I was at Deciat tonight with a mining python. There were a couple of commanders in the instance, but I didn't get attacked. Leaving I nearly ran into a commander coming from the side, don't know what to make about that. But some course correction and I flew past him. Been lonely out in the black since then..
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Maybe a quick trip to Summerland?
Yes, I see. This makes sense.
Summerland is a cemetery.
In the addition of ship interiors, and a redesign of game continuity, and humankind's progressive approach to space exploration, we may get to a point where proper multicrew aboard one ship is good enough to carry players together, aboard one unit, to seek out new life and new... sod it, Star Trek ED !
I'm not a fan of fighting other humans, I have done that enough in real life than to do it in a game as well.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead? Yes.
I'm not a fan of fighting other humans, I have done that enough in real life than to do it in a game as well.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead? Yes.
Last edited:
Robigo mines is an outpost. Anyone actually trying to make credits out of that place would do it in solo anyway or they'd struggle to dock at the place, especially in a PvE mode. The only reason you would go to that place in open is for the interaction you say you want to avoid.
![[DOOK] Droogie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/124/124078.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
How can you jump into a party in solo?
People want the option to meet new people and make friends without worrying about pvp.
Sys chat works across all modes and most people you see will probably be in the middle of something and not respond anyway.
Or join a squadron? Inara allows squads to give out enough information to allow a pretty good indication of what they're about.
Or go on one of the many discord servers.
Still not really a party. In elite, party = wing.
Why would you broadcast over syschat when you can't see anyone?
You can't tell the difference between an empty system and a crowded one in solo.
You can't tell the difference between an empty system and a crowded one in solo.
I always say "hi" at CGs. I think the players who get upset about you using chat when they can't see you are quite funny.
Me too - If I was in to Spreadsheet Manager 2022. Instead I rather play in solo - or to be real: entirely different games. ED has become more a deterrence than incentive to play.
In solo as much as open.
It speaks volumes that the game itself has so many barriers to play that gankers are hardly worth considering a real nuisance. I uninstalled after really crunching the numbers on how many hours of my playtime was just wasted in supercruise. I didn't buy Elite to watch my phone or tab out on a computer and do something else.
I already have a job for that. =D
And maybe that's why Elite feels like a job itself. I'd rather be doing something else 80% of the time, but those few minutes with the 20% had me hooked for a good long while. Sounds like an addiction when I read that. Hmph. I've yet to find an addiction that is good.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
257 pages long so apologies for not reading entire thread and am sure I have nothing to offer not already covered ... but here goes anyway .
personally even as a player with zero interest in PvP I think disabling it & friendly fire would be an awful move in open. open is meant to be anything goes. I would absolutely support more meaningful repercussions for wanton destruction against PF members , but a PvP flag "off" would be terrible imo.
a.separate PvE mode would be better and that would be online with what was proposed by fdev in KSer but even that isn't ideal imo as policing your fire should be something you have to do in the game. and if I do a friendly fire on the wrong target there should be repercussions .
what I would like to see would be more tools put into the private groups and ideally the limit on numbers removed (tho technically that may be difficult).
having 3 or 4 mobius groups is a pain as it fragments like minded players. also crossplay is huge now so I would be happy if FD found a way to allow this too, so on one hand some players would leave open to go to effectively a big PvE group but equally open would I think over all be far more lively with Xbox and ps players in there too.
I don't expect any of this to happen but I think it would be cool
.personally even as a player with zero interest in PvP I think disabling it & friendly fire would be an awful move in open. open is meant to be anything goes. I would absolutely support more meaningful repercussions for wanton destruction against PF members , but a PvP flag "off" would be terrible imo.
a.separate PvE mode would be better and that would be online with what was proposed by fdev in KSer but even that isn't ideal imo as policing your fire should be something you have to do in the game. and if I do a friendly fire on the wrong target there should be repercussions .
what I would like to see would be more tools put into the private groups and ideally the limit on numbers removed (tho technically that may be difficult).
having 3 or 4 mobius groups is a pain as it fragments like minded players. also crossplay is huge now so I would be happy if FD found a way to allow this too, so on one hand some players would leave open to go to effectively a big PvE group but equally open would I think over all be far more lively with Xbox and ps players in there too.
I don't expect any of this to happen but I think it would be cool
I def can see such version and I can see it being the best and most fun iteration of Elite and its multiplayer aspects. I bet majority of people don't consider unrestricted pvp as some defining aspect of Elite, quite the contrary. Unrestricted pvp is just a victim simulator for anyone who doesn't fly a ship build for pvp. On the other hand, I can't imagine "adjustments" to crime and punishment system that are so sewere it'd keep people wanting to pvp and gank from pvping and ganking. Which would not be sensical anyway.
and any such modes would either break immersion alot or open for griefers to abuse the system, despite not being able to shoot you.... as collisions are a thing that still can be abused. and if we remove colliosions, then we will have spaceships going through other spaceships, so we will either end up with no collisions between players, but we still have collisions with NPC ships... so that can then be abused... and if we remove all collisions, then we remove a perfectly good tactic in combat to ram NPC ships...
I can see how a C&P system can be used to severely reduce the unwanted PvP, while making the players who decides to ignore this to face the consequences...
Some game have implemented that if I open fire on you, I do severely reduced damage, until you decide to shoot back. then we both do full damage. This should work pretty well in Elite too, if I can do 1% of my damage, when I start shooting you, then I need to spend quite alot of time to destroy your ship. And if I keep on firing on you despite you not shooting back, despite the game is warning me about what is about to happen if I keep doing this, and then you die, now the game spawns a persistent ATR squad on my tail that will hunt and discourage me from flying in the area (like 10-20 LY range), for a certain amount of time. like a week. Now I cannot stay in the current system to gank other unwilling players, as I would be constantly chased/attacked by the ATR squad, thus severely limiting my ability hunt other unwilling players.
it will not stop ganking, and everyone can still shoot at everyone else, as they please, but killing an unwilling victim is now much harder, and it will in almost all cases allow players to leave, and if the other player do not get the hint that the other player is not interested in PvP and follows to interdict again, then the other player can use block, exist to menu to switch game mode, etc, to remove the wannabe ganker from their play session....
There have also been made other suggestions regarding C&P system to be connected to the security status of the system, add more persistent ATR response squadrons to chase wanted players, and this could be Federation wide, Alliance Wide or Empire wide, making it much more dangerous to sit and wait for victims in systems you are wanted in... There have been suggestions that also would allow the game to spawn Capital Ships to a system, based on the amount of killed players, ie killed players who have report crimes on, and thus increasing the security rating of the system. This will allow the game respond to situations when players repeatedly get ganked in systems with no population, like Guardian sites. so the more people gank other people the higher the security will be, and the faster and more severe the ATR response in such system can be, and we tune this half decent, this system would react to player behaviour, making the most obvious ganking hotspots today having faster response against ganker, making it harder to keep ganking. And if we would combine this with a system with reduced damage if you do not fire back, then it would be pretty hard to keep on ganking, as the ganker now need to take in account that multiple ATR ships will arrive and if they cannot kill their victim fast enough then they have to run to save their own ship...
So there are plenty of things that can be done using existing game mechanics and changing a few others, that combined will discourage ganking. So bullies can still try to gank , but they now have to face the consequences of their actions, and if the balance is half decent, they will be spending more time dealing with that than on ganking...
It will NOT discourage ganking. A meta FDL can outfly ATR.
The only deterrent against non-consensual PvP is an absolute one. And as such, the only sensible option is a separate mode that bans CMDR on CMDR combat of any form and makes evading that restriction a permaban-worthy non-appealable (=zero-tolerance) offense.
However, evidence gathering of a neutral way requires a client-server netcode solution. Thus such a mode needs concessions that make this mode non-abusable.
Last edited: