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

[ethelred]

"Hey gitgud carebear" would those people say...

Nah, we'd say "this is how to survive in Open, if you want. If you don't that's cool"

There's resistance to a PvE group for the following reasons (in order of validity IMHO):-

1. Dev time spent creating, testing and implenting it vs time spent dealing with actual bugs and developing gameplay (yes I'm flogging the piracy, BH, smuggling horse again)

Mitigated by removing the cap on PvE groups like Mobius (to give parity to those PvE inclined), yes as @Robert Maynard says there is an implicit trust factor as actual PvP damage isn't removed entirely, therefore better admin tools, or dare I dream for actual moderated FD Support (=yes I am). I'm no software developer so I'm not sure whether the reason this doesn't exist is trivial or not. Surprising it hasn't been done already tbh.

2. "BUT DOSE CARB3ARS EFFECT MAI BGS/PP/OTHER!!!!1111one!!"

Monumental mis-understanding of how the BGS, instancing and PP (in it's current implementation) works. Can be easily disregarded as the ravings of a loon.

That's it I think.

edit:- and what @Bigmaec said.

 

[Morbad]

What I'd really like to know is what players currently in Open have to lose if PvE players actually get Open PvE, considering those players already don't play in Open as it is.

Nothing, unless it causes the mode that more resembles, or improves upon, the current Open to be labeled in a misleading fashion.

I think the addition of a mode that is like the Open we have now, but where block is chat only, would be great (I have about four-hundred people I'd block if this were the case). It would also be the only mode I ever played in. However, I don't want it called Open (PvP), or some other suggestive misnomer, because neither I, nor most other people playing in it, would be actively looking for combat encounters the majority of the time.

It's already occasionally tedious to have to shoot down novice 1v1-me-Bros who think the only reason my CMDR is in Open is for them to test their latest meme build against.

Why are they so opposed to a mode that they wouldn't play anyway, and they're not "losing" anything they haven't already lost? Seems to be an awful lot of opposition to something that doesn't change their chosen mode in any way.

I'm not sure there is much actual opposition, just a feeling of redundancy/lack of necessity.

 

[Robert Maynard]

2. "BUT DOSE CARB3ARS EFFECT MAI BGS/PP/OTHER!!!!1111one!!"

Monumental mis-understanding of how the BGS, instancing and PP (in it's current implementation) works. Can be easily disregarded as the ravings of a loon.

Point 2 would not be a new complaint if an Open-PvE game mode were to exist. Some players have been complaining along the lines of Point 2 for years, forgetting or ignoring that they bought game on the same terms as every other player, i.e. the BGS, Powerplay, etc. don't belong to them "more" just because they play in Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm not really against an open PvE mode, but I am against "magical" no damage/no collision cop-outs.

No-one who did not want to play in it would need to do so.

Also I am afraid everyone will use PvE mode, so only some people will be left in "open".

Which might suggest that a not insignificant number of players who currently play in Open only do so because it has an unlimited population and do so as a compromise between their desire to meet others against their desire not to engage (or be engaged) in PvP.

This will lead to "open" being even more aggressive, and more dangerous,

If those who choose to prey on other players had fewer targets then that might indeed be the outcome - in a tiny percentage of the systems in Open, as now.

while the mode where everyone is in has no danger whatsoever left.

No less dangerous than Open when no other players are in the instance - which is to say "at the level of danger Frontier set for the PvE experience in this game" which already exists in the vast majority of Open and Private Groups and all of Solo.

And while I like the occasional thrill of being attacked, I don't want to have a guarantee of it.
And neither do I want no risk at all. So my personal playstyle will suffer, even if I won't attack anybody.

Understood.

 

[Morbad]

No less dangerous than Open when no other players are in the instance - which is to say "at the level of danger Frontier set for the PvE experience in this game" which already exists in the vast majority of Open and Private Groups and all of Solo.

It's the vague potential for some kind of risk that keeps me in Open. Having to account for that potential acts as a constraint, and constraints enable gameplay.

My CMDR has mostly been doing surface/foot related stuff near the fringes of inhabited space, and there are only two other CMDRs in his log for the last month, neither of which had any meaningful contact with my CMDR. However, that anyone, of any disposition, could drop in, forces my character to account for worst case scenarios. This is what I'm after; contextual uncertainties, whose potential negative outcomes can be hedged against via contextual gameplay.

If I was playing in Solo, my experience in the last month wouldn't have been any different, but I would know with certainty that there was no risk, and that would destroy any entertainment value.

So yes, other modes are less dangerous, because I cannot be sure that Open is entirely safe.

Of course, 'danger' is relative, and, over the course of the game and my CMDR's life, has gone from an exhilarating chance for catastrophe, to the barest possibility of momentary inconvenience, but it's at least something.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I'm not really against an open PvE mode, but I am against "magical" no damage/no collision cop-outs.
Also I am afraid everyone will use PvE mode, so only some people will be left in "open".
This will lead to "open" being even more aggressive, and more dangerous,
while the mode where everyone is in has no danger whatsoever left.

And while I like the occasional thrill of being attacked, I don't want to have a guarantee of it.
And neither do I want no risk at all. So my personal playstyle will suffer, even if I won't attack anybody.

This may not happen overnight. But a bunch will initially switch out of open to open-PvE, making open slightly emptier and more aggressive. This will nudge further players to switch, which will make open a little more empty and aggressive. Which will nudge more players to switch, which will.... In addition, my being in normal open mode will be taken as an indicator that I'm there for PvP only, not the catch-all possibilities of a true anything-goes open. And the game will quickly resemble every other disappointing multiplayer implementation where you're forced to make a choice between two unsatisfactory options. Let's be clear, open-PvE (and PvP flagging for other reasons) are not harmless improvements of the game for everybody, it's people advocating for something that pleases them at the expense of others.

Wait until Robert sees this thread, he'll come down like a ton of bricks on people arguing the game should be changed from the one we all bought to the detriment of some players over others. Right? Locking them out of the features (truly organic open mode that I bought the game for) they enjoy? Not something minor like "locking" solo players out of powerplay (which most people avoid like the plague anyway, and which would still be entirely possible, indeed easy for those players to engage in).

 

[TiberiusDuval]

This may not happen overnight. But a bunch will initially switch out of open to open-PvE, making open slightly emptier and more aggressive. This will nudge further players to switch, which will make open a little more empty and aggressive. Which will nudge more players to switch, which will.... In addition, my being in normal open mode will be taken as an indicator that I'm there for PvP only, not the catch-all possibilities of a true anything-goes open. And the game will quickly resemble every other disappointing multiplayer implementation where you're forced to make a choice between two unsatisfactory options. Let's be clear, open-PvE (and PvP flagging for other reasons) are not harmless improvements of the game for everybody, it's people advocating for something that pleases them at the expense of others.

Wait until Robert sees this thread, he'll come down like a ton of bricks on people arguing the game should be changed from the one we all bought to the detriment of some players over others. Right? Locking them out of the features (truly organic open mode that I bought the game for) they enjoy? Not something minor like "locking" solo players out of powerplay (which most people avoid like the plague anyway, and which would still be entirely possible, indeed easy for those players to engage in).

So basically it distills down to Open will be shark tank, and no easy targets available.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Of course, 'danger' is relative, and, over the course of the game and my CMDR's life, has gone from an exhilarating chance for catastrophe, to the barest possibility of momentary inconvenience, but it's at least something.

There are still high stakes available, e.g. carrying large amounts of exploration data, or 10,000s of powerplay undermining merits (which is incentivised by the stealth that not dropping them yet gives), which represent many hours of gameplay, that particularly in the latter case, cannot simply be repeated for the same effect (opportunity as well as time is lost).

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

It's the vague potential for some kind of risk that keeps me in Open. Having to account for that potential acts as a constraint, and constraints enable gameplay.

My CMDR has mostly been doing surface/foot related stuff near the fringes of inhabited space, and there are only two other CMDRs in his log for the last month, neither of which had any meaningful contact with my CMDR. However, that anyone, of any disposition, could drop in, forces my character to account for worst case scenarios. This is what I'm after; contextual uncertainties, whose potential negative outcomes can be hedged against via contextual gameplay.

If I was playing in Solo, my experience in the last month wouldn't have been any different, but I would know with certainty that there was no risk, and that would destroy any entertainment value.

So yes, other modes are less dangerous, because I cannot be sure that Open is entirely safe.

Of course, 'danger' is relative, and, over the course of the game and my CMDR's life, has gone from an exhilarating chance for catastrophe, to the barest possibility of momentary inconvenience, but it's at least something.

The only thing that ED's "danger" enables is the grind for more powercreep.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

So basically it distills down to Open will be shark tank, and no easy targets available.

What is that statement supposed to support or be relevant to sorry? And please keep it in the context of my input to the thread, if you are able. All I can get from this is that you think that the non-PvE open mode would not be attractive to use. What is your argument to FDev that this is a benefit?

 

[Cosmik_Debris]

Yes, with limited time to play, idiots attempting to shoot me while I am busy for no reason at all other than that i am a person rathern than an NPC just stall my gaming time. To be competitive at PvP requires to much grinding and specialist ships I have no interest in using, make PvP optional and i would be straight back into open play.

I should add, I have been a member of Mobius almost since it started, it's not perfect but it's the best of a bad job, always nice to see other commanders flying in game.

I see a lot of comments like this and i read it as trying to fight. 'Winning' a fight as the interdictee is escaping. Not killing the interdictor, thats a very tall order for a ship not designed for combat, most of the time. Escaping is easy, though, if you build for it at all.

If NPCs had actual teeth and were dangerous and not completely ignorable, i think the 'issue' with players ganking would be a non issue for everyone, as youd have to learn simple survival tactics in order to even play the game, even in solo. I think the main problem is the NPCs are far far too easy and useless, so it trains people to think that there is no need for defences unless you are building for combat. Then they get instagibbed by players and think the players are the problem.

Edit: Also the disparity between player interdictions and NPCs ones is jarring as hell. Beating the interdiction vs the NPC is effectively guaranteed unless you are in a real barge of a ship and they are in a real nippy one, but total reversal if its a player doing it. Either beating the NPC interdiction should be very hard, or it should be at least possible to beat a player interdiction. As it is, never try to fight a player interdiction, immediately submit.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Well lets think, for non-PVP'er current open offers one advantage, and that is unlimited membership. And big disadvantage: Possible forced PVP. Now make a mode where there is unlimited membership and no pvp and yes quite many PVE people would leave current Open.
And now we get to second point, certain PVP gameplay styles are essentially parasitic in nature, and need steady supply of non-PVPers. Aka easy targets. That would ruin gameplay of say gankers as they only can gank other gankers or other PVPers, who might be somewhat trickier as targets. Is that good or bad, well that depends on individuals viewpoint. I would consider it good, but others may disagree.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I'm just popping in briefly by the way since the obvious counter-arguments seem to get buried every few pages with people then asking "sorry why is this not just an obvious good solution again?". Can't do any harm to remind.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Wait until Robert sees this thread, he'll come down like a ton of bricks on people arguing the game should be changed from the one we all bought to the detriment of some players over others. Right?

The proposed change would take nothing that was guaranteed away, i.e. players don't need to play with anyone to play this game even though some players play-style preference requires other players.

Locking them out of the features (truly organic open mode that I bought the game for) they enjoy? Not something minor like "locking" solo players out of powerplay (which most people avoid like the plague anyway, and which would still be entirely possible, indeed easy for those players to engage in).

A "truly organic open mode" has never existed - as no-one needs to play in it. Mode shared game features, on the other hand, are part of the game that everyone bought.

 

[galahad2069]

Point 2 would not be a new complaint if an Open-PvE game mode were to exist. Some players have been complaining along the lines of Point 2 for years, forgetting or ignoring that they bought game on the same terms as every other player, i.e. the BGS, Powerplay, etc. don't belong to them "more" just because they play in Open.

We also bought a game in which blocking was not supposed to mess with instancing. You said it was just that they "improved" that later. Well okay, then they could just improve PP/BGS as well following the exact same logic.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Well lets think, for non-PVP'er current open offers one advantage, and that is unlimited membership. And big disadvantage: Possible forced PVP. Now make a mode where there is unlimited membership and no pvp and yes quite many PVE people would leave current Open.
And now we get to second point, certain PVP gameplay styles are essentially parasitic in nature, and need steady supply of non-PVPers. Aka easy targets. That would ruin gameplay of say gankers as they only can gank other gankers or other PVPers, who might be somewhat trickier as targets. Is that good or bad, well that depends on individuals viewpoint. I would consider it good, but others may disagree.

Good for you, bad for me. You struggle to cast me into any of your stereotypes though, I don't see myself (or any of the other line of players arguing against you for that matter) reflected in any of your oversimplifications of the player base. It doesn't feel worth arguing with you. Sorry!

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I see a lot of comments like this and i read it as trying to fight. 'Winning' a fight as the interdictee is escaping. Not killing the interdictor, thats a very tall order for a ship not designed for combat, most of the time. Escaping is easy, though, if you build for it at all.

If NPCs had actual teeth and were dangerous and not completely ignorable, i think the 'issue' with players ganking would be a non issue for everyone, as youd have to learn simple survival tactics in order to even play the game, even in solo. I think the main problem is the NPCs are far far too easy and useless, so it trains people to think that there is no need for defences unless you are building for combat. Then they get instagibbed by players and think the players are the problem.

NPC's are what they are because most people do not like losing. Have really murderous NPC's and many people would get frustrated and leave the game, causin loss of income for Fdev. It is not anymore 80's or 90's where you could make a game with really sadistic difficulty, as people would play them nevertheless.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The proposed change would take nothing that was guaranteed away, i.e. players don't need to play with anyone to play this game even though some players play-style preference requires other players.

A "truly organic open mode" has never existed - as no-one needs to play in it. Mode shared game features, on the other hand, are part of the game that everyone bought.

Good hair splitting Robert, ever stalwart.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We also bought a game in which blocking was not supposed to mess with instancing. You said it was just that they "improved" that later. Well okay, then they could just improve PP/BGS as well following the exact same logic.

Where was it stated that blocking would not affect instancing? The whole idea is to allow players to decide to add CMDRs to a list of those that they won't instance with....

 

[Robert Maynard]

Good hair splitting Robert, ever stalwart.

No such finesse required....