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

The expectation is not that every CMDR is hostile, but that every CMDR could be hostile. Not all of us enjoy that feeling.

I acknowledge that this potential isn't what everyone is looking for.

Also you're assuming every player has the skill to survive an encounter, but that is just absolutely not the case. Most players are not part of the top 10%, thus most players will not survive most of the time, and at least half of the players would lose more than they win. It's not rocket science, just simple math.

The game's balance is heavily slanted toward survival of the defender and most CMDRs absolutely could escape the overwhelming majority of the time. Parity of skill and equipment implies a ~50% chance of victory in an combat encounter where no retreat is possible. However, escape can be almost a certainty, even if the opposition is more numerous, more skilled, and better armed. The skill floor to make escape far and away the most common outcome of an organic PvP encounter is not high.

I 'lose' far more PvP encounters than I 'win', but I have many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of organic PvP encounters and less than a dozen rebuys associated with them. The only time my CMDR has ever been shot down without at least trying to fight back was the first, and only, time I allowed him to fall victim to a suicidewinder. Unless the opposition is very numerous, perfectly outfitted, and phenomenally skilled, I have to make a chain of serious mistakes for escape to be anything less than virtually guaranteed. Pilots much worse than I should be able to escape the overwhelming majority of the time against pilots much better than I. You don't need to be part of the top 10% to survive, but you probably have to be part of the bottom 10% to lose a ship more often than not, if one's only goal is survival/escape.

Frankly, the game is already slanted too far in favor of the defender. It effectively negates any hope of meaningful consequences for anyone other than the abject novice. It's a big part of what has encouraged the (still generally overstated) level of ganking we have, and what makes non-accidental criminals immune to punishment. To keep from burdening those players who never learned to fly, the level of consequence has to be virtually nonexistent for everyone else.

The problem here isn't really even a PvP vs. PvE, or an Open vs. other modes, thing. It's a 'how to make a game that can even pretend to exist in the setting described by the Elite franchise if the most ignorant, unaware, and laziest pilots are always pefectly safe?' sort of thing. I don't think this is possible in a multiplayer game where the difficulty, whatever that is, is going to apply to everyone, in practice.

And that's the problem isn't it? That's the whole point of this thread. The point is to discuss how to make open play a suitable and enjoyable option for more players, instead of being for a specific group of players with a specific preference.

It's impossible.

Open, as it is today, is already frustratingly safe for many of those who aren't willing to handicap their characters.

Your build need G5 access to Palin. You know what's necessary for that, yes?

About two hours hours in an unEngineered Hauler with a fuel scoop.

That said, his build is far in excess of anything remotely required for survival. You don't even need Engineering.

Says the guy with an f**ing carrier :ROFLMAO:

And the guy who had 5k ly from Sol as a primarily combat pilot in a Viper Mk III more than a year before anyone had any idea it would have been a requirement for anything.

My life would be so much easier if I had a carrier too lol

I tried an FC out in the beta. Even if I thought they were a positive addition to the game (I don't), managing it was enough of a chore that I have no intentions of my CMDR ever purchasing one on live.

If I want the head-on-a-swivel experience all the time, I'll just fire up Star Citizen.

It doesn't include a Solo mode, at least not in the PU.

I'm rather frustrated that the Elite Solo experience doesn't mandate a head-on-a-swivel, at least when in space that could be expected to be dangerous, or when flying a CMDR with the background of my own anywhere near inhabited space.

My CMDR has sided with and betrayed a thousand different factions, traded slaves, supplied terrorists, hauled dangerous contraband, personally murdered tens of thousands of people, and condemned countless more to fates worse than death, all without any pretense of necessity...he's a well heeled genocide tourist, the kind of sociopathic terror that exudes an aura like he's real, but everyone else is just an NPC in a video game. He should rightfully have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life. If he's docked in Sol under the protection of the Federation president, someone should bomb his ship in the hangar and an angry mob should march into the starport concourse and manually tear him to pieces...cheering as they run off (to do the same to anyone who was ever even rumored to be associated with him) with bloody souvenirs of their victory over such a monstrous evil. That would make sense. Being able to go around like there aren't a million of his victims willing to kill until they die in a blood vendetta to give him his just deserts...that's nuts.

At the very least, the PvE consequences that should exist in any credible setting should mean my CMDR has to adopt a new identity and cower alone out in the black, never coming within twenty jumps of the bubble again.

What do I have instead? "Welcome back CMDR, it's a pleasure to have you with us."

PvP is not an end game

PvP has always been an expectation of mine, but rarely a goal. Violence is just another tool.

My first PvP kill was in September 2014, about 40 minutes after binding my controls and doing the tutorials for the first time. The reason? Someone was trying to stop my CMDR from going where my CMDR wanted to go.

Of course, Frontier has been trying to relegate PvP to some kind of 'end game' for a long time...a tactic which I feel does a disservice to everyone, but that basically sums up my opinion of most updates at this point.
 
The game's balance is heavily slanted toward survival of the defender .... Pilots much worse than I should be able to escape the overwhelming majority of the time against pilots much better than I .... Frankly, the game is already slanted too far in favor of the defender. It effectively negates any hope of meaningful consequences for anyone other than the abject novice .... Open, as it is today, is already frustratingly safe for many of those who aren't willing to handicap their characters.
First of all, I completely agree. But don't you see, this is the other side of the same problem! Like I said in every hostile encounter there's always a winner and a loser. Right now that loser is either someone who doesn't want to be interrupted and destroyed, or someone who wants to pick a fight but can't get one.

I want gankers to have their fun! I don't want to disadvantage gankers by tilting the balance away from them. They deserve to have fun just as much as everyone else! Which is why I fly in open every so often because I WANT to get a fight. On the other hand there are players who don't want a fight, and they deserve to have their fun as well!

Right now the system is flawed because gankers like yourself can't get the fight that you want, and people who just want to be left in peace are given a fight that they don't want. It's a lose-lose situation. I'm sure Fdev is trying to make Open more appealing to everyone, without having to detract from anyone. And I believe that can be done.

If some sort of a pacifist mode can be implemented, Fdev will also be able to make interdictions a lot more deadly, because we'll know that if you can be interdicted, then you are willing to participate in a fight, regardless of the outcome. And gankers like you will find it easier to find players who actually want to engage instead of high waking in 2 seconds.
 
I'm rather frustrated that the Elite Solo experience doesn't mandate a head-on-a-swivel, at least when in space that could be expected to be dangerous, or when flying a CMDR with the background of my own anywhere near inhabited space.

My CMDR has sided with and betrayed a thousand different factions, traded slaves, supplied terrorists, hauled dangerous contraband, personally murdered tens of thousands of people, and condemned countless more to fates worse than death, all without any pretense of necessity...he's a well heeled genocide tourist, the kind of sociopathic terror that exudes an aura like he's real, but everyone else is just an NPC in a video game. He should rightfully have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life. If he's docked in Sol under the protection of the Federation president, someone should bomb his ship in the hangar and an angry mob should march into the starport concourse and manually tear him to pieces...cheering as they run off (to do the same to anyone who was ever even rumored to be associated with him) with bloody souvenirs of their victory over such a monstrous evil. That would make sense. Being able to go around like there aren't a million of his victims willing to kill until they die in a blood vendetta to give him his just deserts...that's nuts.

At the very least, the PvE consequences that should exist in any credible setting should mean my CMDR has to adopt a new identity and cower alone out in the black, never coming within twenty jumps of the bubble again.

What do I have instead? "Welcome back CMDR, it's a pleasure to have you with us."
Concur. We should certainly see what we have at a minimum in X4 Foundations, where what you do affects your reputation among other factions to the point they either don't let you land at their stations or are outright hostile to you and you when they come in contact.
 
gankers like yourself

I'm not a ganker.

If some sort of a pacifist mode can be implemented, Fdev will also be able to make interdictions a lot more deadly, because we'll know that if you can be interdicted, then you are willing to participate in a fight, regardless of the outcome.

Such a 'pacifist mode' would be blatantly immersion and context defying. On top of that, the outcome you describe wouldn't be pleasant. I'm always going to try to play by the set of rules I think makes the most sense, irrespective of whether I'd appreciate an interruption or not, regardless of whether my CMDR has any desire to stick around or not.

The bulk of my PvP encounters result in my CMDR high-waking about fifteen seconds after that interdiction starts (most my CMDR's foes travel in packs and my CMDR generally only sticks around for fights he's pretty sure he's going to win, or would at least be educational). I would still be damned disappointed if my CMDR could not be interdicted.

Reinforcing the artifical dichotomy already established by the mode system is the opposite of what I'm looking for. 99% of the time, my CMDR is minding his own damn business and not looking for trouble from anyone. He's still present in Open 100% of the time I'm logged in and not doing testing/benchmarking in the training missions.
 
First of all, I completely agree. But don't you see, this is the other side of the same problem! Like I said in every hostile encounter there's always a winner and a loser. Right now that loser is either someone who doesn't want to be interrupted and destroyed, or someone who wants to pick a fight but can't get one.

I want gankers to have their fun! I don't want to disadvantage gankers by tilting the balance away from them. They deserve to have fun just as much as everyone else! Which is why I fly in open every so often because I WANT to get a fight. On the other hand there are players who don't want a fight, and they deserve to have their fun as well!

Right now the system is flawed because gankers like yourself can't get the fight that you want, and people who just want to be left in peace are given a fight that they don't want. It's a lose-lose situation. I'm sure Fdev is trying to make Open more appealing to everyone, without having to detract from anyone. And I believe that can be done.

If some sort of a pacifist mode can be implemented, Fdev will also be able to make interdictions a lot more deadly, because we'll know that if you can be interdicted, then you are willing to participate in a fight, regardless of the outcome. And gankers like you will find it easier to find players who actually want to engage instead of high waking in 2 seconds.

Isn't it better to advocate for a no limit PvE mode (with optional flags etc etc), rather than change the combat for Open?

Open is already the most popular mode (apparently) so it's not like we (=generic Open only players) need extra incentives.
 
Such a 'pacifist mode' would be blatantly immersion and context defying.
I'm calling it a pacifist mode for convenience, there are many possible ways of actually implementing this without breaking immersion, example:
"Pilot's Federation VIP: this ship is under special protection from the Pilot's Federation, attacking it would result in severe bounties and trigger immediate tactical response"

On top of that, the outcome you describe wouldn't be pleasant. I'm always going to try to play by the set of rules I think makes the most sense, irrespective of whether I'd appreciate an interruption or not, regardless of whether my CMDR has any desire to stick around or not.
I prefer to have rules that have been discussed and generally agree upon by everyone. When everybody lives by their own rules that's call anarchy and it's not exactly fun for most involved.
The bulk of my PvP encounters result in my CMDR high-waking about fifteen seconds after that interdiction starts (most my CMDR's foes travel in packs and my CMDR generally only sticks around for fights he's pretty sure he's going to win, or would at least be educational). I would still be damned disappointed if my CMDR could not be interdicted.
If you like that then just don't activate pacifist mode. I don't get it, what exactly do you have to lose from something that benefits other players and doesn't harm you?
 
Isn't it better to advocate for a no limit PvE mode (with optional flags etc etc), rather than change the combat for Open?

Open is already the most popular mode (apparently) so it's not like we (=generic Open only players) need extra incentives.
If you enjoy Open then good for you, nobody is trying to take away your fun. This thread is not about you, it's about us who want to play with other players without killing each other.
 
I prefer to have rules that have been discussed and generally agree upon by everyone. When everybody lives by their own rules that's call anarchy and it's not exactly fun for most involved.

Yet you're advocating a system that allows people to play by entirely different sets of rules in the same mode.

I don't get it, what exactly do you have to lose from something that benefits other players and doesn't harm you?

This is a multiplayer game with a persistent, shared, setting. There is nothing that affects other players without some effect on me, unless I'm ignoring their effects on the setting, which would be tantamount to ignoring the game.

Specifically, the pretense of this absurd ability to be immune to interference from other CMDRs while still being able to be perceived by and instanced with other CMDRs changes the context defiance from an abstraction that is out of sight and easier to put out of mind, to one that is very in-your-face. It would also reinforce the assumption that you already implied, where people would assume that because I had not enabled this feature, that I was looking for a combat encounter.

It's about changing Open in a way that doesn't hurt existing Open players.

Except that it does.
 
It's about changing Open in a way that doesn't hurt existing Open players. In that case no, it actually isn't about you.

Ok, cross posting from the explorer thread.

In that, you're saying that a sour taste is left in your mouth if you think an explorer has cheated there way to claim systems.

In your "pacifist" mode - a sour taste would be left in my mouth if I successfully bypass hostile commanders using the skills I have developed to deliver goods to a CG say, over someone who can just jump in and fly to the station un-molested.

Yes, I know they can do this in Solo or PG, and that's fine as that's the tri-mode system. But to do it in Open? No thanks
 
Yet you're advocating a system that allows people to play by entirely different sets of rules in the same mode.
Umm... I do believe I said Pacifist Mode, right? It, it has the word "Mode" in it, right? So how are these the same modes? There are a million ways of implementing a potential pacifist mode, and I don't see why it cannot be a separate game instance.
This is a multiplayer game with a persistent, shared, setting. There is nothing that affects other players without some effect on me, unless I'm ignoring their effects on the setting, which would be tantamount to ignoring the game.

Specifically, the pretense of this absurd ability to be immune to interference from other CMDRs while still being able to be perceived by and instanced with other CMDRs changes the context defiance from an abstraction that is out of sight and easier to put out of mind, to one that is very in-your-face.
I never said that a pacifist mode has to make pacifists immune to interference, in fact I literally proposed a solution whereby the aggressor gets extra penalties instead of giving immunity to pacifists.
Except that it does.
We haven't even come up with a full plan of what the pacifist mode is! What do you even mean? That a yet non-existent plan is affecting your game play?
 
Ok, cross posting from the explorer thread.

In that, you're saying that a sour taste is left in your mouth if you think an explorer has cheated there way to claim systems.

In your "pacifist" mode - a sour taste would be left in my mouth if I successfully bypass hostile commanders using the skills I have developed to deliver goods to a CG say, over someone who can just jump in and fly to the station un-molested.

Yes, I know they can do this in Solo or PG, and that's fine as that's the tri-mode system. But to do it in Open? No thanks
But you get access to the same options as well, it is absolutely fair and I don't see the problem here. Likewise if everybody can engineer their conda to jump 1000 Ly then I would not have an issue with cheaters who do 1000 Ly jumps.

I really don't think it's that complicated. If you want the trill and the challenge then you play in Open; if you want to be at peace then you play in Pacifist; and if you are playing in Open and you have a problem with someone playing in Pacifist then switch over to Pacifist. I literally don't see the problem here, I'm sorry.
 
As previously stated, all my hostile encounters have been in CG systems. None whilst randomly trading around the Bubble.
These are two very different scenarios; At a CG surprisingly I'm doing the CG. This means a focus on raw tonnage and hitting the next tier.
I'm not likely to be favourably disposed to anyone trying to interdict my T9 under those conditions.
Whilst randomly trading in the Bubble I fly a Python, built in the expectation of dealing with pirates (somewhat notable by their absence) if anyone tried interdicting me then they'd likely get a rather different response.
 
But you get access to the same options as well, it is absolutely fair and I don't see the problem here. Likewise if everybody can engineer their conda to jump 1000 Ly then I would not have an issue with cheaters who do 1000 Ly jumps.

I really don't think it's that complicated. If you want the trill and the challenge then you play in Open; if you want to be at peace then you play in Pacifist; and if you are playing in Open and you have a problem with someone playing in Pacifist then switch over to Pacifist. I literally don't see the problem here, I'm sorry.

I mean, that's practically the modes already, right?

Your solution already exists in the game without any handwavium needed for Open. That's the issue - if a solution already exists why change open?

PG cap and better admin tools aside ofc. But you're not advocating those.

Is that clearer?
 
I mean, that's practically the modes already, right?

Your solution already exists in the game without any handwavium needed for Open. That's the issue - if a solution already exists why change open?

PG cap and better admin tools aside ofc. But you're not advocating those.

Is that clearer?
The problem (as stated in the OP and I completely agree with) is that those of us who play in solo don't actually want to play alone. That's an important distinction. We want to be able to interact with other players, but in a strictly non-violent way. Does this clear things up a bit?
 
The problem (as stated in the OP and I completely agree with) is that those of us who play in solo don't actually want to play alone. That's an important distinction. We want to be able to interact with other players, but in a strictly non-violent way. Does this clear things up a bit?
Ofc. But why not private group then?
 
215 pages. We still have the game we are going to get.
Sure, I would have loved a PvE version of open. Leave the current open as it is for the people into that and have a what amounts to a PvE PG that does not have membership limits. But we are not getting that, and the playstyles that require victims are also not getting block weakened/removed or solo and pg removed or any special "open only" features or game play loops to try to entice or force players into open so they can shoot them.

For those of you that do not understand why anything that facilitates not playing in open is met with such hostility. You need to realize that anything that makes a mode other than PvP open more attractive to players is hurting the people that enjoy play styles that require players be victims for them. A PvE only version of open would decimate the victim population of the current PvP open. It will be fought against tooth and nail by the gankers. As a group, they are the ones that most need other players. For the PvE play styles, other players that can't murder you are nice to have around, preferable even as long as they are not of the insufferable sort, but not required.
 
Back
Top Bottom