Of course we can. It is a G A M E. You know, there is a very simple solution to your perceived problem - don't play in that hypothetical, and oh so immersion breaking Open PVE mode, like, ever. No-one is forcing you to.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Of course we can. It is a G A M E. You know, there is a very simple solution to your perceived problem - don't play in that hypothetical, and oh so immersion breaking Open PVE mode, like, ever. No-one is forcing you to.
INB4 And no one's "forcing" you to play in Open currently.... as a response...
to which the "de facto PvP" rule currently applies.
As I've said before, we've all heard this song and dance before in Hotel California.
I disagree.
If I play a single session for two hours and in that time I see multiple CMDRs, regardless of their location in time and space (IE: where and when I saw them in game) or how many systems I see them in or do not see them in, do you agree that I always see other players when I play?
Or does the fact that I entered a system, or two or 5 or 10 systems during that single play session, where there were no other CMDRs count as "hardly" even though I also saw at least 5 other CMDRs in other systems during that single play session?
My statement:
If I see other CMDRs in every single session I play, I do not count that as hardly.
If I play a single 2 hours session every day for two weeks (14 sessions), and over that time in 7 sessions I do NOT see other CMDRs but in the other 7 sessions I do see other CMDRs, then that counts as hardly.
Edit - actually, never mind.
Im getting dizzy.
Im getting dizzy.
As intended. In German language I would say :" Ich übertreibe um zu verdeutlichen". Don't know how to say that in English, I am sorry.
"Exaggeration to clarify or enhance", I believe.
'Im exaggerating for effect' if my barely remembered german serves me.
This really is a fine point to consider...
You'd like to influence outcomes of the environment based on your personal involvement. Yes?
IMO, an Open PvE mode should not be able to influence the outcome of an Open PvP mode. But that's my personal opinion, and where it differs from others is that a lot of people will then refer to the game's BGS and ability to openly influence the BGS based on their personal choice of mode, which "should be allowed".
If I had my way, I'd split them completely- but that's not an opinion shared by most others. Completely separate BGS that's determined by the actions of players in each one of the respective modes. Let people have what they want in each one, and see where it goes from there. Why should someone in PvP mode care what PvE players are doing, and vice versa.
Ok. Perhaps you let me know what point you think i was trying to make, in the context of the discussion.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
Sharing wing missions can also be a handy way to drop cash (and carriers make it straightforward too).
And this, i completely agree with and would have zero arguments against.
It doesnt appear to be a majority opinion among proponents of this idea.
@Cosmic_Debris: That is pretty much how I was going to answer your question, before you withdrew it. 2 BGS, you can create a character in each one and then stick with it. You can freely switch characters, but no crossover.
Because I personally understand the difference between competitive and cooperative thinking. I've participated in both, at times throughout many years of gaming.
The idea the two can be "married" and live happily forever together is asinine. They're mutually exclusive and at cross-purposes.
The idea that one's participation can/may influence the outcome in their universe is a SOLID one. It's one of the driving motivations and factors for anyone who plays the game- and PvP players wish the ability to control and influence such based on ANY means, including the ability to prevent other players from doing the same. PvE players, OTOH, don't wish for that same ability- they're not playing against other players. They want to be able to manipulate the environment around them, not the players.
IMO - those who oppose the idea aren't "PvE players", they're PvP players masquerading as PvE players.
This is what WoW made abolish PvP servers in favor of consensual world pvp (known as war mode) as those servers over time became one-sided or entirely deserted.
Open PvP is abused by gankers and griefers. Non-con PvP is thus an unwanted element, especially so for casuals or players with limited play time.
This is because of the 2 race nature of WoW.
You would not get the same effect, at least not necessarily, in a 'free for all' game like this. I played quite a lot of different MMOs, and its a pattern thats easily seen. A 2 race dichotomy (Wow, Warhammer online, Aion) tends to lead to servers tipping one way eventually, and then snowballing as players on a losing side leave. Free for all or more than two races (Age of Conan, RF Online as examples) tended to not suffer the same issue.
No, it isn't - because modes are designed to equally affect the Galaxy.
There is no debate that currently the most effective way of doing it is:
- in a PG - all the benefits of multiplayer with the same level of danger as solo
- Next would be Open - all the benefits of multiplayer, but with (supposedly) added danger. Supposedly because bgs does also happen in backwaters with no other traffic and block function can be a thing
- and the last and hardest way is Solo. A soloer will exert a minimal influence compared to the benefits added by multiplayer. Sure the soloer will have the benefit of minimal danger and no interference from other players
So Why an open-pve be different?
IMO the normal PG will still be the most effective way to influence the galaxy for the people that are making the bgs their main activity.
Simply because too many people in the same place will NOT increase productivity.
The BGS being affected by all modes doesn't bother me tbh.
It's a popularity contest where the PvP isn't an effective way of increasing influence.
I would like a meta system on top though (perhaps a re-imagined Powerplay) where, amongst PvE actions - PvP activities"count".
This could be in conflict zones or wars - or even CG like activities where blockades or smuggling needs to happen.
Meaningful PvP in essence.
It's a popularity contest where the PvP isn't an effective way of increasing influence.
I would like a meta system on top though (perhaps a re-imagined Powerplay) where, amongst PvE actions - PvP activities"count".
This could be in conflict zones or wars - or even CG like activities where blockades or smuggling needs to happen.
Meaningful PvP in essence.
I wouldn't mind seeing that for the amusement factor, but be careful what you wish for. This way, you'd end up with Open-PvE with a busy BGS, its population causing it to be regarded as "the real galaxy", and Open with a few PvP players, moribund BGS and drifts of tumbleweed.
You'd do better to insist on everyone playing in one galaxy as now.
Did many gankers clog on you? Honestly, I doubt that, lmao.
Since the only way to git gud is to fight vs better players, people who always pick easy targets have never done the gitgud thing themselves. Which means they are still crap. This tells a lot about their 'victims' tbh, if they cannot even defend themselves against low tier attackers.
Noobboats in Shin? Since when can noobs infiltrate that system? By the time you get the permit you'll have had all the time in the world to git gud, so you won't be a noob anymore.
Not really, I, for one, would always pull an FDL sooner than a Cutter or a wretched DBX.
The reason is simple: most of those 'bad guys' spend most of their ingame time trying to git gud (fighting one another, doing organized wingfights) instead of wasting their time on stupid and pointless crusades to "defend the weak" (a great deal of whom are not even in need of being defended in the first place while most of the rest don't even deserve it).Weird that most of the time the bad guys are actually better than the good guys which apparently are not that good
I know fully well what the outcome would be. Which is why I advocate for it.
Indeed Open PvP would likely turn into a wasteland where few would participate- but the outcome of such would be the outcome they've CHOSEN to participate in, based on the dangers they've accepted with the choice of mode.
But to them, those on top would have earned the right to be there through their mutual acceptance of the dangers they've agreed upon.
Why should PvE players then care if they're "looked down upon" by others? They're getting what they want, which is mutual cooperation.