To answer the title question,
YES
YES
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
.
Last edited:
Personally I would like something specifically aimed at avoiding gankers, rather than opting out of PvP altogether. Perhaps an option in the social menu that prevents you from instancing with anyone who has murdered another Cmdr in the past hour, or something like that.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Such an option could be an(other) input to the matchmaking system, alongside game mode, friends list, block list and being in a Wing. It could be implemented as a slider - indicating ones preference, or lack thereof, for instancing with those who destroy clean players.
There will be those who would oppose such a change as it would give those they want to interact with another way not to play with them - however those they would want to interact with already don't need to play with them.
Agree 100%
But if the C&P system did it's job you wouldn't need this option right?
By the way, the block function is used extensively at CGs already, so that if you arrive in a system and instance with players that have blocked gankers, you will not instance with them (the gankers), so I continue to be bemused by the various comments here about open mode being a no no for anyone that doesn't fly a maxed out combat ship.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I doubt that Frontier would remove the block function, that they implemented before launch, regardless of changes to C&P - as the main purpose of the block function is not related how players are affected by consequences for committing crimes (which need not be committed against players).
So what? Nobody is forced to play with you. This includes open mode. Nice thing though is, if the blocker and the blockee both have dedicated IPv4 addresses and forwarded ports, FDev is inclined to load-balance the instances. So if you are an eligible instance host and block gankers, you protect others.
The problem regarding the aversion to open is that the first encounter with a (known or not) ganker cannot be prevented. And such an encounter once is enough for most casuals to say no to open unless PvP can be disabled. Rightly so, or unfortunately, public known ganker lists aren't permitted due to naming and shaming rules and also because the source of such list needs to be verified. As such, preemptive blocking is not feasible.
As long as PvP is forced, blocking players preventing instancing is legitimate, because of the catch-22 issues with regards to form player groups. You need to know the coop players before you can form a PG with them, and you can't do that with pure in-game tools. And even then, PGs are a bandaid because they still do not prevent unwanted PvP.
Still a moot point. The game uses Peer to Peer and as it is my internet connection, it is my right to block IP and port ranges. So even if blocking no longer prevents instancing, i can prevent it on a lower OSI layer.
Last edited:
Preemptive blocking can be achieved.
If you keep an eye on system chat and the bounties list it is possible to set up an encounter with a prospective blocklist member on your terms. Said individual can then be added to the blocklist without hassle.
If you keep an eye on system chat and the bounties list it is possible to set up an encounter with a prospective blocklist member on your terms. Said individual can then be added to the blocklist without hassle.
Which is in fact the same point I made.
My last experience at a CG (in an engineered but shieldless T9) was that I rarely got instanced with gankers, precisely because the host instance was mostly made up of cutters with extensive block lists. Then there is system chat, which they were using to alert others.
I wouldn't have called blocking illegitimate, but then I certainly wouldn't call PVP 'forced' either - you enter into the current open mode at your own free will.
Why should they? That's the job of PGs and SOLO mode.
Yes, I doubt that would be against the game TOS, but why bother when you have SOLO mode? As far as I can see all you gain is seeing hollow squares, as system chat is available in all modes, what else to you need for 'collaborative' game play at a standard CG??
You can also just come to a stop in SC as soon as you enter a system and block anyone you see around the main star, then jump out and in again.
Insert trimodal argument here
Provided that the PP modules go to Tech Brokers or some other pan-modal mechanic.
Or they cease to exist in any other than OpenPvP.
it's a workaround because the game doesn't give you the entire option to blaze your own trail if that includes doing coop with strangers
Agreed, switch them to Tech Brokers. I think the vast majority of people that engage in Powerplay for those modules don't touch it again once they've got them anyway.Provided that the PP modules go to Tech Brokers or some other pan-modal mechanic.
Or they cease to exist in any other than OpenPvP.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is easier to play in the correct game mode - unless and until particular game content is limited to one particular multi-player game mode, in which case there'll be an incentive for those who wish to engage in the gated content....
To me it seems like blocking IPv4 addresses on the network level (outside of the program) is an idiotic idea, as many service providers reuse IPv4 addresses for many customers. Not only might you block an innocent player, chances are that next time you play the gankers will have different IPv4 addresses and not be blocked..
I've also come to the conclusion that the problem many players have with the open mode is that by playing in open you consent to PvP combat..
I've also come to the conclusion that the problem many players have with the open mode is that by playing in open you consent to PvP combat..