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

[TiberiusDuval]

Sure it is.
And I don't argue this is a reason to not implement a PvE mode.
Just something we will see, knowing parts of the community, if a PvE mode will happen.

Considering that stuff like that happens all ready, I agree. People DO cheat in this game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Depends. If its a random, yeah. If its one sent as part of a mission, no, not at all. I frequently get them following me from system to system, with multiple interdictions per system.

I had to alter my Odyssey small ship build, so its got a couple of gimballed frags instead of all dumbfires, just so i could blow up the annoying sods and stop them chain interdicting me.

Mission NPCs are more persistent - random NPCs not so much.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well they chose to make themselves known.

A case of "unintended consequences" relating to proudly publishing the Distant Ganks leaderboard....

 

[TobiasFuzz]

We all play the same game, and a game with no external challenges that i don't choose is boring as hell, in my opinion. Do you really just wanna space truck endlessly with no interruptions ever?

It is a huge different between outfitting a Type-9 for fighting npc pirates or escaping gankers.

A lot of players put some weapons on their T9, fighterbay, perhaps a class 6 or even 7 shieldgenerator, one or two module/hull reinforcements. Not only enough to easy escape, you also have a chance of winning in a fight.
That would be OK if it were the same for human hostile cmdr. And I suppose most space-truckers would be fine with it as it would not downgrade the cargos pace to much. But if you want to stand against humans... Not only outfitting compromises, no, you must invest in advance a ridiculous amount of time to get the stuff engineered.

 

[Bigmaec]

Well they chose to make themselves known.

A case of "unintended consequences" relating to proudly publishing the Distant Ganks leaderboard....

This is hypocrisy at it's finest, stating block had to be changed because of harrassment and then simply block everyone on a list without any harassment.
Harassment by the way meaning getting shot down once (in the case of DG) in a gamemode which allows getting shot down in a game which at that time clearly advertised it was within the rules.

But keep stating those alternate facts

 

[Cosmik_Debris]

Well why should everybody else make concessions on their builds, apart from combat players?

Running max cargo and shieldless should be risky.

If i was a pilot in the Elite universe and someone even suggested i run without a shield, id laugh in their face. My life is worth a lot more than a tiny bit more cargo space. But as it stands, in solo, say, there is actually no risk whatsoever.

Actually, forget it. I recently discovered that there are even massive threads on EVE forums (of all places) whining about ganking, and how it should be stamped out. Given the rep of that game, if people playing THAT are complaining, its absurd to think any game where PvP combat is possible will not have the same complaints.

 

[Morbad]

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).

Losing a large haul of exploration data that I was intent on using for BGS purposes would surely be an inconvenience, and it's enough of a risk that all of my CMDR's exploration vessels can boost and have armor, but it's not going to ruin my CMDR, or force him to get a mining 9-to-5 to get back to the minimum viable rebuy allotment he's comfortable with.

It's all part of the game and can't be seen as interrupting my gameplay.

That's how I see any potentially contextual hostility, but I can see how certain parts of the game aren't desirable for everyone, even if I think they are part of the game or not...which is why it's ultimately up to the game to decide what it is.

Most people using block or mode switching or whatever aren't doing so only to avoid encounters they don't see as contextual. Most people do not give one whit about contextuality and just want their way...which should obviously be incompatable with a multiplayer game.

I don't care for danger or unpredictability. If I did I could easily think of better ways to get those things. How about if I make myself a rule that any time I get "mauve adder" I either self-destruct or jump to a ramdom system after relogging. Would that make the game more exciting? No, I think we'd all agree it would be stupid. That's how I regard LOLz-attackers too. They're... not a game enhancement.

These 'LOLz-attackers' you're referring to must be almost mythically rare. I can count on my fingers how many times my CMDR, in ~7.5k hours of Open and over a thousand self-defense PvP encounters, has come across someone who clearly had no-contextual reason for engaging my CMDR, and the only reason I'm even sure of those is because they revealed blatantly OOC motivations in chat.

There are so many reason why someone would attack my CMDR specifically, and CMDRs in general, that assuming they're doing so for reasons that cannot be justified from an in-character perspective, is nuts to me.

Any CMDR, no matter what rank they are or what they are flying is a fundamentally greater potential threat than any NPC in this game has ever been. CMDR's always take precedence because one cannot be sure what their capabilities or motives are...their basic persistence and ability to communicate makes them vastly more powerful than the AI foes we have. The only way for that to change is to have actual PvE threats from NPCs with deeper capabilities, and/or obfuscate the other differences between CMDRs and NPCs.

If I see a hollow square in a CZ, or supercruise or wherever, I don't know if they are an observer, a decoy, a wing beacon for a gank squad, or just a bystander...and any of those possibilities is a lot more likely than encountering someone who couldn't conjure a plausible reason to attack my CMDR.

Anyway, the big difference between the mechanisms you mentioned for getting danger or unpredictability and the potential for encountering hostile CMDRs, are that the former aren't contextual and context is everything.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is hypocrisy at it's finest, stating block had to be changed because of harrassment and then simply block everyone on a list without any harassment.

Harassment by the way meaning getting shot down once (in the case of DG) in a gamemode which allows getting shot down in a game which at that time clearly advertised it was within the rules.

The list gave players who don't find being sucker-punched by players who offer no "fun" enjoyable something to work with, should they desire to pro-actively remove the CMDRs controlled by gankers from their game.

Within the rules does not mean "fun to play with" - and each player can decide for themself whether players who gleefully shoot down ships not outfitted for combat, after tagging along on an event not organised for them, would be fun to play with.

 

[Ettanin]

This is hypocrisy at it's finest, stating block had to be changed because of harrassment and then simply block everyone on a list without any harassment.
Harassment by the way meaning getting shot down once (in the case of DG) in a gamemode which allows getting shot down in a game which at that time clearly advertised it was within the rules.

But keep stating those alternate facts

Griefer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A griefer or bad faith player is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game (trolling), by using aspects of the game in unintended ways, such as destroying something another player made or built. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities.

Frontier Code of Conduct - Frontier Developments plc.

The Code of Conduct will apply to all users of Frontier Development's products and/or services and are designed to provide a friendly and welcoming atmosphere for all users.

www.frontier.co.uk

Harassment​

We do not tolerate harassment within our community or our games. This is defined as being insulting to any person via obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory comments. This also includes the prolonged, extensive, and/or malicious targeting of an individual or group of individuals through Frontier-owned platforms for the purposes of disruption or agitation.

DG2's specific purpose was to cause prolonged and extensive disruption, maliciously targeting explorers of DW2 (which is a specific group of individuals) by griefing them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Running max cargo and shieldless should be risky.

If i was a pilot in the Elite universe and someone even suggested i run without a shield, id laugh in their face. My life is worth a lot more than a tiny bit more cargo space. But as it stands, in solo, say, there is actually no risk whatsoever.

Actually, forget it. I recently discovered that there are even massive threads on EVE forums (of all places) whining about ganking, and how it should be stamped out. Given the rep of that game, if people playing THAT are complaining, its absurd to think any game where PvP combat is possible will not have the same complaints.

Indeed - some players like (or even just tolerate) PvP, some don't.

 

[Bigmaec]

Griefer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Frontier Code of Conduct - Frontier Developments plc.

The Code of Conduct will apply to all users of Frontier Development's products and/or services and are designed to provide a friendly and welcoming atmosphere for all users.

www.frontier.co.uk

DG2's specific purpose was to cause prolonged and extensive disruption, maliciously targeting explorers of DW2 (which is a specific group of individuals) by griefing them.

Your alternate interpretion

 

[TiberiusDuval]

This is hypocrisy at it's finest, stating block had to be changed because of harrassment and then simply block everyone on a list without any harassment.
Harassment by the way meaning getting shot down once (in the case of DG) in a gamemode which allows getting shot down in a game which at that time clearly advertised it was within the rules.

But keep stating those alternate facts

Shot down once, in the situation where getting shot down will not mean just little inconvenience and loss of minor credits. Yeah people will get pretty grumpy about that. Plus some people really wanted to ruin other players social gameplay. Pre-emptive blocking in that case was just sane thing to do.

 

[Bigmaec]

The list gave players who don't find being sucker-punched by players who offer no "fun" enjoyable something to work with, should they desire to pro-actively remove the CMDRs controlled by gankers from their game.

Within the rules does not mean "fun to play with" - and each player can decide for themself whether players who gleefully shoot down ships not outfitted for combat, after tagging along on an event not organised for them, would be fun to play with.

I took part in DW2 at the Explorers Anchorage part and led a wing of gankers away for some time, with an exploration capable gank-proof Phantom,
so I'd say the sucker-punching is on the gankee, not the ganker

 

[Robert Maynard]

I took part in DW2 at the Explorers Anchorage part and led a wing of gankers away for some time, with an exploration capable gank-proof Phantom,
so I'd say the sucker-punching is on the gankee, not the ganker

It depends on ones point of view, naturally.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Running max cargo and shieldless should be risky.

If i was a pilot in the Elite universe and someone even suggested i run without a shield, id laugh in their face. My life is worth a lot more than a tiny bit more cargo space. But as it stands, in solo, say, there is actually no risk whatsoever.

Actually, forget it. I recently discovered that there are even massive threads on EVE forums (of all places) whining about ganking, and how it should be stamped out. Given the rep of that game, if people playing THAT are complaining, its absurd to think any game where PvP combat is possible will not have the same complaints.

Well that risk part depends on your skills. Had an NPC encounter couple of days ago that would have sent shieldless ship to rebuy pretty fast. Met Anaconda, with ship launched fighter. Managed to get 20% of my Cutters rather hefty shields before I managed to destroy it. I'm not particularly good in combat, one reason for that is I REFUSE to use mouse&keyboard control method.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

By the way, with the current rampant hacking around, I certainly won't hand in lots of explo data in open even if I am reasonably sure that I won't be ganked "regurlarily".
Which is something I predict for open PvE too. Hacked mailslot blocking and blowing up of participants by throwaway accounts with client hacks, for example.

Funny I've never experienced any hacking directly in 1200 hours. I also think the only people that would gank you would be friends list sniping! I'll continue to use open because why not (and my squad rules for using it for BGS require it). Given how hard it is to experience any form of genuine risk in the game without looking hard for it, I'll take the hit (or lack thereof, in practice) for that little 10bpm pulse raise. For basically the reasons Morbad stated earlier.

 

[Cosmik_Debris]

Well that risk part depends on your skills. Had an NPC encounter couple of days ago that would have shieldless ship to rebuy pretty fast. Met Anaconda, with ship launched fighter. Managed to get 20% of my Cutters rather hefty shields before I managed to destroy it. I'm not particularly good in combat, one reason for that is I REFUSE to use mouse&keyboard control method.

No, it doesnt. Because booting once and entering supercruise doesnt require skill and, again, the intention for a cargo ship being interdicted should not be to fight. Its actually pretty silly that, when its an NPC, thats often a perfectly sensible course of action.

That Conda would have failed to even really shoot at the T9 before it was gone, if it didnt try to stay and fight.

I also refuse to use M+KB (except on foot). Im not sure HOSAS / HOTAS is a disadvantage vs that, except in fine aiming of fixed weapons that need time on target (like beams).

Edit: i kinda wish relative mouse mode didnt exist, so that M+KB would be an absolute disadvantage vs HOSAS / HOTAS, but i recognise that it would be a dumb decision on FDevs part to exclude users without expensive sim equipment.

 

[galahad2069]

Has it stopped blocking particular CMDRs from instancing with the player who blocked them?

It does not only "reduce the likelyhood" of those 2 people involved in blocking being placed in the same instance, it makes that practically impossible. What it "reduces the likelyhood" of is other, completely unrelated people being placed in the same instance.

Which is absolutely not the same thing.

What did they say about modes? That modes were equal? If they made payouts/REP/INF rewards different depending on which mode you are playing (that's just a theoretical example, not a suggestion), that still wouldn't make modes any more unequal than they currently are. You could still say that there's a lower risk/lower reward and a higher risk/higher reward mode. You would still totally be able to blaze your own trail and affect the BGS in all modes.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

No, it doesnt. Because booting once and entering supercruise doesnt require skill and, again, the intention for a cargo ship being interdicted should not be to fight. Its actually pretty silly that, when its an NPC, thats often a perfectly sensible course of action.

That Conda would have failed to even really shoot at the T9 before it was gone, if it didnt try to stay and fight.

I also refuse to use M+KB (except on foot). Im not sure HOSAS / HOTAS is a disadvantage vs that, except in fine aiming of fixed weapons that need time on target (like beams).

Connie was mission enemy, it would have serial interdict me straight until destination. Just one mistake and it would have hurted shieldless paper ship.

 

[Bigmaec]

Funny I've never experienced any hacking directly in 1200 hours. I also think the only people that would gank you would be friends list sniping! I'll continue to use open because why not (and my squad rules for using it for BGS require it). Given how hard it is to experience any form of genuine risk in the game without looking hard for it, I'll take the hit (or lack thereof, in practice) for that little 10bpm pulse raise. For basically the reasons Morbad stated earlier.

You can snipe someone from the most wanted boards, we had that happen in Colonia when we did BGS work and SPEAR could hunt us down,
because the boards work realtime. Really annoying. You have to have a bounty for that tho. Oh, and third party tools like Inara can be used too, if you give too much information.