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

Engineering doesn't perhaps need to become more accessible, but does need to be something more than a glorified fetch quest.

Good game design ought to give players more agency and challenge - therefore giving more appreciation of the goal, rather than asking them to sit outside a station for an indeterminate amount of time scanning wakes.
 
Hyuck, hyuck.

I don't know where the "moaning" is but if you can't gather the context of the entire post, perhaps you need to attend the Derek Zoolander school for kids who can't read good.

Don't mis-genre things then have a go at someone because they pointed out you're talking crap.

Also, speaking as a dyslexic; telling someone to "learn to read better" is really unclassy. Just saying.
 
Also, speaking as a dyslexic; telling someone to "learn to read better" is really unclassy. Just saying.
Apparently you didn't read the entire post, because what I wrote was quoted without the added context. But if you had read the post, you'd know that.

So yeah, "having a go", hmm....
 
the point is create new "only pve open" mode for solo players)) old open mode will not change
You could have both modes and watch PvP mode bleed dry over time or just go with PvP flag and dedicated PvP zones in an overall PvE mode and not worry about parttioning the player base and maintaining a non-sustainable mode.
 
It's early, i've had half a coffee, so this is my take on the 'solo or open' issue; and to be clear this is not just about ED, but ALL computer games that do MP.

The problem has always been (going all the way back to MUD in the 1980's) a 'cultural' issue in relation to the empowerment of 'anti-social' behaviours, the rewards and encouragement of them and the style of game design that developed around that.

Now if your game is fully setup to be a pure competitive darwinian fight, that is a perfect vessel for such MP gaming, everyone is on the same page and knows what is expected of them and what to expect. These are historically games i've always found a bit boring as they are generally shallow by design because the rules are simple, kill or be killed. Fun for many people though as MP FPS games can become big financial hits.

The problem for ED (from the outset) is it tried to allow that MP'rs could also be decent civilised and culturally mature individuals capable of showing restraint and able to 'role play' their place in the ED world and build that worlds narrative. I think in hindsight we could say that was naive thinking. The DNA and history of MP gaming has seen generations (now) of people born and raised on a different type of MP game, and that has nurtured a 'type' of MP'r gamer that has zero interest in any of that restraint or world building, they just want to gank for the Lolz.

It is possible to design rules into the game to force them into the preferred behaviours (and ED has some of that), but this type of MP'r has so many choices to turn to if you drive them away too hard, so it is a difficult nut to crack. You are talking about needing to change the learned culture of the majority of MP'r gamer's, and heck there will be a large number that don't want that.

So in the face of that near impossible problem to fix, it has been my perceived wisdom going on 30 odd years now, that except for light distraction gaming (in a game i care little about, or wish to not invest too much in), i keep away for MP games. Elite has always been a game i cared about, and so far in ED (just a few noobs days worth mind you!) i still care, so i play Solo.

EDIT:

Now to address the OP's suggestion, to 'turn off' PvP mechanics in Open, keep in mind in the game we fly spaceships that get damaged and cause damage when we fly into things, we also have lasers and missiles.......so yeah. You don't want to break the internal logic of the game (too much).

You could have laws and enforcement of laws (as we do in real life). You could make a pirate player really feel the sweat on the back of their necks each time they tried to enter a system with any kind of law enforcement, you could enforce massive financial penalties, ship impounding's etc for all manner of crimes. You could in effect have a strong and robust crime and punishment system that would aid both the MP (antisocial gaming side) and game world building, but you would also expect prams to be pushed over and lots of doll throwing. The question becomes would the MP gamers want to play in a game where they have to face up to their in-game choices?
 
Last edited:
It's early, i've had half a coffee, so this is my take on the 'solo or open' issue; and to be clear this is not just about ED, but ALL computer games that do MP.

The problem has always been (going all the way back to MUD in the 1980's) a 'cultural' issue in relation to the empowerment of 'anti-social' behaviours, the rewards and encouragement of them and the style of game design that developed around that.

Now if your game is fully setup to be a pure competitive darwinian fight, that is a perfect vessel for such MP gaming, everyone is on the same page and knows what is expected of them and what to expect. These are historically games i've always found a bit boring as they are generally shallow by design because the rules are simple, kill or be killed. Fun for many people though as MP FPS games can become big financial hits.

The problem for ED (from the outset) is it tried to allow that MP'rs could also be decent civilised and culturally mature individuals capable of showing restraint and able to 'role play' their place in the ED world and build that worlds narrative. I think in hindsight we could say that was naive thinking. The DNA and history of MP gaming has seen generations (now) of people born and raised on a different type of MP game, and that has nurtured a 'type' of MP'r gamer that has zero interest in any of that restraint or world building, they just want to gank for the Lolz.

It is possible to design rules into the game to force them into the preferred behaviours (and ED has some of that), but this type of MP'r has so many choices to turn to if you drive them away too hard, so it is a difficult nut to crack. You are talking about needing to change the learned culture of the majority of MP'r gamer's, and heck there will be a large number that don't want that.

So in the face of that near impossible problem to fix, it has been my perceived wisdom going on 30 odd years now, that except for light distraction gaming (in a game i care little about, or wish to not invest too much in), i keep away for MP games. Elite has always been a game i cared about, and so far in ED (just a few noobs days worth mind you!) i still care, so i play Solo.
You don't need to "educate" PvP audience to better behaviour if you really want them in your game. A PvE mode that allows PvP in certain situations (flag, zones, events) allows for all playstyles. If that doesn't keep the griefers then good riddance. They are detrimental to the overall MP experience anyway.
 
You could have both modes and watch PvP mode bleed dry over time or just go with PvP flag and dedicated PvP zones in an overall PvE mode and not worry about parttioning the player base and maintaining a non-sustainable mode.

We have seen this in Warframe over the last 8 years. They have the same mode system there, but open mode is PvE only. You have to choose to play PvP, and it died a death. The Devs have tried all sorts to encourage people to play, but people just want to chill and beat on AI and not have all the nonsense that goes with PvP.

The same goes for Star Trek Online, their PvP queues are nowhere near as busy as they used to be. The PvE queues are normally okay, I don't have to wait long for a match there. They ended up having to allow the factions to mix to get people into PvP (helped with some PvE queues as well though), which as a Klingon player, watching two Federation ships beating on each other is rather amusing :D

Games that try to pander to both communities always fail to please either. Until such time they just pick a side and go with it.
 
We have seen this in Warframe over the last 8 years. They have the same mode system there, but open mode is PvE only. You have to choose to play PvP, and it died a death. The Devs have tried all sorts to encourage people to play, but people just want to chill and beat on AI and not have all the nonsense that goes with PvP.

The same goes for Star Trek Online, their PvP queues are nowhere near as busy as they used to be. The PvE queues are normally okay, I don't have to wait long for a match there. They ended up having to allow the factions to mix to get people into PvP (helped with some PvE queues as well though), which as a Klingon player, watching two Federation ships beating on each other is rather amusing :D

Games that try to pander to both communities always fail to please either. Until such time they just pick a side and go with it.
Yes, you get better mileage if you design your game for full PvP or exclusively PvE - because you don't need to make concessions. And people know what they're getting.
 
You could have both modes and watch PvP mode bleed dry over time or just go with PvP flag and dedicated PvP zones in an overall PvE mode and not worry about parttioning the player base and maintaining a non-sustainable mode.
And we'll have a stalemate for as long as Frontier's "official" stance remains thus...
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.

Either way, there's going to be a partition in the player base.

You don't need to "educate" PvP audience to better behaviour if you really want them in your game. A PvE mode that allows PvP in certain situations (flag, zones, events) allows for all playstyles. If that doesn't keep the griefers then good riddance. They are detrimental to the overall MP experience anyway.
While I agree with the sentiment, the question isn't whether or not to educate anyone else, but rather if Frontier would like the game to evolve or not.

I personally have no doubt that some will never evolve past "Alpha" stage.
 
We have seen this in Warframe over the last 8 years. They have the same mode system there, but open mode is PvE only. You have to choose to play PvP, and it died a death. The Devs have tried all sorts to encourage people to play, but people just want to chill and beat on AI and not have all the nonsense that goes with PvP.

The same goes for Star Trek Online, their PvP queues are nowhere near as busy as they used to be. The PvE queues are normally okay, I don't have to wait long for a match there. They ended up having to allow the factions to mix to get people into PvP (helped with some PvE queues as well though), which as a Klingon player, watching two Federation ships beating on each other is rather amusing :D

Games that try to pander to both communities always fail to please either. Until such time they just pick a side and go with it.
I agree.
The way I see it, FD have picked a side and gone with it. Just not very clearly or competently.
 
And we'll have a stalemate for as long as Frontier's "official" stance remains thus...


Either way, there's going to be a partition in the player base.


While I agree with the sentiment, the question isn't whether or not to educate anyone else, but rather if Frontier would like the game to evolve or not.

I personally have no doubt that some will never evolve past "Alpha" stage.
That was a shock; a Senior Community Manager not knowing where the name "Dangerous" comes from! I still have hope that there are some knowledgeable game designers in there somewhere who will eventually get around to looking at this whole issue though.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The way I see it, FD have picked a side and gone with it. Just not very clearly or competently.
While the design of the game suggests that a side has been picked, i.e. PvP is entirely optional in every game feature apart from CQC, Sandro stirred the player-base over Powerplay twice before he left the project which suggests that Frontier want there to be a feature (other than CQC) that is aimed at satisfying players looking for "meaningful PvP".

Then we have the Game Balance threads where Bruce opined that he is personally in favour of Open only Powerplay and BGS[1]- and linked to a proposal thread[2] where the effects of players not in Open engaging in the BGS & Powerplay would be made somewhere between worth less and worthless, depending on which of the proposals were to be adopted. I expect that that statement has resulted in a deluge of proposals in Bruce's inbox from PvP players / groups as to how the game could be made better for them with little or no regard given to those who would be adversely affected by the proposals.

Then there's the unfortunate parallel between the proposed reduction / removal of player effects on game features (in the event that one or more game features are PvP-biased/gated) with one of the punishments meted out to players who actually break Frontier's rules.

It'll be interesting to see how much of the game, currently shared by all players regardless of game platform or game mode, might be PvP-biased/gated to Open in an attempt to satisfy players seeking "meaningful PvP" - and what effect that might have on both PvP and PvE player numbers over time.


[1] https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/game-balancing.558895/post-8804172
[2] https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/game-balancing-pt-3.560418/post-8839371
 
Last edited:
Then we have the first Game Balance thread where Bruce opined that he is personally in favour of Open only Powerplay and BGS - and linked to a proposal thread where the effects of players not in Open engaging in the BGS & Powerplay would be made somewhere between worth less and worthless, depending on which of the proposals were to be adopted.

Sandro Mk2 then?
 
It'll be interesting to see how much of the game, currently shared by all players regardless of game platform or game mode, might be PvP-biased/gated to Open in an attempt to satisfy players seeking "meaningful PvP" - and what effect that might have on both PvP and PvE player numbers over time.
The irony here is that such "meaningful" gameplay will never exist as long as the ability to FFA is present.

There are no "rules" to murder- murderers don't play by "rules".

As such, it could be logically argued that it's not a "play style", because "playing" means there's an agreement of rules.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom