwill of all participants. Out of interest what kind of organic moments in particular do you envisage when you say this? I'm not being snarky or hiding an agenda with this question, I'm genuinely curious about what you want from it.
I'm honestly not trying to do that, quite the opposite in fact. I started by trying to show that a PvP flagging system in Open would have downsides, important ones, including the suspension of disbelief angle that you rather flippantly dismissed. We've drifted from the precise suggestion in the OP but it is still colouring the conversation. FWIW I realise that you in particular aren't suggesting a flagging system - but it's important to me that people understand the stakes instead of replacing one perceived bias with another.
Beyond that I am just stating that Elite's multiplayer doesn't flow particularly smoothly anywhere, Open or otherwise. This isn't to tell you to shut up and stop asking for an uncapped mobius option - which as I've said is a reasonable request. There are however broad misconceptions regarding how this game works that I genuinely think it's helpful to dispel. These misconceptions can lead people to be exaggeratedly frustrated by the status quo, and by players whose preferences do not match their own, when in fact we're pretty much all labouring under the same basic limitations regardless of mode.