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

[Ettanin]

Ofc. But why not private group then?

1. To get people into a private group you have to know them. Which is a catch-22 if you purely use in-game options.
2. Private groups such as Mobius are not the same as a fully-fledged Open PvE mode due to the out-of-game hoops to jump through and they are not sanctioned nor endorsed by Frontier.
3. Private groups are capped to 20,000 CMDRs on PC and 1,000 CMDRs on console.

 

[Dragsham]

It's ironic isn't it.
They complain that pvp etc is ruining the game in open.
And yet their lonely in solo....self imposed exile.
GL with that

 

[Jack Winter]

I still think that FDev could (and possibly should) deal with a few of the usual griefing tactics in open..

 

[Brrokk]

It's ironic isn't it.
They complain that pvp etc is ruining the game in open.
And yet their lonely in solo....self imposed exile.
GL with that

Hobbyhorse time here. From what I see, no-one is complaining about PvP in Open. It's just that some of us are saying we won't do it. We don't get upset about it, we just use mode+block to opt out. All the actual complaints are from people who don't want other people to opt out!

 

[ethelred]

Hobby or dead horse?

That's not the attitude that will get us to 5,000 posts - being all reasonable.

 

[Dragsham]

As a pvper I don't give a hoot what soloists or those that block or clog in open, do.
It doesn't affect me. There's plenty of pvp if you want it. And we all know the hotspots.
I've not ventured into a pvp hotspot in months. I choose not to. If l need a ship engineered I'll run the gauntlet. It's easy to evade em. Submit and high wake simples.
The 2 camps one asking to be in open cos they want more cmdr contact, the other wants no contact wotsoever. Cool.
We don't care.
All we want is fun.
..
By that I mean shooting other cmdrs in
Cgs or eng hotspots or San Tu.
We've discussed open only that's not going to work. The only way is how it is. Its that way for a reason. To placate all camps.
Personally I'd advocate open only with new much harsher C & P and instant responses to ganks from high specced npcs.
My role isn't defined. I do what l do and there's no pattern aside from mission related. But pvp to me is casual. Usually one party wakes out and to date I've killed only a dozen or so cmdrs all wanted.
But until pvp is worthwhile, profitable (not ganking) associated with perhaps pp or group vs group bgs. Till then it's pointless from a long term perspective. Honing skills is different hehe

 

[galahad2069]

Says the guy with an f**ing carrier My life would be so much easier if I had a carrier too lol

You know that you can travel 5000 Lys on board of other people's carriers as well, right? It does not necessarily have to be your own.

 

[DarwinPon]

You know that you can travel 5000 Lys on board of other people's carriers as well, right? It does not necessarily have to be your own.

I know but I'd prefer to schedule my own trips instead of hitchhiking, which honestly is sounding a lot more fun as I'm saying this.... Maybe I should actually do that

 

[Darrack]

Out of interest what is the point of the thread?
The OP asked what it would take solo players to join open?
On this point pretty much all the PVE solo community are singing off the same hymn sheet, we dont like PvP.

I see the Open players frustration with blocking which we have to use as when we do nip occasionally into Open we encounter some muppet who thinks he/she/it is clever attacking said unarmed exploration ship.

Being a veteran gamer its no supprise the two communities cant agree a solution which im sure the OP would have forseen, so whats the issue? is there a lack of players in Open? Are Open players looking for more cannon fodder? Are there actuall (factual) figures for players in Open vs players in Solo/PG?

This will never be resolved, ever, the Soloers would only consider Open as a complete PVE environment with possibly the comprise of a PvP flag which we know from other games can and will be abused.
PvPers of course from what i can gather want no change to Open, no compromise and the removal of blocking which of course would be counter productive and remove even more players from that mode.

Great discussion though, much more civil than similar debates ive had in other games (looking at you ESO)

O7

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvPers of course from what i can gather want no change to Open, no compromise and the removal of blocking which of course would be counter productive and remove even more players from that mode.

Some PvPers want more than that - as there have been proposals to variously remove Solo and Private Groups; apply a bonus to any game activity undertaken by players in Open; remove the effects of players in Solo and Private Groups completely from one or more existing mode shared game features....

 

[ethelred]

I think the extremist view is the PvPers want Open only everything with block only affecting chat.

The most extreme PvE view I have seen (and admittedly it was a long time ago) was Solo only with the removal of NPC attackers so they weren't attacked at all.

I'm pretty sure both of these views were expressed on page 1 of the original California thread, so that shows how far we have come.

Well done everybody!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Open probably does look emptier to some of the more well known PvP enthusiasts. Particularly since Odyssey along with the increasing use of Carriers and block, in recent CGs campers have actually commented on the lack of 'content' they can see.
Hotel California threads are part and parcel of the furniture round here. I don't forsee any actual change occuring on this front though I wouldn't want to give the impression that the proponents of change speak for the majority.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I think the extremist view is the PvPers want Open only everything with block only affecting chat.

The most extreme PvE view I have seen (and admittedly it was a long time ago) was Solo only with the removal of NPC attackers so they weren't attacked at all.

I'm pretty sure both of these views were expressed on page 1 of the original California thread, so that shows how far we have come.

Well done everybody!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

If extremists got what they wanted goalposts would be moved. Next goal. Full loot PVP.

 

[TinyTone]

Basically, I don't have enough time to play games. I am aware that online games, not only am I paying for product, I AM the product.
Well here's the thing. I don't WANT to be the product. So, Solo Play is the price I pay to NOT be the product. I don't get to be "enriched" into tiny pieces of hull-dust by players with 5 years of Advancements and assets and skills nor do I get to make any new friends. That's fine, I don't have time for them.
Would I play in Open if PvP was off? Maybe. I would try, but the moment I realise I am just product again, probably to some Twitch streamer who needs my affirmation for his viewers, I'd be offline again. I am NOT your product or revenue stream. I owe you nothing. I'll pay Braben because he did me a solid when I was 12 with Elite. But the rest of it you can more or less keep. I am not YOURS.
If FDev made this decision to keep us loners out of everybody's way, I accept it. It is the Elite experience I had as a kid. No friends. No life. I'm ok with it.

IF there was full looting, that would be another matter. I'm from Eve:Online and there I was a terrorist to carebears, because it lead to profit and gains. Stealing weeks of grind off people was WORTH it. Here, as I've come to learn it, it's just interrupting somebody and getting nearly nothing out of it. That doesn't appeal to me. I don't get anything out of it.

I'd go back to Eve if CCP could bring themselves to apologise for... well... it doesn't matter. They didn't and they won't.

 

[Cosmik_Debris]

Some PvPers want more than that - as there have been proposals to variously remove Solo and Private Groups; apply a bonus to any game activity undertaken by players in Open; remove the effects of players in Solo and Private Groups completely from one or more existing mode shared game features....

My personal take is that there are a couple of activities in this game that could lead to 'meaningful' competition between groups of players - BGS manipulation and powerplay.

In my opinion, for that type of gameplay to be engaging, the higher the skill ceiling of a given activity, the more effective it should be at manipulating those features.

Unfortunately, what we currently have is that the lowest skill ceiling activity (trading data / goods from station A to station B) is the most effective. Now, there are a whole slew of reasons for this, so to change it such that a higher skill activity was potentially more effective would require some pretty large changes to existing mechanics which isnt at all likely to happen, so this is a bit pointless, but one of those changes would, in my opinion, have to be exposing all players undertaking these activities to possible resistance from other players.

As it stands, there really is no 'end game' content for groups, in my opinion, other than just screwing about (which is fun and i do it, but i wish more of my old gamer friends would play this with me, and they wont)

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Basically, I don't have enough time to play games. I am aware that online games, not only am I paying for product, I AM the product.
Well here's the thing. I don't WANT to be the product. So, Solo Play is the price I pay to NOT be the product. I don't get to be "enriched" into tiny pieces of hull-dust by players with 5 years of Advancements and assets and skills nor do I get to make any new friends. That's fine, I don't have time for them.
Would I play in Open if PvP was off? Maybe. I would try, but the moment I realise I am just product again, probably to some Twitch streamer who needs my affirmation for his viewers, I'd be offline again. I am NOT your product or revenue stream. I owe you nothing. I'll pay Braben because he did me a solid when I was 12 with Elite. But the rest of it you can more or less keep. I am not YOURS.
If FDev made this decision to keep us loners out of everybody's way, I accept it. It is the Elite experience I had as a kid. No friends. No life. I'm ok with it.

IF there was full looting, that would be another matter. I'm from Eve:Online and there I was a terrorist to carebears, because it lead to profit and gains. Stealing weeks of grind off people was WORTH it. Here, as I've come to learn it, it's just interrupting somebody and getting nearly nothing out of it. That doesn't appeal to me. I don't get anything out of it.

I'd go back to Eve if CCP could bring themselves to apologise for... well... it doesn't matter. They didn't and they won't.

You'd know that those players with assets and skills and years of advantage would turn you to hull dust AND take away whatever you grinded

 

[Robert Maynard]

Unfortunately, what we currently have is that the lowest skill ceiling activity (trading data / goods from station A to station B) is the most effective. Now, there are a whole slew of reasons for this, so to change it such that a higher skill activity was potentially more effective would require some pretty large changes to existing mechanics which isnt at all likely to happen, so this is a bit pointless, but one of those changes would, in my opinion, have to be exposing all players undertaking these activities to possible resistance from other players.

What we currently have is a game where PvP is an optional extra - as it has been since the game design was published over nine years ago (apart from CQC, of course - but that's not an in-game feature).

If all players were forced to play in Open to affect particular game features then that'd be the same as removing those game features from those players who don't enjoy PvP - and we all bought a game where affecting game features is something that players in all game modes do whereas playing among other players is entirely optional.

As it stands, there really is no 'end game' content for groups, in my opinion, other than just screwing about (which is fun and i do it, but i wish more of my old gamer friends would play this with me, and they wont)

Not all groups are PvP groups - if there needs to be something for groups to do then that includes PvE groups....

 

[Cosmik_Debris]

What we currently have is a game where PvP is an optional extra - as it has been since the game design was published over nine years ago (apart from CQC, of course - but that's not an in-game feature).

If all players were forced to play in Open to affect particular game features then that'd be the same as removing those game features from those players who don't enjoy PvP - and we all bought a game where affecting game features is something that players in all game modes do whereas playing among other players is entirely optional.

Not all groups are PvP groups - if there needs to be something for groups to do then that includes PvE groups....

I actually, and quite specifically, didnt mention combat at all.

I simply said that its not good game design (in my opinion) that the lowest skill activity in the game is also the most effective activity at the BGS / Powerplay level. (because it means that 'winning' at it can only ever be an endurance test of who can stomach the boring repetitive grinding the same effortless activity the longest)

If there was some kind of high skill non combat activity (ie one that was possible to be good at and, by extension, bad at), id be fine with that being the most effective. Given the game design, i have no idea what it would be.

 

[Brrokk]

I actually, and quite specifically, didnt mention combat at all.

I simply said that its not good game design (in my opinion) that the lowest skill activity in the game is also the most effective activity at the BGS / Powerplay level.

If there was some kind of high skill non combat activity (ie one that was possible to be good at and, by extension, bad at), id be fine with that being the most effective. Given the game design, i have no idea what it would be.

Subsurface deposit mining.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I actually, and quite specifically, didnt mention combat at all.

It didn't need to be mentioned specifically - as the "have to be exposing all players undertaking these activities to possible resistance from other players" covered forcing players to play in Open, a PvP-enabled game mode.

.... unless the resistance was indirect and asynchronous? In which case the existing mode shared game features already cover that.