PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[Bob Lighthouse]

Sure, but talking about toxicity which isn't quite the same thing. Salt mining mainly occurs when a game provides opportunity to grief, which is largely when you mix PvP and PvE in the same game (but FD does nicely address this by offering modes, if only more people would take advantage of them!). But even pure PvE games can offer opportunties to grief, and i think i did mention that with the example of Ark PvE servers and people putting down pillars to stop others building near resource sites.



Completely irrelevant to the point i was making. There would still be toxicity in ED even if FD focused 100% on PvP. c.f: EvE.

And there would still be toxicity even if the game were entirely PVE.
You keep bringing up this non sequitur as if it's some fact.

Honestly, my first impression about this forum was to be shocked at how toxic the PVE community here is.
To wit; this thread and the many PVE posters herein.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Hmm, I think you still don't get it. It's all about the question:
Is such a buff technically doable at all without providing a huge gateway for all sorts of possible exploits?

I wouldn't call it just a "valid factor". If you really would understand its consequences I'm pretty sure you'd call it a bummer instead.

"So this performance increase should be not too high." 5% would be enough to move Solo away from performance meta.

And by the way, now I remember ED telling me in my early days that my router settings are cracked up... So...

yeah. Open the game, if you have copy installed that is, and check Options>Network tab. I dont think something should be said about "exploits" further.

So 29.9% more efficiency for Open that is.

 

[lenna]

It does varry, and you can get toxicty in even pure PvE games, but its a lot rarer.

Even within ED you see a difference between different sub forums and player styles.

Between the PvPers you see toxicity between PvP player groups. If you hang out on some PvP discords or reddit, you regularly see one group talking negatively about another. Epeens must be waved! Our groups is better than another group. The other group are scum, etc. Its almost like politics or sports.

Then compare with the exploration subforum, where 99% of the time there is no salt, no arguments, no toxicity. People just doing their stuff or sometimes with friends, getting along, sharing what they have discovered.

The difference is quite striking.

I agree that where ED is concerned the PvP community has a high level of toxicity where behaviours and expressed attitudes are concerned. Personally, I think that will never change regardless of what FD do.

I also concur about the apparent lack of toxicity among other gameplay areas with-in themselves. When discussing the relative merits of different gameplay areas and associated changes things can get quite confrontational, even when things are discussed in good faith.

I was merely contesting the generalisation about toxicity and PvP in general. I have noted the problem get worse over the years and blame the likes of WoW and EvE primarily for that but the root cause could well be due to other more real world based causes.

 

[EUS]

After reading this article I start to understand that UPnP is the problem, port forwarding not so much. But that's all a bit beyond the scope of this thread I guess.

Anyway, here's the million dollar question, just out of curiosity:

Does Open in ED work at all (as in meeting other humans) without port forwarding and UPnP?

Any network expert who knows more about it or people already have checked this out?

Yes, I do not port forward, and I will never allow upnp.
I see other CMDRs.
Unless there's some other networking voodoo going on on FD's side (which is probable), if I try to instance with another CMDR who also does not port forward, or allow upnp, we'll never see each other.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I suggest playing the game as intended is anything BUT toxic, on the other hand, attacking people for playing the game as intended and calling them toxic is VERY toxic in itself.

It is the toxic PVErs that bring new players to private groups and solo, by infecting others with their toxic views.

(edited)

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Ah interesting, sheds some new (and unexpected) light on this. Thanks.
But wouldn't this mean the game actually manage to establish a P2P connection that (technically) you've given no permission for?
Fortunately I don't need to understand all that, I'm just a curious watcher who wonders...

Probably other dude(rette) will be hosting it.

 

[EUS]

Probably other dude(rette) will be hosting it.

That's right, P2P is still a server/client network, someone has to be the server, I'm just removing myself from ever being so.

 

[EUS]

Yes, sure. But what's about the permission for such a connection? In a traditional P2P connection you have to send a request to the host. In our case the game is doing this for us?

UPnP requires no permissions. Ever. Which is why I detest it.
Port forwarding without any type of control (authentication) by me over who gets in is also a no go. Even if it's a game.

 

[EUS]

But somehow, in one way or another, you must have given such a permission. Otherwise a (direct P2P!) connection never could have established.

I don't know the ins and outs of FD's setup, but that coordination must fall under the matchmaking server, or whatever FD calls it these days.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Who hasn't said "I'm going to kill you", (even when not playing a videogame about blowing others up)?
Admittedly, I cannot recall saying this in my adult life, but I cannot get upset over stupidities bantered about.

Do you think that is an honest comparison?

I don't.

 

[frostypaw]

It would take concious effort and decision to make yourself play solo with benefits of Open. While leaving slight guilt cause of cheating. And this should not be combated.

And nobody would ever do that lol and of course they'd stop the second they realised it was wrong LOL

So with comedy hour behind us, next up is a musical number.

They could do this and the next call would be the same - rewrite the game and make it all Client+Server, then the drama over subscriptions.

Why can't people think this through themselves.

 

[Riverside]

And nobody would ever do that lol

Just this. If a proposal is made it is unlikely to be perfect straight out of the box, and people that play a different way (or just play devils advocate) will hopefully test the proposal for any flaws. It may be that the proposal can be modified to account for the issue identified, or an argument might be presented that it's not a big deal.

We don't know the numbers for things like how many PvP, what proportion of the community play in open, or just how rife exploiting loopholes like mode switching or router rules really are. But the decision to implement a suggestion sits with FDev, all we can do is try to let them make the decision based on the best information available, including pros and cons.

It's also a good idea to put a suggestion in the suggestions section. It's far more likely to be read & considered there than in a thread like this.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

And nobody would ever do that lol and of course they'd stop the second they realised it was wrong LOL

So with comedy hour behind us, next up is a musical number.

They could do this and the next call would be the same - rewrite the game and make it all Client+Server, then the drama over subscriptions.

Why can't people think this through themselves.

Besides, this were already discussed just now and came to conclusion that this argument is almost void.

Do not get second part at all. No offence.

 

[frostypaw]

Do not get second part at all. No offence.

None taken! Most of the things the PvP crowd really want require a different type of network system - client + server rather than peer to peer. As long as it's a peer to peer game it will never satisfy, there will always be these ways around and combat logging etc.

That's just how it is. Anything proposed your first challenges are the networking then the players - will it work peer to peer without adding lots of ongoing server work and is it open to exploiting and abuse.

People rarely think it through

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Have a read back through the thread & it should be clear. So much would be clearer if you just read the stuff people write. This is not a chatroom, it's a forum. It stores a record of all the previous posts (subject to moderation) so anyone can read them & form their own opinions.

I know my own attitude pretty well. Was wondering your opinion on it.

Oh well.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

None taken! Most of the things the PvP crowd really want require a different type of network system - client + server rather than peer to peer. As long as it's a peer to peer game it will never satisfy, there will always be these ways around and combat logging etc.

That's just how it is. Anything proposed your first challenges are the networking then the players - will it work peer to peer without adding lots of ongoing server work and is it open to exploiting and abuse.

People rarely think it through

Additional server load for both suggestions is seriosly nil.
Btw, even direct p2p port block clogging can be detectable, but that load will be serious.

And thing is, this Open markup should not be too high to revitalise Open. Although, it should be high to account for the risks.

Also, this should concern PP only, although it is appliable to all activities in the game. Despite it being total abomination, it is current state of things, and some people like it. But your freedom should become limited when other people's interests begin.

 

[Prole 217]

Additional server load for both suggestions is seriosly nil.
Btw, even direct p2p port block clogging can be detectable, but that load will be serious.

And thing is, this Open markup should not be too high to revitalise Open. Although, it should be high to account for the risks.

Also, this should concern PP only, although it is appliable to all activities in the game. Despite it being total abomination, it is current state of things, and some people like it. But your freedom should become limited when other people's interests begin.

But what is the risk most of the time? People have posted its almost nil so making a reward for a simple mode choice is beyond unhinged. Now if it were only for actual combat, and that combat were actually a risk for the attacker then you might get some people to listen: however, I doubt it would bring the traders into open that are not already there.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

But what is the risk most of the time? People have posted its almost nil so making a reward for a simple mode choice is beyond unhinged. Now if it were only for actual combat, and that combat were actually a risk for the attacker then you might get some people to listen: however, I doubt it would bring the traders into open that are not already there.

PP only.
For other areas, such direct approach would be unfair in other areas for people who like it. But at least 5% makup is more than justifiable. And it should be about 30% more effectiveness for PP in open.

And I had descirbed what risk is there pretty well.

 

[lenna]

PP only.

I disagree due to the unique game changing kit locked behind power play.

Besides which I disagree with ANY move "effectively" forcing players to have to deal with the Open environment. That is for a variety of reasons, not just because of certain PvPers and their associated behaviours.

 

[Riverside]

But what is the risk most of the time? People have posted its almost nil so making a reward for a simple mode choice is beyond unhinged. Now if it were only for actual combat, and that combat were actually a risk for the attacker then you might get some people to listen: however, I doubt it would bring the traders into open that are not already there.

The terms 'open' and 'PvP' are considered synonymous by some, naturally the activity any reward could practically be connected to is player interaction rather than the actual mode necessarily. We already have mechanisms in the game to reward co-op play, some sort of mechanism for rewarding adversarial play isn't an unreasonable thing to request.

The desire for a restriction to Open only is more about submarine warfare.

Realistically I don't think it could be made to work because of instancing and connection quality - the matchmaking server has rules that try to give you a connection to players with a good quality connection with low latency, and friend lists will interfere too, prioritising those on your list over those who aren't. The blocklist has a similar effect but is lower priority than the friendlist. When players complain that the blocklist interferes with instancing they are right, but their friendlist it the one that has the most effect (after mode selection of course).

I agree that players not already in open are unlikely to be swayed by any kind of open or PvP incentive, although if such a mechanism provided a suitably engaging distraction for PvP play the consequent reduction in sealclubbing could have a small positive effect.