Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which is a consequence of Frontier's determination to offer only one Open game mode to share between players of all play-style preferences.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
The difference is not about 'all game modes affect the same shared galaxy' but the inclusion or exclusion of the interaction between players. Hence, the solo game mode would be the easier choice.
From my gaming experience, I agree the concept behind blocking would be a precise method. Yet. I cannot help but foresee segregating accounts will cascade the problem into another animal.
Yes, 'blocking' would achieve separation.
Yes, 'blocking' would initiate list generation to avoid forced engagements in unwanted PVP interactions.
Yes, 'blocking' does let players have the choice of who to play with; I don't see this being different to the private server game mode that achieves the same ends: players to invite others to play together.
I already mentioned one real consequence that would not take long to spread amongst the ED community, and that's generating lists. Let's ride this thought out here and pretend 10% of the ED community are PVP players. Now using an arbitrary number of 100,000 active players would have a potential 'blocking' list of 10,000 accounts. Does Frontier 'blocking' list support over 10,000 blocked names?
The reason for the example, is that it's a real possibility and it's against players who enjoy PVP; not to mention the application of 'blocking' accounts for non-PVP related reasons. It is an elegant idea. I don't think it's a strong enough carrot to bring more people to play in open game mode.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Why should players be forced to play alone simply because some players aren't fun to play with?
Better to let each player decide who they want to play with and who they don't for themselves rather than having the choice to play among players they don't want to play with or play alone.
If PvPers are such a small minority of the player-base (and Frontier have, a while ago, indicated that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP), why should the game be changed for the other 90% of the player-base to suit the 10%?
Players who enjoy PvP bought the same game as everyone else - and, in that game, PvP is an optional extra that is not a required part of any mode shared game feature and those who enjoy PvP can't force those who don't to play with them, by design.
I suppose that we all want an enjoyable gaming experience and I also suppose that FDev did what they thought would be the best solution for all (and their profits of course). I hope that the amount of players who intentionally want to ruin others gameplay is low. We will not change anything here.
My squadron (a RP Logistic company) has a very high profitable Mining spot in an uninhabited system not far outside the bubble. We consider this spot as our own and keep it secret. One month ago we discovered a FC there and observed it. The owner was clearly mining at our spot. So we searched for him/her and tightend patrols around the system and the mining spot. At least I wrote him/her on INARA (luckily has a Profil there) and explained our ownership for the spot and offer some solutions from buying a mining license to apply for our Squadron etc. Of course I informed him that we role play and he should not be angry, some of the offered solutions did have great RP Potential and were beneficial for all of us. After some time he answered that he plays in solo, that he appreciate that RP but there is no way to hinder him because he will keep staying solo and depleting our spot.
Yeah. I know we has to accept that. It bothers me a bit but it is what the game allows him to do. I could only hope that he was willing to get into some RP and player interaction (what only were PvP in the uttermost last possibility to block him from mining). Nonetheless I would never advocate to get rid of solo or block because from my point of view the little downside we had in this is far outweighted by the security of other players from unpleasant PvP encounters.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Mining a resource confers no ownership over it, in the same way that affiliating a Squadron to a Faction confers no ownership over the Faction.
As I understand it mining does not deplete resouces in the long term (if it did then mapped mining would not work - but it does).
I could only speak for myself here, almost all games with an interactive feature that enables player v. player engagements share the common us v. them dilemma. I feel once the v. discussion begins than no one wins.
I am not opposed to 'blocking,' should it be the best solution. I have some reservations because, for me, the open game mode shouldn't cause me to run an active ledger on who I do/do not want to play with. Maybe include an option under Pilot Preferences that auto-subscribe player crimes against me on the block list; at least then, for my preferences where I'd rather relog or next time I login to update the block list and game mode.
Yes, technically it is so. And I am accepting that. Just some missed RP opportunities. My squadron even get in touch with the ruling PMF of the nearby inhabited systems to deal with them our mining rights for the spot in exchange for exclusively selling mined Ressources to them. This only works of course in our imagination because there are no in-game tools for that. Yes, I know that also a PMF do not own the mining rights for a spot in an adjacent system, not even in their own systems.
It was just an example how game mechanics does not fit for all playstyles and that compromises had to be accepted.
Last edited:
Ganking ... perfectly valid gameplay in a game with weapons.
Blocking ... perfectly valid response to ganking gameplay in a game with block.
Only criticise one if you're prepared to criticise the other (but don't expect your criticism to have any effect on others' choices).
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One cannot have one's cake and eat it (well, only briefly).
Blocking ... perfectly valid response to ganking gameplay in a game with block.
Only criticise one if you're prepared to criticise the other (but don't expect your criticism to have any effect on others' choices).
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One cannot have one's cake and eat it (well, only briefly).
No matter how many times you post this copypasta in every other thread, it's still not entirely true. In the game we bought it was only mode selection that made PvP an "optional extra" and only in the game as a whole, but not in Open mode in specific. Blocking as a tool to mess with instancing was only added later, and it still does not entirely make PvP an "optional extra" in Open.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - the mode shared galaxy and free choice of game mode for each game session made, and makes, other players (and therefore PvP) an entirely optional extra.
The block feature existed before launch although it was neither as easy to use nor as effective - both improved over time. Like Solo and Private Groups, the block feature permits each player to choose how many, or few, players to play among or to excise from their gameplay - on a per player basis in the case of the block feature.
Last edited:
Wouldn't probably need 10 000 long list, as pretty many of those would be anyways unviable for instancing. As far as we know game does some viability calculations, taking in account ping, network throughput and so on.
Nearly optional. Say player has policy to block anyone who uninvitedly drags him to PVP encounter. Ok that encounter may lead to destruction of players ship, or may not. Regardless player add attacker to blocklist. So another side had exactly one time possibility to impose PVP on said player. Run that loop enough of times and suddenly said player has removed most of viable active PVPers from his existence. Depending on player's own network connection that might happen in fact very fast.
And gankbaiting is a thing and can be done with least impact on one's own credits.
None of that has anything to do with the mechanisms being discussed. That there are other, unrelated, networking issues, neither explains, nor justifies, deliberately creating more.
Broadly speaking, we know how the game is and how the features work.
This thread and the related tangents and side-treks therein are premised on the idea that it could, and should, be better.
That's precisely why it's not only not optimal, but pretty much the polar opposite.
Players absolutely should not have the power to arbitrarily remove other players from their instances in an open world game, let alone from other people's instances, idk why it's so hard to see.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Of course - noting that what would constitute "better" rather depends on ones gameplay preferences - and we don't all want the same things.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the game was only an Open world game, I'd agree - however it's a game where other players are an optional extra - so being able to remove them from ones Open experience is functionally identical to playing in a different mode from them, i.e. one will not meet them.
It's a viability criteria when creating or joining instances. FDev minimizes TURN use. One example is when doing wings. If they can't instance together on their own, a TURN server will be used. But this isn't usually done with randoms as the required resources would only go up.
Perhaps certain players should not shoot anything that moves? Oh well but "thats my RIGHT, there is nothing in TOS against that"!!! Yeah, so it is. But at same time my RIGHT is to block you.
Last edited:
Other players are ONLY an optional extra in Solo/PG modes, we have already discussed it ad nauseam, still you keep spreading misinformation in your pretty moderator-coloured text boxes.