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

[Jack Winter]

Choosing open mode effectively means that you consent to be shot at by other players, supposedly this is why some people chose to play in PG or solo..

 

[Robert Maynard]

Choosing open mode effectively means that you consent to be shot at by other players, supposedly this is why some people chose to play in PG or solo..

Indeed - and, due to the shared nature of the galaxy, i.e. players in all game modes affect it, no game feature requires players to play in Open to affect it, much to the chagrin of those who can't accept that players don't need to play with them to affect the game.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Naturally - proponents of contentious change often dismiss concerns raised by those opposed to the change, seemingly in the hope that it bolsters their case - that hasn't changed in the over nine years that the Open only discussion has been ongoing.

Hardly dismissive on the whole, although you might have the view that tweaked proposals are not sufficiently accommodating.

Given how few players actually seem to engage in PvP (see INARA stats earlier in the thread), restricting one or more existing pan-modal features to Open only seems to be rather more fanciful.

Ironically, it's mostly the PvEers (most powerplayers are engaged in PvE predominantly; like a footballer avoiding letting in goals, they avoid PvP in order to not suffer losses, while accepting that it's less of a game without it) that object to their opponents not taking the same risks they do. PvPers can always find targets if that's all they care about.

I don't think that proposing to split the galaxy in the event that Open only is under serious consideration is quite as fanciful as some seem to think - as Frontier have the whole player-base to consider, not just the few who engage in PvP, in a game sold to all where PvP is optional.

Agree to disagree.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if proven wrong, i.e. afterwards. It seems clear that some players want the whole game to be made Open only to suit their play-style preference with little or no regard for how that would affect the gameplay of players adversely affected by the changes.

Decisions are never made after the fact or on 100% proof so I don't get your point.

Vanishingly few players want OO everything.

What proportion of those owning the game do those "committed participants" represent? They bought the game on the same terms as everyone else and have no special privileges to enable them to deny access to the game feature to other players.

It covers all existing and prospective committed participants, the rest aren't relevant since they can be accommodated by exceptions to any new rules, or are unaffected. I'm just trying to establish the nature of your objection, being kind of rhetorical really.

 

[ethelred]

Open only seeks to restrict the ability to affect access to one or more game features to those who play in Open - seeking to force those who wish to continue to engage in those features to play in Open - essentially a removal of the choice currently available to players regarding which game mode to play in when affecting pan-modal game features.

Indeed - and the whole game is currently available to those who choose not to play in Open - however that would not be the case if any new or existing game features were to be made Open only.

Any new content and the modes thereof are dependent on the direction FDEV want to take the game - isn't that self-evident?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Both terms have nothing to do with what you think is obvious. I guess it's you who has something to learn hier - from history (of the game) in the first place.

I never understand this objection, since elite and dangerous mean what they mean and imply exposure to risks and striving for ability to counter risks, regardless of the intermediate layer of in-universe terminology that they exist in. Their choice as the game's title should tell you something about the game's content, otherwise choose different words, perhaps even for the in-universe concepts they supposedly describe.

 

[Brrokk]

Well, I know I've said this before but...

Let's all play in whatever game mode gives us the game experience we want!

Actually, this is what we all already do, so it needn't be controversial. The hard part, though, is recognising that all other players have the same choices and they might make different mode selections.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ironically, it's mostly the PvEers (most powerplayers are engaged in PvE predominantly; like a footballer avoiding letting in goals, they avoid PvP in order to not suffer losses, while accepting that it's less of a game without it) that object to their opponents not taking the same risks they do. PvPers can always find targets if that's all they care about.

That's because it's a feature that does not require PvP - although players can choose to oppose each other directly, if they wish, or not as the case may be.

PvPers will indeed always find targets, willing or otherwise - simply because Open is the only pre-populated game mode that players have access to in the launcher.

Decisions are never made after the fact or on 100% proof so I don't get your point.

Vanishingly few players want OO everything.

Whether concerns constituted a slippery slope argument, or not, cannot be judged before the fact.

It covers all existing and prospective committed participants, the rest aren't relevant since they can be accommodated by exceptions to any new rules, or are unaffected. I'm just trying to establish the nature of your objection, being kind of rhetorical really.

Being able to dismiss those who bought the game on the same terms because they are not "existing and prospective committed participants" would, of course, be convenient to those change proponents.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Any new content and the modes thereof are dependent on the direction FDEV want to take the game - isn't that self-evident?

Indeed - and they seem to aim content at as many players as possible - and, as was acknowledged years ago by a Dev and indicated more recently in the INARA stats, most players don't engage in PvP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, I know I've said this before but...

Let's all play in whatever game mode gives us the game experience we want!

Actually, this is what we all already do, so it needn't be controversial. The hard part, though, is recognising that all other players have the same choices and they might make different mode selections.

It seems that players having choice as to who to play among is anathema to some players who would quite like to be able to force other players to play the way they want them to when engaging in existing game features that don't require them to play as others may want them to.

 

[Old Duck]

To Open Players: If You Could Enable good PvE, Would You Play in Solo Mode Instead?​

 

[ethelred]

To Open Players: If You Could Enable good PvE, Would You Play in Solo Mode Instead?​

This is much better question. As stated elsewhere, the mode "discussion" is a distraction - what we need is more content.

 

[Rebel Yell]

To Open Players: If You Could Enable good PvE, Would You Play in Solo Mode Instead?​

PvE is necessary (just think about sourcing manufactured materials for engineering)... I mean, the game mode (open or solo/PG) just paves the way to have both (i.e. additionally) PvE and PvP activities. The exclusivity only happens in solo/PG as unless you're going to shoot your mates in PG there's no PvP.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Being able to dismiss those who bought the game on the same terms because they are not "existing and prospective committed participants" would, of course, be convenient to those change proponents.

Well I agree factually I think with nearly everything you say, but you are not really saying or answering anything in the context of the discussion. As for the above quote, if someone said they owned they game but would never play it, ever, and they meant it, hated it, would you take their views into account designing content for it, with them as a non-prospective player? They have no stake and it doesn't affect them. I realise I'm not really being fair trying to get you to reveal the conditions under which OO <feature> might be acceptable. I'm forced to assume "never, under any conceivable circumstances", which is interesting in itself.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To Open Players: If You Could Enable good PvE, Would You Play in Solo Mode Instead?​

Without PvE there'd be little game to play - as the galaxy is vast and, unless there's prior knowledge as to where players congregate, finding other players is non-trivial.

As to what constitutes "good PvE" - different players have different ideas - so while it's easy to request the addition of "good PvE" it's less easy to design and implement it.

 

[Old Duck]

PvE is necessary (just think about sourcing manufactured materials for engineering)... I mean, the game mode (open or solo/PG) just paves the way to have both (i.e. additionally) PvE and PvP activities. The exclusivity only happens in solo/PG as unless you're going to shoot your mates in PG there's no PvP.

The point I'm trying to make is that my need for other players in Elite with me these days in order to enjoy it (hence my signature) is based on my boredom with solo PvE in Elite. I compare this to a game like ESO, which is Open-only, yet I'm super happy running around solo 99% of the time.

Personally I wish I didn't have to rely on the company of other players in order to enjoy Elite, because then the lack of these players results in a lack of enjoyment. I suspect the reason this and other threads exist is because of that very reason - they lack other players to engage with, and like me they find the solo content boring, so they're left... bored.

Not that I actually expect the (I should have emphasized solo) PvE content to improve... So all I have left is to advocate for the one constant, reliable (and apparently now abandoned) mechanism in the game that brings like-minded players together in a single system - a combat-related CG.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well I agree factually I think with nearly everything you say, but you are not really saying or answering anything in the context of the discussion. As for the above quote, if someone said they owned they game but would never play it, ever, and they meant it, hated it, would you take their views into account designing content for it, with them as a non-prospective player? They have no stake and it doesn't affect them. I realise I'm not really being fair trying to get you to reveal the conditions under which OO <feature> might be acceptable. I'm forced to assume "never, under any conceivable circumstances", which is interesting in itself.

There's no need for those who oppose Open only to negotiate a compromise with change proponents - as it has not been agreed that change is required (and change proponents offer nothing in return (nor are they in a position to) for that which would be taken from those who don't (or can't) play in Open).

 

[Rebel Yell]

It seems that players having choice as to who to play among is anathema to some players who would quite like to be able to force other players to play the way they want them to when engaging in existing game features that don't require them to play as others may want them to.

The game modes do not affect game difficulty (we are all aware of that), as it stays the same... the only one difference is: solo/PG game modes allow players to be 99% in control of what they do (=in terms of game experience) and ther risks they run, open play means there's the risk that someone's else decision may affect your game play experience.

The other way around, solo/PG players force PvP players to play their way... every solo/PG player is totally aware that choosing those game modes substantially minimize only one type of risk: the risk of being caught in a unwanted/unmanageable situation (99% of times resulting in a "tangible" loss... the ship, the cargo, the data, etc.).

Given the bulk of such losses are negligible (it's more a matter of time, except of course for unlucky explorers being kaboomed by a random PvPer here or there) I arrived at the conclusion that it's more a "psycological" problem, very clearly lined out in a sentence appearing in several posts in this topic: "I don't want to be your content" whilst on the side of the PvPer there's litterally zero relevance for such "content".

 

[varonica]

I never understand this objection, since elite and dangerous mean what they mean and imply exposure to risks and striving for ability to counter risks, regardless of the intermediate layer of in-universe terminology that they exist in. Their choice as the game's title should tell you something about the game's content, otherwise choose different words, perhaps even for the in-universe concepts they supposedly describe.

Actually they really don't mean what you think they mean in this context, and the context is what matters. The context is the fact that it is the name of a game, and the meaning in that context is the one the game makers gave it, and that is that it represents a Pilots Federation rank, and that's all. The fact that the words have other meaning when used individually and in other contexts is entirely irrelevant. In this context they mean what the makers of the game decide they mean! Their choice as the games title means exactly what they want it to mean, not what you think it means!

"Elite: Dangerous is where you are part of the Federation of Pilots and you're offered to be admitted to it and you'll be able to do this within the game, but you're still at a lesser rank so it's a bit like the British Navy for example where you had the concept of a defaced ensign. Those who may not know British military ships can fly a different flag and people can also fly that privately, but it's defaced to say that this isn't the full military ship. So it's the same sort of principle as that. Anyway that is why this is the title of the game, because it's so key to all the way the multiplayer plugs together."

 

[Robert Maynard]

The game modes do not affect game difficulty (we are all aware of that), as it stays the same... the only one difference is: solo/PG game modes allow players to be 99% in control of what they do (=in terms of game experience) and ther risks they run, open play means there's the risk that someone's else decision may affect your game play experience.

The other way around, solo/PG players force PvP players to play their way... every solo/PG player is totally aware that choosing those game modes substantially minimize only one type of risk: the risk of being caught in a unwanted/unmanageable situation (99% of times resulting in a "tangible" loss... the ship, the cargo, the data, etc.).

Given the bulk of such losses are negligible (it's more a matter of time, except of course for unlucky explorers being kaboomed by a random PvPer here or there) I arrived at the conclusion that it's more a "psycological" problem, very clearly lined out in a sentence appearing in several posts in this topic: "I don't want to be your content" whilst on the side of the PvPer there's litterally zero relevance for such "content".

Every PvP player bought a game that does not require players to engage in PvP when affecting mode shared game features - and can't seem to accept that no one else needs to play with them.

 

[Jonkarra]

I only go into open to wing up with people. Even if I had an option to go into open without PVP that wouldnt change because of people blocking pads when trying to land etc. Time is money people. Solo is more cost effective!