To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
![[DOOK] Droogie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/124/124078.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Visit any kind of busy place, like CG, where there can be quite the queue, expecially when you consider that the other part of the suggestion, to remove solo and private group.
Well, concession is the name of MP and you can't have everything. A griefer-free MP is far more valuable than individual sentiments of maybe-impaired immersion.
Two diametrically opposed viewpoints. No chance of a consensus between these two groups so I can see nothing changing as I believe that the vast majority of players hold one view and to change would drive many of them from the game. Which is most likely not what the company wants.
Last edited:
Today we have more options to deal with griefers, when compared to the suggestion about the PvP flag, as that suggestion also added that we should remove of solo and group mode,and also change the block function, to only affect chat.
which means, that you would have just about zero option to remove any unwanted players from your session. you cannot mode switch, you cannot block them. but they can still find ways to abuse the existing mechanics to ruin your play session. So I can abuse any game mechanics to grief you, we would not have any real options left to stop us from instancing together... so your only two options are suck it up and be misserbly or stop playing, and hope I am gone when you login next. So now FDev need to add soemthign like Game Masters, that can deal with abusive players, that drives costs. And what would those game master do in the end, warn players and in the end ban them? We have removed all the existing gamer mechanics to keeping players apart.
Compare to the options we have today to do this, you can change game mode, you can block them. so player have more control over how they experience this game. Now if I keep on griefing you, making your gaming experience bad, you can now remove me from your game play. And the one being unhappy is me, because my choosen playstyle is making alot of other players want to play with me, and if I do this long enough, the only other players I would play with, are players like me, but this would be a direct result on how I have choosen to play the game. OF course I will rant and demand changes so I can keep on griefing you, without your consent.
but it would not ber griefer free. I can still grief players. and now we have removed most options to deal with that. making it a worse experience.
You would be reported and removed soon. Like I said - the clever ones would need to be dealt with, but the bulk would be eliminated automatically.
It's an interesting situation. Two camps, but one has what it wants already and the other doesn't. Saying "let's all carry on playing how we like" only satisfies one side. Normally this would be an unstable situation, but here all the power lies with FD and neither camp can affect the situation; this and only this makes the unstable situation stable, without stopping the salt generation.
Well not exactly. We do not have that co-op PVE mode, but we do have solo-mode, efficient blocking, menu logging and so on. PVP players have only co-op mode without limits, but they do not have open only bgs, powerplay, community goals and so on. Basically each side has something, but on other some aspects are missing, and some are fully excluding other sides concerns.
What claims do you have that this works? how long would he victim have to wait? Do FDev even have 24/7 support active that can act on these kind of situations? Do they even have Game Masters or similar functions ingame to deal with this kind of stuff? All of this drives costs,
The claims of numerous MMOs where PvP flags and dedicated PvP zones worked flawlessly for every party.
sooo basically, you have nothing to suggest that it will actually work in Elite and how FDev is operating.
And am now veryu interresting to see the data for that Flawlessly working in other games, you said it, you prove it.
I'm done answering to arguments pulled from the rear.
Cool, at least you have somewhere to go now that you don't play (haven't been playing for years?) Elite anymore.
I will chime in over the subject to open world PVP here. FO76 is a coop survival game. Players inflicted 1/10th the damage against other players until the target player returns fire; then full damage ensues. This avoided accidental damage against other players, meanwhile, it provided the groundwork for consensual combat. There was more benefit from coop gameplay than benefits from PVP activities.
In comparison, Elite Dangerous is a coop and multiplayer game. Having an open world invites different types of player interactions: the ship v. ship PVP, on-foot v. on-foot PVP, player formed Teams (or Multi-Crew instancing), concourse visual interactions, and the list continues. These interactions build on the coop and multiplayer nature of the game.
I would be against completely removing PVP from the open server. However, gaming development does have its history where PVP activities does becomes problematic without limitations. Remember, Elite Dangerous has a massive expanse and size of space for players to roam, explore and conduct numerous types of activities. The likelihood of players running into another player is low; you'd almost have to be amassed in one subset of systems to repeatedly encounter the same players over and over. In either case, there should be some type of limitations to govern PVP activities to minimize seal clubbing, grief tactics or random ganks.
On that note, here would be my suggestions for Frontier to review:
These suggested rules leaves player owned ships to traverse the deep space in Supercruise freely. The <color> indicator on the Contact menu list would indicate when another player is nearby, whether they're in Supercruise or "real" space. On the surface, I feel this would limit when and where PVP activities begins and ends i.e. "real" space without disrupting Supercruise travel. The rule change on the interdictors still allows a player to commit piracy acts against NPC ships and the +5km range shift extends a piracy/blockade opportunity before their intended target reaches the station's 'no fire zone' i.e. possibly increasing the pirating ship risk from being too entangled by the local authorities, while the local authority begin launching response fighters and ships from the station.
However Frontier reads and receives the thread. I support limitations to PVP activities but do not support consensual PVP toggles. Those three suggestions would be fine without being too intrusive. Players who enjoy PVP activities would adapt and pick their "hunting grounds" more carefully without removing the surreal risk to having hostile PVP encounters from the game.
In comparison, Elite Dangerous is a coop and multiplayer game. Having an open world invites different types of player interactions: the ship v. ship PVP, on-foot v. on-foot PVP, player formed Teams (or Multi-Crew instancing), concourse visual interactions, and the list continues. These interactions build on the coop and multiplayer nature of the game.
I would be against completely removing PVP from the open server. However, gaming development does have its history where PVP activities does becomes problematic without limitations. Remember, Elite Dangerous has a massive expanse and size of space for players to roam, explore and conduct numerous types of activities. The likelihood of players running into another player is low; you'd almost have to be amassed in one subset of systems to repeatedly encounter the same players over and over. In either case, there should be some type of limitations to govern PVP activities to minimize seal clubbing, grief tactics or random ganks.
On that note, here would be my suggestions for Frontier to review:
- FSD Interdictors do not work on player owned ships.
- Player owned ships have a distinct <color> on the Contact menu list.
- Supercruise Assist drops ships +5km away from the destination location pin.
These suggested rules leaves player owned ships to traverse the deep space in Supercruise freely. The <color> indicator on the Contact menu list would indicate when another player is nearby, whether they're in Supercruise or "real" space. On the surface, I feel this would limit when and where PVP activities begins and ends i.e. "real" space without disrupting Supercruise travel. The rule change on the interdictors still allows a player to commit piracy acts against NPC ships and the +5km range shift extends a piracy/blockade opportunity before their intended target reaches the station's 'no fire zone' i.e. possibly increasing the pirating ship risk from being too entangled by the local authorities, while the local authority begin launching response fighters and ships from the station.
However Frontier reads and receives the thread. I support limitations to PVP activities but do not support consensual PVP toggles. Those three suggestions would be fine without being too intrusive. Players who enjoy PVP activities would adapt and pick their "hunting grounds" more carefully without removing the surreal risk to having hostile PVP encounters from the game.
Last edited:
The thing about systems made to eliminate griefers is that griefers can often use them to do their griefing.
Put together a little griefing team, go to a popular hazrez and try to constantly occupy the space between players and their targets. Get them to shoot you enough that it triggers their pvp flag. Flag up and go kill them. PvE flag defeated. Add in your little punitive "now you can't pve ever again" and someone's entire elite experience is permanently ruined. This is not a good design.
You have some good quick wins there. Going back to the PvP flag, it could just be "interdictors don't work on me". At a stroke, all the newbie ganking in Deciat would be ended, but PvP combat would still be possible for those who are ready for it.
Yes, griefers will always grief, but taking away some of their opportunities has to be good for the game.
I dig those three suggestions, but I do think a toggle would work for the interdictors. It has the same effect, but enables more PvP if desired. A blanket, "Interdictors don't work on player ships" will have a chilling effect I don't think is reasonable.
New players may learn the hard way about that toggle - like they do much of anything in the game - and that's not at all bad. They'll activate it if PvE-inclined (like myself) and probably not take it off, but others will leave it off or once comfortable with the game turn it off for the sake of opportunity. That said, a toggle presents the need for timers that further complicate the whole process.
(I love playing both sides, sorry)
Because a toggle can be abused. Rush in, do some PvP, then toggle so there can't be any reprisal. If we're only worried about ganking and criminal PvP, tie the toggle to notoriety and boom, you're done. If you have notoriety, the toggle is forced to stay off and you can be targeted, in-line with expectations. Lose notoriety and you can go 'safe' again for supercruise. All the other opportunities aforementioned remain as normal.
If we're worried about general abuse, the toggle needs a timer: either based on weapons fire against another player (a la EVE Online timers) or just from the toggle being thrown. If you turn it off, for example, it's got a 15min cooldown to be flipped back on. Or an hour. I dunno...like I said, it gets complicated when you have toggles. I'd still be pro-toggle for the original reasons listed rather than straight, "No interdicting player ships" but recognize it makes any change that much harder.
And changing anything relative to PvP is already hard enough in any game.
What claims would that be?
This is so true, it is tricy to make these kind of systems, as what might be obvious to you me to be griefing behviour is quite alot trickier to code. and if we need to rely on on human watching replay of encounters, then that costs money to staff these people, and that it could take days for FDEv to act on these reports.
And what some considers griefing is just normal gameplay to others.