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

Would you play open if you might come across someone who doesn't follow the rules of regular gameplay and is somehow immune to the effects of reality? An unkillable NPC, a ship mining who has no concern or reaction to you entering their scanning range, a person sneaking around a settlement who doesn't acknowledge your presence at all as it is of no consequence to them?

It'd be like a guard that just doesn't scan you, or an NPC who doesn't acknowledge you've drawn a weapon on them...
 
To the original posted question for this thread... Yes I would. I exclusively play in solo because I am not a pvp guy, And I am not a fan of the material grind for engineering ships, and certainly do NOT want to engineer different modules for the same ship depending on if I am going PVP that day or PVE.

I have recently discovered that there apparently has been a hot topic of late due to large ships being extremely vulnerable to mid class pvp ships. I had no idea this was the case because I spend my time in solo. When I look at ships and what I could use them for, pvp is NEVER a consideration, and ships that seem designed specifically for that avenue are of zero interest to me.

Different games have handled the pvp vs pve situation sense MMO have been a thing since 1999. Honestly, I think the model that ED should adopt would be the method that Everquest and Blizzard went about it with World of Warcraft. Player flag pvp with consent duels, Hostile areas of the map like conflict areas.

ED is pretty much already set up for this. Auto flag when joining a side in a conflict zone. Perhaps a flag on flag off feature from a contact in a station. Auto flag on for joining a faction in power play for those of opposing faction.

There is a whole lot of "Muh cake, and eat it too" mentality in this game for some reason. People complain about the lack of immersion in the game and yet rail when its suggested their choices should have consequences.
 
73 Pages - impressive. PVP vs PVE is still alive in a 7 year old game. Good on all of you for being so passionate about this.
This thread is extremely interesting to follow, with two seemingly parallel discussions going on at the same time: on one hand a civilised debate about technicalities and ways to change things according to one's views, and on the other a furious war, with two sides at each other's throats, because some want it blue, while others want it square.
 
This thread is extremely interesting to follow, with two seemingly parallel discussions going on at the same time: on one hand a civilised debate about technicalities and ways to change things according to one's views, and on the other a furious war, with two sides at each other's throats, because some want it blue, while others want it square.
Third side:

I just want my luxury cabins to have tangible value beyond RP. The sole (and soul) defining feature of Saud Kruger ships is...meaningless.
 
The sole (and soul) defining feature of Saud Kruger ships is...meaningless.

Nothing that beautiful is meaningless. Fly around in Open in such a ship and you will be doing a service to every commander who looks at you in passing.

ED is pretty much already set up for this. Auto flag when joining a side in a conflict zone. Perhaps a flag on flag off feature from a contact in a station. Auto flag on for joining a faction in power play for those of opposing faction.

That seems like it would make sense. PvE mode would effectively be for open space; it prevents interdiction and ganking when a commander isn't looking for a fight, i.e. removes PvP piracy. But if you go to a conflict zone in Open, then that is a PvP zone and you are going in knowingly. You were looking for a fight when you went, doing it in Open just means you might get one with more than NPCs.

I'd consider being in Open with this. I'm a carebear at heart, but I do have a couple of combat ships (though I'm not sure they're very good), and maybe now and then I'd bust it out and go see who's around. If it goes up in flames, oh well, that was on me; and it wasn't my money maker anyway.
 
Nothing that beautiful is meaningless. Fly around in Open in such a ship and you will be doing a service to every commander who looks at you in passing.
Yeah...it made a prime target for ganking...lol

One of the few ships I've been ganked in was my Beluga (my 3rd favorite ship to fly). Can't make it much of a defensive juggernaut, even with G5, when outfitted to haul passengers. A piece of me died everytime I used my T-9 or Anaconda to ferry more passengers than the 'dedicated cruise liner in the game'.

If they made 1st class modules unique to them, too, that might help...but it wouldn't solve luxury cabins being pointless, still. Anyways, not the intended topic of the thread, sorry. What is the intended topic:

It's very hard to be a passenger liner in Open, to popular destinations (which would fit RP) such as capitols, CGs, and engineer bases, when non-consensual PvP is the current design for a largely PvE-built game. To offer up a comparison:

Imagine Need for Speed meets Euro Trucker. You can do the main activity of the game: driving big trucks, engaging in the many contracts that heavily skew towards PvE, or even drive police cars and race cars for the purpose of tracking down NPC baddies or doing smuggling. Now make it open multiplayer. What do you get?

A lot of people playing the game as usual...
...and a lot of police cars knocking over legal trucks for grins and giggles. Enough to effectively ruin the 'point' of multiplayer in a largely PvE game.

I'm pro-PvP and I'm pro-ganking, by the by, longtime bittervet of the 'king' of anarchic design, EVE Online. Elite is not EVE, but it's PvP model is borderline identical. Anything goes with minimal consequence unless someone can push back. There's a reason the population of EVE is incredibly tiny compared to most "MMOs" or large-pop titles like Elite. It attracts many players, but really only retains those who like the PvP-centric design.

Elite is bleeding PvE players, the majority, for many reasons. Chief among them is that the primary benefit of multiplayer - player comraderie - is effectively locked behind PG mode to be remotely enjoyable. FDev has tried to split the middle and reaped the reward: fractured modes that make balancing anything almost impossible. If you make it fair for PvP, you ruin solo. If you make it fair for solo, you ruin PvP and Open mode. If you reign in PG on the BGS, you screw Open anyways and Solo players feel like they were nerfed for something that isn't their fault.

Elite, fundamentally, is at odds with itself. EDO shows FDev going towards PvP-centricity. That's cool, but it's going to cost them most of their original playerbase. It'll fill back in with 'new' players, but never to the degree they had because PvP-centric gamers are a distinct minority in just about every genre, with gankers a distinct minority within that minority.

But it only takes one shark to kill thousands of cod. Build a game where there's no limits on those sharks, and you'll find equilibrium eventually.
When the cod die out, and the sharks only have each other to eat.

Which is why these threads exist. The cod want to go back to the ocean sans sharks, the sharks want the cod to only have the ocean and sharks.
The trouble, of course, is that if the cod get bored of their haven (solo and PG)...they'll just go somewhere else. In an entirely different game.
 
Elite, fundamentally, is at odds with itself. EDO shows FDev going towards PvP-centricity. That's cool, but it's going to cost them most of their original playerbase. It'll fill back in with 'new' players, but never to the degree they had because PvP-centric gamers are a distinct minority in just about every genre, with gankers a distinct minority within that minority.
Correct. And this is what will kill this game. There's already EVE, ED doesn't need to and even shouldn't be EVE. ED doesn't have the required notability to attract a sufficiently sized PvP-centric community. If only PvP is what remains, a large part of the game (the non-combat part) will become obsolete or, worse, unplayable bar in solo and PG.

The PvE crowd needs a safe space to congregate other than PGs because most won't even be aware of PGs.

To prevent seal clubbing, Frontier introduced the PF district, a region exclusively reserved for new players and harsh against CMDR on CMDR actions (you get banned out of that region if you intentionally kill fellow CMDRs). It didn't solve that problem. There are still seal clubbers and there are still griefers preying on graduates at the edge systems of that small bubble.

If FDev wants to keep the notability of the game up and the usability of everything that is non-combat viable in an open environment in the long term, an unlimited population PvE mode must exist.
 
Last edited:
Correct. And this is what will kill this game. There's already EVE, ED doesn't need to and even shouldn't be EVE. ED doesn't have the required notability to attract a sufficiently sized PvP-centric community. If only PvP is what remains, a large part of the game (the non-combat part) will become obsolete or, worse, unplayable bar in solo and PG.

The PvE crowd needs a safe space to congregate other than PGs because most won't even be aware of PGs.

To prevent seal clubbing, Frontier introduced the PF district, a region exclusively reserved for new players and harsh against CMDR on CMDR actions (you get banned out of that region if you intentionally kill a fellow CMDR after a first warning). It didn't solve that problem. There are still seal clubbers and there are still griefers preying on graduates at the edge systems of that small bubble.

If FDev wants to keep the notability of the game up and the usability of everything that is non-combat viable in an open environment in the long term, an unlimited population PvE mode must exist.
I'd debate the mode must exist...rather, C&P just needs a significant overhaul such that ganking is either outright heavily punished or forced to make strategic considerations.

As an example:

Notoriety prevents all services everywhere but anarchy systems. Bounties accrued by murder cannot be scrubbed, forcing the destruction of modules and ships. Ships destroyed when piloted by a commander with notoriety forfeit insurance rebuy. You get your ship back...at 100% value cost.

If you want to balance it a little, rebuy cost penalty scales with notoriety. "Oops, I killed Jim" Notoriety Level 1 is a penalty of 10% rebuy, for example, but mass murderer level 10 is at 100% rebuy...scale between the two. This puts a scaling cost on outright murder (ganking) while still enabling it. This can still be circumvened: it doesn't take a lot to outfit a Viper Mk. III with rails and eat most players alive. It mostly forces high-end ships to think twice before ganking.

Those are pretty stiff, but still have holes. That isn't bad. FDev obviously supports ganking so keep in mind a solution likely has to enable it, even with a cost.

Notoriety is tied exclusively to murder - NPCs or Real Players - relegating RPers, Pirates, and actual gankers to think twice about their career and where they live. Especially since the bounties cannot be scrubbed and will eventually attract nonstop NPC aggressive (and possibly players, too).

But what about organized PvP?

Combat zones, Powerplay, and CQC all three offer organized PvP. Given CQC is a joke, I know that's only two real options. In conflict zones, murder only applies for friendly fire or neutral fire. If you pick a side, and shoot the other side, you're all good. Gankers don't get a free pass here, in other words. For Powerplay, it's grand organized PvP that just needs other balance passes (@Rubbernuke, that's your spotlight, go for it). Powerplay is an excellent place for PvP if it were redesigned to better support it.

That just leaves pirates, because piracy should be a supported career in the game...even against players. Remember how notoriety is based on murder? That means giving into a pirate has a higher chance of making sense to a victim: they know the pirate prefers getting cargo to just killing you. You might run the table to see if the fella is a cold, hard killer (they probably are), and they can choose whether to build themselves a reputation (and a bounty list) or let the fishy go this time.

Finally, what happens to that mountain of never-expiring bounty debt? Anarchy systems have an underground Factors system: you pay it off 10 to 1 on the value. Want a clean record? Get to mining. Or whatever your grind is. By the time you've done that a few times, most gankers will either A) quit the game, seeing that ganking isn't all that fun in Elite (See: Too much trouble) or B) work out a schedule that allows them to keep up their shenanigans at an enjoyable pace.

What this means is you don't stop ganking, but rather create a balancing sink and faucet for it. It can still happen, but your truly egregious trolls will largely drift away to some other title. You'll have some left, but only some, allowing Open mode to flourish more. The final bit is balancing bounty payouts such that you can't just wrack them up and then have your friends collect on them, a problem EVE online has had many times. One easy way to do this is to have the bounties only payout about 50% of the value of the destroyed ship, guaranteeing no net-profit on the illicit activity.

Longwinded series of ideas for 'balancing' ganking while still preserving it, but it can totally be done and has been done.
FDev just has to decide to pull the trigger. The vast majority of the consensual PvP crowd should have no qualms balancing C&P.

Your non-consensual crowd is either gankers or consensual gankers - i.e., PvPers that target lesser ships but only within environments where PvP is expected. No excuse for, "But I didn't know!" in other words, such as anarchy systems.
 
Hi sandki, I agree with you, but I'm afraid that since this proposal involves modifying something that already exists, all PvP lovers (and griefers) will disagree. If instead of modifying something existing, FDEV ADD a NEW dedicated PvE mode, no one can complain.
 
Lets think about pvp system in EVE. You lose ship permanentally, when in elite you pay 5(!)% of its cost. Pvp is cheap, as credits farm rate is higher than ever(1-2 bil per day). There are no big damage in PvP, but in PvE. Some player groups develop and distubute "Black Lists" where you can get, even if you once spaken to "griefers"(on their opinion)(and i dont speak about PP PvP protection system). And list already contains OVER 200 PLAYERS IN IT. Pure hate speach! Moreover, they are destroying bgs from private groups, because they have more than 150 Carebears, which are combat log if they accidentally get in open. There are no way to "fight against" them. only thing tou may do is overcarebearing. And this - is logical consequence of private groups ability to affect BGS. All in All, Black lists need to be redeveloped, as they are used as weapon used to harrass large parts of community.
D4mtnsCUEAA6RS6.jpeg
 
Hi sandki, I agree with you, but I'm afraid that since this proposal involves modifying something that already exists, all PvP lovers (and griefers) will disagree. If instead of modifying something existing, FDEV ADD a NEW dedicated PvE mode, no one can complain.
Ah, well, I think some will still complain, whether they "can" or not. ;-)

All the opposition to Open-PvE is because we all know that if it gets added, original Open will become a desert wasteland. The only reason to oppose player choice is if you want to restrict other players' choices.

The delicious irony is that these threads created by PvP players wanting more "encounters" always end up here. If we do ever get Open-PvE it will be because FD finally noticed the number and immense length of the threads they've made.
 
To be honest, i have no idea what people complain about. I play 100% in open, always have (OK, the odd screenshot here and there) and the only time i was ever worried was back before i had a cutter (or carrier made it even safer) and had been mining. There is practically no penalty for dying most of the time and, if you engineer your ships and build with it in mind, there is actually almost no reason to ever die anyway, getting away is very easy unless you fly ships that are both slow AND poorly / not shielded. Either fast or well defended makes just frameshift escaping really easy (eg, my explorer is a Phantom. I could have had ~3Ly more range, but having the best possible thruster profile was worth way more, because very few ganking ships can keep up).

Ive played many other open world games where dying was much more annoying and harder to avoid, but people complained less. I really dont get it. This game gives you all the tools you need to avoid getting killed, but people refuse to use them and just complain that, in a game where the only real means of interaction is weapons, people shot at them. Its crazy.

For reference, i have been playing for 4 years, have literally never interdicted a player (so im not trying to defend a ganker playstyle) and have died to players 5 times in total, the only one of those in the last year because i was AFK.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, i have no idea what people complain about. I play 100% in open, always have (OK, the odd screenshot here and there) and the only time i was ever worried was back before i had a cutter (or carrier made it even safer) and had been mining. There is practically no penalty for dying most of the time and, if you engineer your ships and build with it in mind, there is actually almost no reason to ever die anyway, getting away is very easy unless you fly ships that are both slow AND poorly / not shielded. Either fast or well defended makes just frameshift escaping really easy (eg, my explorer is a Phantom. I could have had ~3Ly more range, but having the best possible thruster profile was worth way more, because very few ganking ships can keep up).

Ive played many other open world games where dying was much more annoying and harder to avoid, but people complained less. I really dont get it. This game gives you all the tools you need to avoid getting killed, but people refuse to use them and just complain that, in a game where the only real means of interaction is weapons, people shot at them. Its crazy.

For reference, i have been playing for 4 years, have literally never interdicted a player (so im not trying to defend a ganker playstyle) and have died to players 5 times in total, the only one of those in the last year because i was AFK.
Full approval.
The disbalance between the modes concerning output is the problem. It is true, surviving open is easy IF players know what to do... And are willing to do it. Nevertheless, a gankproof trader at a CG in open will not be able to compete with other traders in solo that fly their shield less T-9.
 
Full approval.
The disbalance between the modes concerning output is the problem. It is true, surviving open is easy IF players know what to do... And are willing to do it. Nevertheless, a gankproof trader at a CG in open will not be able to compete with other traders in solo that fly their shield less T-9.
Amen!

Imagine how much of a hearth attack solo'ers would have if they knew I play a shieldless T9...in open!

rofl!
 
Back
Top Bottom