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

[varonica]

Thank you all.
I usually read wrong opinions about BGS, but here I see that many have a correct understanding of what it is.

But I partially disagree with YOU. The effect on BGS players is not proper game design. Can 3 people on Cutters influence a system with 20 billion inhabitants ?
Where is the accounting of NPCs for the game ? That there are no NPCs in the game ?
If done correctly people would play in BGS as it should and did not try to bend the whole star system under themselves, and there would not be any complaints to single players.

Players would be unable to affect the BGS at all if the pre-supposed activites of NPC's were taken into account. a single player, small group or even a large group (in terms of ED players) would have zero effect on 99% of systems in the game. Players have an effect out of all proportion to their number because of this.

 

[TobiasFuzz]

BGS and powerplay suffers for same reaons... one party hiding to avoid confrontation condems the other to the same grind.

It's "design", it's "the game we bought", etc. well the game is dying and this is another reason why.

May be the "I don't see anyone in open" -> "Game is dead" isn't that wrong at this point...

So complaining is one-sided here again. Gankers in engineered ships forced me to do the same grind to get on par. As long it is everyones right to blow up every ship in open without reason just for fun... i have the right to mess up every BGS mechanic in solo just for fun.

 

[SergMx]

Players would be unable to affect the BGS at all if the pre-supposed activites of NPC's were taken into account. a single player, small group or even a large group (in terms of ED players) would have zero effect on 99% of systems in the game. Players have an effect out of all proportion to their number because of this.

Yes! This is a tactical game (you can say FPS / RPG) no strategy here should not be. You are a mercenary in the universe. (I remember Elite1 and Frontier well.)

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

PvP combat has got to be about the least effective and least efficient way to influence the BGS. Even if every one was in open, you are not going to stop someone trying to alter the BGS of a system by trying to find and kill them on every platform, in every time zone. You are going to beat them by filling the correct buckets. Any time spent on trying to win via PvP combat is time better spent filling buckets that matter. Usually, the most efficient way those buckets are filled, is by completing missions and beneficial trading with the faction you wish to support. Even in cases where combat is needed to get the desired BGS effect, killing NPC's will always be more efficient than PvP.
PvP was tacked onto ED. It might have been planned from the start to have PvP, but the game does not reward players for engaging in it. In fact, it normally penalizes them for it in one way or another. Enjoying PvP is the only reward for it most of the time.

Given the deep aversion some have have for even admitting the possibility of unarranged PvP encounters into their game, it strikes me that on the contrary, the threat of PvP opposition in an open-only feature would in fact be an extremely effective method of defence. Its mere possibility being a deterrent for such individuals. The defender could make a single sortie in an unengineered sidewinder and go to bed confident their work is done!

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

So complaining is one-sided here again. Gankers in engineered ships forced me to do the same grind to get on par. As long it is everyones right to blow up every ship in open without reason just for fun... i have the right to mess up every BGS mechanic in solo just for fun.

Sounds like the real winners are the ones griefing in both PvP and PvE!

Or on the other hand, sounds like the guy who switched to forever-solo afterwards deserved to get ganked.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Given the deep aversion some have have for even admitting the possibility of unarranged PvP encounters into their game, it strikes me that on the contrary, the threat of PvP opposition in an open-only feature would in fact be an extremely effective method of defence. Its mere possibility being a deterrent for such individuals. The defender could make a single sortie in an unengineered sidewinder and go to bed confident their work is done!

Indeed it may - however, as PvP, or even the threat of it, is not a requirement of any in-game feature it's a non issue for players who don't enjoy PvP (subject to suitable choice of game mode).

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Sounds like the real winners are the ones griefing in both PvP and PvE!

Or on the other hand, sounds like the guy who switched to forever-solo afterwards deserved to get ganked.

What can be expected when attacking things is fun and defending things (from what I have read here) is tedious? Seems like the thing to do out of those two options is attack stuff.

 

[Rebel Yell]

You can thank the gankers for that. Cant really complain when players vote with their feet.

So complaining is one-sided here again. Gankers in engineered ships forced me to do the same grind to get on par. As long it is everyones right to blow up every ship in open without reason just for fun... i have the right to mess up every BGS mechanic in solo just for fun.

I don't believe there's a specific responsability for only one of the sides... flippling the coin, one can argue about the "I want to haul goods in my shieldless T9" statement as well. I mean, besides the engineered combat ships have obviously superior fire power vs. hauling ships, there are wayouts in the game allowing non-combat ships to avoid such "annoyance".

Of course, that requires a trade off (which not may are keen to take).

And also: in reality more players in open means the risk of being ganked is lower (that's a pure probability calculation given limited instancing in the game).

 

[Robert Maynard]

And also: in reality more players in open means the risk of being ganked is lower (that's a pure probability calculation given limited instancing in the game).

It'd also mean that gankers who currently don't play may return - as the ganking opportunities would increase.

 

[Rebel Yell]

PvP combat has got to be about the least effective and least efficient way to influence the BGS. Even if every one was in open, you are not going to stop someone trying to alter the BGS of a system by trying to find and kill them on every platform, in every time zone. You are going to beat them by filling the correct buckets. Any time spent on trying to win via PvP combat is time better spent filling buckets that matter. Usually, the most efficient way those buckets are filled, is by completing missions and beneficial trading with the faction you wish to support. Even in cases where combat is needed to get the desired BGS effect, killing NPC's will always be more efficient than PvP.
PvP was tacked onto ED. It might have been planned from the start to have PvP, but the game does not reward players for engaging in it. In fact, it normally penalizes them for it in one way or another. Enjoying PvP is the only reward for it most of the time.

I have a counter argument, based on my experience: PvP is a dispute resolver, not saying it works for the BGS... but it leads (way faster than any type of BGS grind/war mechanic) to a resolution of such kind of confrontations.

Of course the premise is that both parties agree (and fulfill tz/platform requirements) to bring the PvP-side in the BGS equation.

99% of BGS wars end in 2 other ways (usually at the cost of a huge waste of time to reach the breaking point): one party leaves/abandons (boredom/frustration/etc) or a diplomatic non-weaponised solutions is found.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I don't believe there's a specific responsability for only one of the sides... flippling the coin, one can argue about the "I want to haul goods in my shieldless T9" statement as well. I mean, besides the engineered combat ships have obviously superior fire power vs. hauling ships, there are wayouts in the game allowing non-combat ships to avoid such "annoyance".

Of course, that requires a trade off (which not may are keen to take).

And also: in reality more players in open means the risk of being ganked is lower (that's a pure probability calculation given limited instancing in the game).

I come from a BGS group. We never complained much about solo players "hiding" in a mode messing our BGS up. The thing is: When you're looking for a PvP game then go play one. There is no use droning about one game that fndamentally isn't designed as a PvP game to become one. Because that won't happen just like the PvE mode won't happen.

And if you want to complain about it, complain to FD. because they have designed the game to be like that. The players that use it just use it. The ganker for the lols, the solo player for the PvE. That the game design not really supports that is a design problem.

 

[Rebel Yell]

It'd also mean that gankers who currently don't play may return - as the ganking opportunities would increase.

Everyone can be "a ganker", I have no such idea of a specific "group"... that "group" being blocked by many players will also force them in their instance very likely. Other players may just try to "gank" for some fun i.e. there's no need to have super-engineered combat ships to take out a shieldless T9 (if that's the case).

And I believe there are not many "gankers" waiting to return in the game to gank who's gone is gone.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Everyone can be "a ganker", I have no such idea of a specific "group"... that "group" being blocked by many players will also force them in their instance very likely. Other players may just try to "gank" for some fun i.e. there's no need to have super-engineered combat ships to take out a shieldless T9 (if that's the case).

And I believe there are not many "gankers" waiting to return in the game to gank who's gone is gone.

I'm seeing this on PS. Comments I've seen from players is that there's still plenty of shieldless T-9s to go round. It's not for want of targets the people have moved on.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I come from a BGS group. We never complained much about solo players "hiding" in a mode messing our BGS up. The thing is: When you're looking for a PvP game then go play one. There is no use droning about one game that fndamentally isn't designed as a PvP game to become one. Because that won't happen just like the PvE mode won't happen.

And if you want to complain about it, complain to FD. because they have designed the game to be like that. The players that use it just use it. The ganker for the lols, the solo player for the PvE. That the game design not really supports that is a design problem.

I know, I am not the one complaining about "bad design" for BGS but arguments regarding players' (or groups) behaviour are on a different ground (as we've discussed many times on the sub) -> I mean any PvE vs PvP dispute for BGS is totally in the hands of players involved.

Bad design is for sure having serious consequences on the powerplay... because of the 5C which has no way to be countered (let's call the solo/PG modes can litterally be exploited there).

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I know, I am not the one complaining about "bad design" for BGS but arguments regarding players' (or groups) behaviour are on a different ground (as we've discussed many times on the sub) -> I mean any PvE vs PvP dispute for BGS is totally in the hands of players involved.

Bad design is for sure having serious consequences on the powerplay... because of the 5C which has no way to be countered (let's call the solo/PG modes can litterally be exploited there).

I'm talking about fundamental design here. Like in: You can't have PvP and PvE players in one bucket. It just doesn't work. Their gameplay is exclusive. As in: it rules each other out. You can't make players play with each other when they don't want to. You either make a good PvP game or you make a PvE game. Each can have elements of the other but you can't throw player in one game together.
It
just
does
not
work.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I'm talking about fundamental design here. Like in: You can't have PvP and PvE players in one bucket. It just doesn't work. Their gameplay is exclusive. As in: it rules each other out. You can't make players play with each other when they don't want to. You either make a good PvP game or you make a PvE game. Each can have elements of the other but you can't throw player in one game together.
It
just
does
not
work.

They had the opportunity to create different buckets with the powerplay, but they've failed.

 

[SergMx]

We already have a PvP game is CQC.
Just turn off the open game PvP and that will be enough.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The reaction is not "defensive" - it's simply recounting the facts of the matter, i.e. we all bought a game where all players affect the shared galaxy and where PvP is an optional extra.

But facts change, now more than ever, and that's why anyone bothers to discuss or make suggestions.

Facts were that console players had a clear stake in the future of the game once (a stick oft used to ineffectually beat open-only [feature] enthusiasts, btw). But Frontier took controversial decisions on that and the planetary tiling issue, somewhat horrifying large constituencies of players. This was due to expediency around dev resources. Brave decisions, maybe. Are there any legal challenges?

So for instance, faced with a task of improving powerplay engagement, say, which do you think might be more likely, a radical, resource intensive overhaul or a transition to some form of open-only/open-bonus with some bug fixing and a stretch target of making the OO aspect more watertight?

People will say "the former, because only a clique of griefers want OOPP anyway". Well, I'm content for people to have that illusion if they like.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But facts change, now more than ever, and that's why anyone bothers to discuss or make suggestions.

Facts were that console players had a clear stake in the future of the game once (a stick oft used to ineffectually beat open-only [feature] enthusiasts, btw). But Frontier took controversial decisions on that and the planetary tiling issue, somewhat horrifying large constituencies of players. This was due to expediency around dev resources. Brave decisions, maybe. Are there any legal challenges?

So for instance, faced with a task of improving powerplay engagement, say, which do you think might be more likely, a radical, resource intensive overhaul or a transition to some form of open-only/open-bonus with some bug fixing and a stretch target of making the OO aspect more watertight?

People will say "the former, because only a clique of griefers want OOPP anyway". Well, I'm content for people to have that illusion if they like.

Given the INARA stats, I doubt that any game feature is likely to be made Open only - as Frontier stand to annoy far more players than they would stand to please.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I'm talking about fundamental design here. Like in: You can't have PvP and PvE players in one bucket. It just doesn't work. Their gameplay is exclusive. As in: it rules each other out. You can't make players play with each other when they don't want to. You either make a good PvP game or you make a PvE game. Each can have elements of the other but you can't throw player in one game together.
It
just
does
not
work.

It works pretty well in powerplay, from my couple of years' experience, even with normal limitations around instancing. But only if both sides are in open, exposed to the same risks, otherwise it's pretty limp and leads to bad feeling between sides.