Still amazed how that backfiredThe Distant Ganks II leaderboard post gave players so inclined a decent starting point....
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
I concede there might be people who "role play evil" in online game while being saints in real life but I have to wonder: what drives a person to be an A-hole in a multi player game? Why are you more important that everyone else in the game? Can you really not see how your behaviour in game might have an emotional effect on some people? Or do you just not care?
Insult me all you like I honestly could not care less about your opinion.
I tried to show the mirror view to this earlier.
By the same logic we could claim that anyone who doesn't play in Open is a Timid Mouse, who abhors challenge and gives up at the slightest challenge.
That sounds pretty stupid, no?
I get that aggressive in game actions aren't for you, but you're massively overthinking it!
A way it can work is this:-
All CMDRs in open have elected to play in that mode. By doing so they agree to that game world's rules, as dictated by FDEV, meaning that PvP is allowed. That's all the justification that is needed, really.
With that consent granted by mode choice, there isn't a basis for a moral judgement so long as the rules are followed.
With that mode choice, if you rail against an unfavorable outcome, that is on you as the rules have been followed and it's always a natural consequence of choosing open.
This does not apply to those who join a PG (as did and has happened) as they are in direct violation of the rules of that group by engaging in PvP, but that is different to what happens in Open.
That's not to say we shouldn't and can't advocate for change to how these rules are implemented (in Open), but value judgements about other CMDR actions are just subjective blathering.
Deleted member 110222
D
Nor I care about your opinion of me.
Now, about that bit about people having an emotional reaction.
I have been in and out of therapy my entire life.
One thing has remained consistent with every therapist I have ever seen: My emotions are my responsibility.
Now, how does this relate to the game? Well, like it or not, I am playing the game in a perfectly legitimate manner. If someone has a bad emotional reaction to my perfectly valid choices, that is entirely their problem and I have no responsibility or obligation at all to consider it. For that, they should see a therapist, like I did.
If they really are struggling, then they need to stop playing video games as at that point they are clearly dealing with issues which an online gaming environment, especially one that features PvP, will only worsen.
Do not try to put other people's health in my lap as my responsibility. That is not how the world works.
So to be blunt: No, I don't care about their feelings. Not in the context of the gaming environment we are sharing.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Worth bringing up the next time a player complains that players can affect game features without playing in Open....
Deleted member 110222
D
Indeed. Good thing I am maturing, eh?
You too need to deal with the fact that people change for the better, because it sure sounds like you're trying to goad me based on my past behaviour over the years.
Rebuy is weakness leaving the bank account.
Not that this stops anyone from saying either regardless of the logic behind it XD
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Merely pointing out that the statements can be pointed at both "sides" of the discussion.
Deleted member 110222
D
Then I suggest we move on, before one of us says something we regret.
I won't be discussing this any further with you.
Oh, I wouldn't dream of holding you responsible for your behaviour. As you say that is not how the world works...
Imagine a world where everyone agrees with you and there are no dissenting opinions. There's always reddit!
The reason why I play in Solo has absolutely nothing to do with PvP in Open. The whole reason why Open exists IS PvP. So I find the OP's question to be nonsensical.I'm under the impression that a lot of people, including myself, prefer to play Solo mode all the time, not because we don't want to play with others, but simply because we don't want to PVP others.
For comparison, let me talk to you about of one of the worst launches in recent years, Fallout 76, which to the surprise of some has actually redeemed itself (at least to some extent), but owes it survival to its community, which stood during awful first year fo the game, but also a community that confused Bethesda because the devs were convinced their players wanted more PVP... and they were proven wrong, best depicted through many of the ironic headlines that gaming journalism used to deliver the "shocking" revelation:
Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other
Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other
Bethesda was surprised to learn that Fallout 76 players didn't care much for PvP, and how the game has evolved reflects that.www.forbes.com
Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'
Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'
"It's a smaller percentage of our player base than we thought."www.gamingbible.co.uk
Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP
Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP
Bethesda VP Pete Hines reveals that the company was surprised to find that players preferred to avoid PvP in Fallout 76 in favor of PvE.gamerant.com
Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP
Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP
We just want to be friends.www.pcgamer.com
Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don’t murder each other
Why is everyone being so nice?
Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don't murder each other
When Bethesda was designing Fallout 76, it expected players to murder each other, but it turns out they'd rather just work together.www.pcinvasion.com
Don't misunderstand: Fallout 76 do had (still has to a small degree) griefers and gankers, but the vast majority of players simply preferred not to engage in PVP.
Keeping things short, today many of the ways to engage into PVP have been disabled, pacifist mode is a menu option that makes it almost impossible to engage in PVP, and while the game's reputation will forever be tarnished by its launch, its actually in a better than many people expected (which can't be said for games like EA's Anthem, which already threw the towel and cancelled further development). It still is no substitute for a proper Fallout 5, but as a casual time waster with a Fallout theme: it's passable.
Back to Elite Dangerous, I think a lot more people would like to try playing in Open Play with random strangers in Elite if they had the choice to opt out from PVP, like having an aforementioned pacifist mode that disabled PVP interactions.
But that's just my impression, and I would like to hear what other thinks on this matter:
Do you think that Open Play would be negatively affected if PVP could be disabled?
Do you think Elite could benefit from having more people try to play & cooperate with others in Open Play?
Aaaaaanyway. About that open mode... wouldn't it be grand if it didn't have ganking? lol
Ok so you want to be a ganker. You're totally NOT like this in rl, of course you're not. You're kind to others and would never ruin anyone's day. Right.
How about this: you gank someone, cause them grief, send them to solo mode, or maybe rage quit the game entirely. This makes you happy as it fulfills your life.
The consequences of your actions would be as follows:
1. You pay for the victim's ship, whether they have enough insurance or not
2. You pay for the victim's ship cargo content
3. You pay for any mission money missed
4. You pay for whatever amount of exploration data they had in credits (won't replace Codex, of course)
5. You get a permanent record with ATR. They will hunt you across the galaxy, anywhere you go, any time you log on, until you're shot down.
6. When ATR shoots you down, you don't get to claim insurance. Similar to what would be IRL, you'd be found negligent as your loss was incurred during an illegal activity.
So no loss for the victim in case of ganking. You like this, right? I mean, you don't just gank to cause grief on others, and this would obviate loss.
Ok so you want to be a ganker. You're totally NOT like this in rl, of course you're not. You're kind to others and would never ruin anyone's day. Right.
How about this: you gank someone, cause them grief, send them to solo mode, or maybe rage quit the game entirely. This makes you happy as it fulfills your life.
The consequences of your actions would be as follows:
1. You pay for the victim's ship, whether they have enough insurance or not
2. You pay for the victim's ship cargo content
3. You pay for any mission money missed
4. You pay for whatever amount of exploration data they had in credits (won't replace Codex, of course)
5. You get a permanent record with ATR. They will hunt you across the galaxy, anywhere you go, any time you log on, until you're shot down.
6. When ATR shoots you down, you don't get to claim insurance. Similar to what would be IRL, you'd be found negligent as your loss was incurred during an illegal activity.
So no loss for the victim in case of ganking. You like this, right? I mean, you don't just gank to cause grief on others, and this would obviate loss.
Well I have that simple model: When ganker gets caught, jaws of trap slam nicely. With very consistent and irl like consequences. Okay every commander in game is insured by Bank of Zaonce, one of the biggest meanest megacorps in Elite's lore. Okay every customer needs to pay co-pay, but rest of your ship and its modules are insured. So basically insurance company is out of money by huge sum every time ganker blows up something expensive. Now lets think how real world insurance companies do in case criminal damage? Yup, they are going to claim it from culprit, to every last cent + interest. Thats what I propose, say our ganky ganker had little ganking spree and just destroyed 30 ships before getting sent to rebuy screen... say something 100 mils per ship. At rebuy screen "ok mr ganker, we have little bill for you, its 3 billion credits, due now. " That would make ganking pretty expensive hobby fast.
Other C&P stuff: Do ganky stuff on permit only system. Permit removed. Need to do permit grind again. In game rationalisation: Would say Federation really tolerate somebody doing murder spree on say Sol system for a long.
That insurance model could also be tinkered, like inhabited anarchy&lawless system, kills don't count there for a criminal, so you could gank free there. Steering those playstyles to places where it would be plausible to happen in game world.
i say no i am in a group and no pvp so i still Gert to talk to other pilots 0%PVP
The problem would be defining ganking as a game rule. I have a 1 billion credit Cutter I could bash up til the hull was at 1%, then I just ram you with my shields off.
The game isn't going to be able to detect who rammed who.
Would this encourage you to fly in Open? Most people I speak to say recompense after the fact does little to reduce the aggravation of player led destruction.
Exactly. Punishment of such behaviour does not make up for the time/effort lost that comes with ship destruction.