So the answer is no, FDev has never said this is a problem within the game.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - some complain vociferously that players can play without them and affect the galaxy, even though that's clearly stated in the advertising....
Well doesn't this just demonstrate a complete lack of understanding mathematical probability and statistics.
Given a population of 12,000,000 Cmdrs, in order to achieve a sample size that provides a 99% confidence level with a confidence interval of 2, you'd need a sample population of around 5000 Cmdrs.
Just to be clear 280,000 > 5000. So much greater to make any questioning of the sample size as laughable.
As for 'self-selecting' sample, nice try. That would be relevant you were talking about a YouTube poll of subscribers answering questions of specific interest to subscribers within the common narrative on that particular channel - ship Interiors anyone?
Joining Inara is nothing like that. As far as different playstyles are concerned, Inara is wonderfully neutral. There is no more benefit/detriment to for any player type to sign up to Inara over any other player type. It offers a breadth of data and tools equally relevant for all playstyles - combat pilots (bounty hunters & bounties), traders, explorers, BGS, PP, squadrons, lone wolfs, casuals, and serious - which makes it the perfect population of Cmdrs to draw a statistically relevant sample from.
Look, I am not against open play or PvP. But I admit that ganking seems to be a problem for many players and let them stay away from open. Just read the posts in this threat where occasionally players exactly stated this, that they are not playing in open because they don't want to be content for others, don't want their time wasted and so on. In this thread alone I am sure (don't count them all) there are between 20 and 30 players that admitted to not play open because of unfair, unreasonable and/or forced PvP.
There are indeed players out there that can only afford to play one hour a day, perhaps even less. Perhaps only 2 hours on the weekend only. This players don't have the time to engineer everything AND enjoy the game. So what about them? They have not the right to play this game they paid for the way they like? Some players are limited with playtime and choose very carefully how to spend this. It is not understandable that this players don't want their sometimes very limited playtime wasted with optional or not fun for them activities?
I think FDev were very smart to implement the different modes and the block function. So the game offers the right choice for everyone to fit it directly to their preferred playstyle. Who are we to tell other players what is good gameplay, how to play or what to do in-game?
Well that may be the case, but just looking at the historic complaints over how much money is made per activity (and 90% of the concern is 'it is not enough') which resulted in changes so that now the vast majority of the player-base have more money than they can spend, i would expect to see an equal sized squeal IF a realistic crime and punishment system were introduced, and the playing field re-set to make that possibility fair for all (so no hiding behind cash already gained, it would require we ALL start over).
Still this IS wishful thinking as all that opportunity died out about the same time as the DDF became the dodo it is.
The game is what it is, and that means both Solo and Open game styles are in the mix. I like Solo (Elite traditionalist first and foremost) and others like Open and the game provides for all.
I can't tell you how immersion-breaking this behaviour would be to my game. I just don't ever want to see it as it is exactly the kind of MMO gameplay that destroys a game for me, especially a serious space-sim like Elite. With Solo i never have to experience it
Last edited:
Sure ok buddy, actions speak louder than words, nobody HAS to play with YOU, by design.
There is no ganking or unwanted PVP issue, Frontier just like the words solo, private group and block....that must be it huh?
It amazes me the lengths people will go to not to answer a simple question.
Ganking is not a problem in ED. It's a rare occurrence at best, and nobody here can substantiate otherwise.
T
FDev's stock tanked upon news they didn't hit their sales target for Odyssey. The game's busted. We're 10 updates in fixing performance issues from Odyssey's launch. The mass jump you posted was from Drew Wagar leaving ED to go over to Star Citizen. The guy who was responsible for a chunk of the game's official lore left to go play a different game. And Odyssey still doesn't have a console release date, months after they were told they would.
I would expect that ganking and PvP balance isn't even remotely close to the top of their list of priorities right now, and that is completely understandable. But to imply FDev has said nothing therefore it's not a problem, knowing they've gone years not addressing major issues and ignoring requests from the community for news on feature X or Y, months after feature X or Y were overdue, is disingenuous at best. Surely you've been around long enough to know better.
That's your argument? FDev hasn't acknowledged its a problem so it's not a problem and everything's fine?
FDev's stock tanked upon news they didn't hit their sales target for Odyssey. The game's busted. We're 10 updates in fixing performance issues from Odyssey's launch. The mass jump you posted was from Drew Wagar leaving ED to go over to Star Citizen. The guy who was responsible for a chunk of the game's official lore left to go play a different game. And Odyssey still doesn't have a console release date, months after they were told they would.
I would expect that ganking and PvP balance isn't even remotely close to the top of their list of priorities right now, and that is completely understandable. But to imply FDev has said nothing therefore it's not a problem, knowing they've gone years not addressing major issues and ignoring requests from the community for news on feature X or Y, months after feature X or Y were overdue, is disingenuous at best. Surely you've been around long enough to know better.
IiRC Wagar hosted events like that in his PG because of a ganking problem.
To be fair, crypto currencies are in some ways more valid than fiat nation backed currencies. Those also have no technical intrinsic value, and the amount in circulation is entirely discretionary, whereas the maximum amount of any given crypto in circulation is mathematically defined.
Now, we dont need a bazzilion of them and mining them all is tremendously wasteful, but the basic idea is pretty sound.
Anyways, back to watching this pointless argument play out forever. (done with being involved, my position on the matter is pretty clear by now)
Just as you cant substantiate that it is indeed rare....whatever the hell that means.
You can dance all bloody day around 'give me the gank numbers' but it is and will always remain irrelevant to this discussion with you, wanna know why? If someone magically had the figure 2% of people have been ganked more than once in open you would claim that was ridiculously low. If same person had 40% you'd probably take us down the lovely but ultimately stupid 'what is ganking anyway' cul-de-sac. In short any number that was available or given you would shout down anyway.
I ask you again, if unwanted PVP wasn't a thing why would Frontier maintain Solo and Private group options in their game? Why would they have not only introduced but subsequently beefed up the block system? Why, after a decade has Frontier maintained the line that ALL modes can manipulate the BGS and are equal in THEIR eyes? Why has Frontier, again after a decade, decided against any direct PVP rewards even in Open?
I doubt I'll get a straight reply as doing so would clearly reveal some uncomfortable truths to yourself.
Surely had nothing to do with the last time he held a high profile event in Open and got splatted while the escorts he was with couldn't instance with him because ED was being ED and broken instancing is to be expected.
In an MMO.
The nature of Peer to Peer because not everyone has a dedicated IPv4 address and/or properly forwarded ports.
I (as a pirate) would welcome it with open arms as it can't be worse than now: piracy is virtually dead from a financial point of view, and has no risk/reward whatsoever - you can pirate for the same (low) reward in an anarchy as a high sec. I would be very happy if piracy involved making that choice between going for the 'mega heist' and potentially risking losing everything (or nearly) in the process.Well that may be the case, but just looking at the historic complaints over how much money is made per activity (and 90% of the concern is 'it is not enough') which resulted in changes so that now the vast majority of the player-base have more money than they can spend, i would expect to see an equal sized squeal IF a realistic crime and punishment system were introduced, and the playing field re-set to make that possibility fair for all (so no hiding behind cash already gained, it would require we ALL start over).
Still this IS wishful thinking as all that opportunity died out about the same time as the DDF became the dodo it is.
The game is what it is, and that means both Solo and Open game styles are in the mix. I like Solo (Elite traditionalist first and foremost) and others like Open and the game provides for all.
I can't tell you how immersion-breaking this behaviour would be to my game. I just don't ever want to see it as it is exactly the kind of MMO gameplay that destroys a game for me, especially a serious space-sim like Elite. With Solo i never have to experience it
Of course events like that are going to attract gankers, as do streamers in general, because they are easily tracked, whereas most players aren't.
As this thread was brought to my attention and I was curious about it, some numbers from Inara (all game modes, last 30 days, sample size of tens of thousands of commanders). Expressed as percentage of the sample size:
- 6% - players that were killed in PvP
- 4.5% - players that killed somebody in PvP
- 8.6% - players that were interdicted by another player
- 3.3% - players that interdicted another player
Last edited:
So 6% of players were killed in PvP at least once? (just to take the first line as an example)As this thread was brought to my attention and I was curious about it, some numbers from Inara (all game modes, last 30 days, sample size of tens of thousands of commanders). Expressed as percentage of the sample size:
It worth to be noted those numbers also include consensual PvP. Otherwise, interpret it as you wish.
- 6% - players that were killed in PvP
- 4.5% - players that killed somebody in PvP
- 8.6% - players that were interdicted by another player
- 3.3% - players that interdicted another player
Or (more likely) 6% = total 'kill events' / total number of players?? (Players who engage in PvP training etc will have been killed many times)
These numbers make no sense at all.As this thread was brought to my attention and I was curious about it, some numbers from Inara (all game modes, last 30 days, sample size of tens of thousands of commanders). Expressed as percentage of the sample size:
It worth to be noted those numbers also include consensual PvP. Otherwise, interpret it as you wish.
- 6% - players that were killed in PvP
- 4.5% - players that killed somebody in PvP
- 8.6% - players that were interdicted by another player
- 3.3% - players that interdicted another player
I was interdicted and killed the first day in my new sidee and at least 5 other times over the years.
Everyone in my group has been at least been interdicted.
New players will most likely bebop unknowingly along until they attacked and then start asking the question “ why me “
Over the years I have explained griefers to a lot of new commanders.
Those numbers are way too low