Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... at no risk to themselves and (practically) consequence free.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
If you don't want to fight or you are doing engineering or whatever, you have solo mode.
You can also just high wake out - most ships with engineering can avoid any 1v1 combat situation, including the Type 6, 7 and 9.
TL;DR: Use the interdiction minigame to screen participation in PvP by setting a PvP opt-in flag and giving the participants a PvP or PvE instance based on their flag-setting.
How could players be encouraged to put themselves into dangerous pvp scenarios, even when they don't have to?
Bulbulunufus, post: 9500068, member: 261245"] 10 or 15 seconds might be enough to state intent and start to agree terms. Much more than that could start to be weird, heh. Ideally maybe (I'm not totally convinced at this point) the person interdicted would have the option to abort the pause (for...
How long should a bounty be valid then? A few hours, a few days, a few weeks? Alternatively it would be active until collected by another commander, but then one could collect it oneself with an alt account.. It's always like that, any change of the game has a lot of follow on consequences. It's not easy and I don't see how one could reach a consensus in these threads, not to mention that it's all academical as FDev will do what they want (if they do anything at all)..
The simple truth is that the mild C&P system we have is perfectly in line with "the punishment should be in proportion to the severity of the crime" principle.
Since we're two hundred pages in...this may come off as a stupid question. That said, I like asking questions to refocus and/or refresh opinions.
What is the problem, exactly?
Now, the sort of answers I'm looking for aren't just opinions. I think more people ought be in open, for example, but that's just an opinion. It would be neat, but it hardly changed how I played the game. i.e. It wasn't a problem, just a desire. I'm looking for the problem. Because otherwise, we're just arguing over preferences rather than meaningful game design that might attract FDev's attention.
For a bit of fun, and perspective, flip those questions before answering them:
What is the problem, exactly?
Recognize the answers to these two sets of questions don't necessarily inform one another. I played in solo when hauling a lot of cargo for CGs, for example, because my patience is really thin. I could have twenty good runs, and only one gank, and I'd be furious. What can I say, I'm not a patient gamer. I didn't come to Elite to work on being a better human, I have a therapist for that. Vice versa, I usually played in Open the rest of the time because I liked seeing other commanders and I inherently avoided crowded hot spots like Jameson. If I needed to go into a hot spot, for engineering or new stuff, I'd just swap to solo - do my business - then go back to Open. I almost exclusively played combat zones in open as my primary source of PvP because, in my head, it made sense to pick a fight with players and it didn't bother me when I lost those fights (frequently, I might add).
So it might not surprise I rather like organized PvP as a game design, but I recognize that Elite doesn't have that and probably never will. But I digress.
What, exactly, is the problem? Not your proposed solution, or how you think it should be...
Tell me what is. What is wrong with Elite's Open Mode?
What is the problem, exactly?
- Is player count in Open Mode too low? If so, why is this a problem?
- Is PvP in Open Mode pointless / only ganking? If so, why is this a problem?
- If you play in Open Mode, what is your grievance with other players not playing in Open Mode?
Now, the sort of answers I'm looking for aren't just opinions. I think more people ought be in open, for example, but that's just an opinion. It would be neat, but it hardly changed how I played the game. i.e. It wasn't a problem, just a desire. I'm looking for the problem. Because otherwise, we're just arguing over preferences rather than meaningful game design that might attract FDev's attention.
For a bit of fun, and perspective, flip those questions before answering them:
What is the problem, exactly?
- Is the player count in Solo Mode too high? If so, why is this a problem?
- Is PvE in Solo Mode just as enjoyable or more so? If so, why is this a problem?
- If you play in Solo Mode, what is your grievance with other players not playing in Solo Mode?
Recognize the answers to these two sets of questions don't necessarily inform one another. I played in solo when hauling a lot of cargo for CGs, for example, because my patience is really thin. I could have twenty good runs, and only one gank, and I'd be furious. What can I say, I'm not a patient gamer. I didn't come to Elite to work on being a better human, I have a therapist for that. Vice versa, I usually played in Open the rest of the time because I liked seeing other commanders and I inherently avoided crowded hot spots like Jameson. If I needed to go into a hot spot, for engineering or new stuff, I'd just swap to solo - do my business - then go back to Open. I almost exclusively played combat zones in open as my primary source of PvP because, in my head, it made sense to pick a fight with players and it didn't bother me when I lost those fights (frequently, I might add).
So it might not surprise I rather like organized PvP as a game design, but I recognize that Elite doesn't have that and probably never will. But I digress.
What, exactly, is the problem? Not your proposed solution, or how you think it should be...
Tell me what is. What is wrong with Elite's Open Mode?
Yes and no, but I'm not sure I agree with that. In fact I think in general it's pretty bad and inconsistent. And I mean that in a general sense, not PvP specific.
You answered your own question
What is wrong with Open mode?
If you have to swap to Solo frequently that should tell you everything why PVE folks arnt interested.
O7 PS you seem to play pretty much like i do by switching.
That would happen once, resulting in a week system ban, and the new player would not be goaded into doing it again.
it would be enough damage to the new player experience meaning the affected player will quit.
But I don't have to swap. I just choose to, and only when interacting with high traffic. I also don't (personally) see that as a problem. I figured that's why the three modes exist in the first place.
Now, if somebody said, "It breaks my immersion, logging in and logging out"...again, that's a choice, but a legitimate problem, too. Elite is supposed to be an immersive game by design. So that implies Open Mode somehow break immersion, with ganking being one example.
Except...murder in Elite ought make sense? So why does ganking break immersion to the point of swapping modes (and possibly never swapping back)? That's what I'm getting at. Why (and how) is that a problem? Because it clearly is to a large group of players, on both sides of the ganking argument.
Elite is billed as an MMO.
A primary attractive feature of MMOs is positive coop PVE social experiences.
The C&P and lack of PVE PVP partitioning that exists in other MMOs results in frustrating discontinuity that players exposed to the genre expect.
There are PVP only MMOs, but their populations are typically much lower than those offering PVE/ PVP partitioning.
Is it "wrong" that FDEV went full PVP, no.
If player participation in the Open mode of the game is perceived as low, then people question the game design decision to limit the Open experience to full PVP.
Oh I'm sure it is less damage than being ganked continuously in a popular system. Again, a week ban from a single high security system does not prohibit playing in the rest of the game. That player then realizes not to kill unwanted targets in that system, and won't make the mistake again.
A serial ganker is the one actually punished with this model.
Short answer : yes (it would benefit if a non-pvp mode was included).I'm under the impression that a lot of people, including myself, prefer to play Solo mode all the time, not because we don't want to play with others, but simply because we don't want to PVP others.
For comparison, let me talk to you about of one of the worst launches in recent years, Fallout 76, which to the surprise of some has actually redeemed itself (at least to some extent), but owes it survival to its community, which stood during awful first year fo the game, but also a community that confused Bethesda because the devs were convinced their players wanted more PVP... and they were proven wrong, best depicted through many of the ironic headlines that gaming journalism used to deliver the "shocking" revelation:
Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other
Bethesda Didn’t Get Why ‘Fallout 76’ Players Wouldn’t Kill Each Other
Bethesda was surprised to learn that Fallout 76 players didn't care much for PvP, and how the game has evolved reflects that.www.forbes.com
Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'
Bethesda Apparently Shocked People Didn't Like PvP in 'Fallout 76'
"It's a smaller percentage of our player base than we thought."www.gamingbible.co.uk
Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP
Bethesda Surprised By How Many Fallout 76 Players Didn't Want to PvP
Bethesda VP Pete Hines reveals that the company was surprised to find that players preferred to avoid PvP in Fallout 76 in favor of PvE.gamerant.com
Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP
Bethesda was surprised how uninterested players were in Fallout 76's PvP
We just want to be friends.www.pcgamer.com
Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don’t murder each other
Why is everyone being so nice?
Bethesda got confused that Fallout 76 players don't murder each other
When Bethesda was designing Fallout 76, it expected players to murder each other, but it turns out they'd rather just work together.www.pcinvasion.com
Don't misunderstand: Fallout 76 do had (still has to a small degree) griefers and gankers, but the vast majority of players simply preferred not to engage in PVP.
Keeping things short, today many of the ways to engage into PVP have been disabled, pacifist mode is a menu option that makes it almost impossible to engage in PVP, and while the game's reputation will forever be tarnished by its launch, its actually in a better than many people expected (which can't be said for games like EA's Anthem, which already threw the towel and cancelled further development). It still is no substitute for a proper Fallout 5, but as a casual time waster with a Fallout theme: it's passable.
Back to Elite Dangerous, I think a lot more people would like to try playing in Open Play with random strangers in Elite if they had the choice to opt out from PVP, like having an aforementioned pacifist mode that disabled PVP interactions.
But that's just my impression, and I would like to hear what other thinks on this matter:
Do you think that Open Play would be negatively affected if PVP could be disabled?
Do you think Elite could benefit from having more people try to play & cooperate with others in Open Play?
Long answer : yes, if fdev give us more exploration content instead of settlements for pew pew arenas...
However, it's never going to happen. So I'm not holding my breath, on either point!
Good questions. For myself, I'm very happy with the mode setup. Open is fine; I understand why it's a bit dangerous in a game with armed spaceships. IMO the ganking thing spoils it a bit as that behaviour is OOC and immersion-breaking, but there's block to deal with that. I think the whole design with a single galaxy and the modes for interacting in it plus block for fine tuning is innovative, clever and works well.
I don't really want to answer those questions for other people; I expect some will chip in. But from memory I've only seen three recurring statements of "problems" with Open. They fall into these categories.
- Open is too dangerous. (Given that the other modes and block exist I don't agree with this, except for Deciat).
- Open is too empty; all those Solo players would enhance my game experience if they were in Open. (This makes me want to ask why; I suspect it's usually a simple desire for more "non-PvP-capable" targets, which I don't sympathise with).
- ED needs a PvP game feature; it spoils competition if people can "hide" in Solo. (Maybe it does need a PvP feature. However, there is actually no such feature and therefore there's nothing to be spoiled by "hiding").
I have spent the last week at notoriety 10 for a BGS project and apart from a station opening fire on me I have had very little to worry about.
I'm sure that if you meddle with the C&P system you could cause all sorts of side effects that we haven't even dreamt of, but I still think that it could and should be made more robust.
I think there's a misconception that Open should have more CMDRs in it, rather than the fact that it's more likely that they're just spread very very thin.
I don't think PvE activities outside of organised groups are very likely (e.g. in my experience corroborated by others most players encountered ignore you or have very brief chats) but "lone wolf" CMDRs would like the chance of being in the most popular mode and therefore having a statistically higher chance of random PvE.
Finally, there are players who choose open but aren't cognisant of the rules of engagement, e.g. you can be attacked anywhere for any reason at any time. Then there's a disconnect between what they think Open should be Vs what open actually is.
In the same way but from a different angle some Open PP or BGS players get frustrated with players acting against them in PG or solo - showing a lack of understanding of both the BGS and PP implementation.
Personally speaking I'm at a level where NPCs (except thargoids) pose very little risk to me so it's only other players that can make me face the rebuy screen.
I really do enjoy trying to outwit hostile CMDRs at CGs, Deciat etc in a non PvP ship. I am happy to be their content as my goal is to thwart them. I love thwarting.
Whats important to me is that players pick the right mode - and don't moan about that choice on the forum.
I don't think PvE activities outside of organised groups are very likely (e.g. in my experience corroborated by others most players encountered ignore you or have very brief chats) but "lone wolf" CMDRs would like the chance of being in the most popular mode and therefore having a statistically higher chance of random PvE.
Finally, there are players who choose open but aren't cognisant of the rules of engagement, e.g. you can be attacked anywhere for any reason at any time. Then there's a disconnect between what they think Open should be Vs what open actually is.
In the same way but from a different angle some Open PP or BGS players get frustrated with players acting against them in PG or solo - showing a lack of understanding of both the BGS and PP implementation.
Personally speaking I'm at a level where NPCs (except thargoids) pose very little risk to me so it's only other players that can make me face the rebuy screen.
I really do enjoy trying to outwit hostile CMDRs at CGs, Deciat etc in a non PvP ship. I am happy to be their content as my goal is to thwart them. I love thwarting.
Whats important to me is that players pick the right mode - and don't moan about that choice on the forum.
This is similar to what I end up with when thinking about this and talking to my friends...
And I do agree that, we should be able to hire NPC wingmen etc, so everything a player can do in a wing and multicrew, you should be able to hire NPC's to fill those roles instead. and when you hire them for wing duty, they have their own ship.
And of course this would not really make anyone leave solo if they already play there, just give them more options to enjoy the game, which I am all in favour of, as everyone could benefit from this kind of change.
the biggest problem, I see with Elite design, is the pathetic and truly moronic C&P system. it does very little to deter or make it negative for a players decision to play as a murder hobo. and at the same time, it is hugely inconvenient to the regular player, where tiny mistakes is severely punished.
We have security levels on the systems, with authority ships response time based on the security level, it might have been ok for pre-engineers game play, but with engineering, you can be dead long before they even arrive, and if you can survive long enough for them to arrive, they are for the most part, useless, a minor distraction, and you do not kill them, they do not ask for reinforcements... so you are free to keep on murdering your victim... ATR, what a joke, these only show up AFTER you kill wave after wave of Authority ships, so why would any ganker stick around and kill authority ships when they go looking for another victim? ATR are only a challenge for players who seek them out.
We do not have any real follow mechanic, just try to follow anyone, doing several jumps, spot the ship outside the station, wait for them to jump scan their wake, and follow... next system, they will now jump from super cruise, and you get no wake to scan. huh... and this is further shown when you pick up a mission that have you follow a person to another system, where the NPC target is now actively waiting for you, and dropping into normal space, and then again waiting, so you can arrive and spot their new wake, so that you can follow again... stupid design. so many missed opportunities to learn about stuff by following random NPC ships. or hey, that ship is loaded with expensive stuff, that is needed here, where did he get that, wait for the ship unload and then follow it back to see where it bought it...
There is nothing to make your choices to have any real consequences. Get notoriety. leave your game logged in over night, and visit IF and pay it off. So how much of a bother is this? once you have learned this, just a minor obstacle..
if we can't make a working C&P system that works for PvE players, when they are going murder hobos against clean NPC ships, how can we expect that it will have any impact at all on PvP murder hobos?
I totally agree, I do not think that a better or even more logical C&P system would have any effect on how many more players there would be in open.
and you have a highlighted a few of the issues that would likely see a change in the suggested beefed up C&P, but these are already issues under the current system, but since the current system do not care now about these things, and this was pretty evident when we got the changes last time to C&P, as it was even more stuff that was on the do not really care list, that now all of a sudden got place on the we do care list, and you better pay attention, like how they had to adjust the friendly fire limits a couple of times, etc. and still NPC's thinks is a good idea to fly between you and a target where you are actively shooting at the target,. some NPC's are some really annoying griefers...
So are you essentially saying that meaningfull percentage of gankers are actually trolls who like to ruin others gameplay? In that case why not ban them outright from game?
Last edited: