Would this make you play Open more?
- Thread starter Viking84
- Start date
There is - but again it is a bit of a gamey solution. Only seeing commanders that are "safe" regardless of where you go doesn't make sense in the context of Elites galaxy. I reckon it would be much better with safer and more dangerous areas, just like there are in the real world
There is - but again it is a bit of a gamey solution. Only seeing commanders that are "safe" regardless of where you go doesn't make sense in the context of Elites galaxy. I reckon it would be much better with safer and more dangerous areas, just like there are in the real world
Nope. It would never work.
You miss the point by the distance to the nearest other galaxy. PvE players will never ever want to become content for PvP players. Period. I will never fly in the same universe with those want to PvP with me. There is nothing that would persuade me to become your content. Nothing. Lock content behind PvP (such as in the more dangerous areas) for me and I shall find another game to play and support with my money.
PvP players want more targets and PvE players do not want to become their targets.
PvE players do not want to PvP. *sighs* Which part of this sentence exactly is it that keeps eluding the PvP players' minds?
This is an idea I have presented before, but I believe it is relevant given all the PvP / PvE discussions lately:
Theory:
The main reason for the PvP hatred is that it doesn't happen by choice. Being blown out of the sky for no reason can happen anywhere, any time, with little to no consequence for the attacker. For PvE'ers that aren't specialised in combat, or even good combat pilots that haven't spent a large amount of time engineering, there is very little to do about this other than escaping (which still wastes time and is annoying compared to not being attacked) or moving to PG or Solo.
Solution:
Ensure that the different system security states actually mean something, AND give incentives for moving into more dangerous areas of space.
1. System Security. The security response in a high security system should be near instant and overwhelming. The defending ship should only have to be able to survive say 15 seconds before the attacker is swarmed by god-like system security ships and nuked to oblivion. Scale this progressively down to where low sec is more or less like medium sec is now, and anarchy is just that, anarchy.
2. Security State. Make the system security state obvious. Make a tutorial that explains to new players that they should remain in high sec systems, plot routes through high sec systems, and only take missions to high sec systems if they wish to remain safe.
3. Rewards. Make rewards for taking missions going to low sec or anarchy systems considerably higher (twice?) what you would get for a similar mission in high sec. Same for CG's - higher risk = higher reward. Ensure that this is true also in Solo by populating low sec systems with aggressive highly engineered pirates, bounty hunters and psychos.
4. Locations. Spread the system security states out according to some logic. Make some areas of the bubble dangerous, others safer, create crime hotspots, maybe connected to large material deposits (gold rush style).
Summary:
In short, make PvP a player choice even in Open. Stray out of high sec and you risk getting shot at. For me this would mean that instead of getting killed and thinking "what an ing *** he was" I'd think "damn, I should have stayed in high sec because I suck". It would be my choice to risk leaving high sec for a higher reward or a lucrative CG.
Would this entice anyone else back into Open? Edit: Assuming of course that you are interested in player to player interactions at all - if not then there is no reason to not be in Solo
Yep completely agree. And would make the galaxy more vibrant.
Let's be honest; who checks system security level before jumping at the moment? This would give more of a sense of a dynamic universe where you use certain corridors for safety etc.
There is - but again it is a bit of a gamey solution. Only seeing commanders that are "safe" regardless of where you go doesn't make sense in the context of Elites galaxy. I reckon it would be much better with safer and more dangerous areas, just like there are in the real world
I essentially agree with what Watchdog said (twice).
Short of an Open-PVE mode with same rules as Mobius, I prefer "the gamey solution": Mobius.
It's not that your ideas are without merit, but I'm afraid it's too late: PvP advocates cannot present an unified point of view between "come to open, we have cookies" and "by the moment you clicked open you agreed...", then why are PvEers (and player-versus-nobody like me) expected to accept a compromise?
I understand that this is how you feel, but given that I am a PvE'er too, and don't agree with you, then we can be quite sure that this isn't true for everyone. Just as griefers don't represent all PvP'ers, then your views don't represent all PvE'ers. Some of us want our PvE to be believable
Maybe it is too late though as AntoineDoinel states - the game and community are so entrenched in the split between "PvP all the time every time" and "PvE for life" that trying to make the two play stiles interact a bit more seamlessly appears unthinkable.
If Frontier don't make any changes along the lines of what I have suggested (or other good suggestions to the same effect), then they will have to create an Open PvE mode or PvP flag. Having Mobius run and administrate the only PvE mode for free is just bonkers.
Mobius allows players into a group that is PVE. If anyone thinks he is running anything, ye might rethink your idea.
OH and to be rude, no one cares about your suggestions. The love of my life rarely listens to me.
OH and to be rude, no one cares about your suggestions. The love of my life rarely listens to me.
Last edited:
Im sick of being PvEers content. They haul some dire merits designed to screwup my factions PP economy, my only recourse is to haul more to counteract it. They force me to play their way. At least in open-only they can still haul, the factions will v much need them to haul, and their sides PvPers will be v incentivised to protect them so they dont have to haul it for themselves.
As it stands, PvP in PowerPlay is a selfish indulgence as it doesnt support your power, it doesnt stop opposing haulers who just drop to solo/pg.
It is just as pointless as CQC or fighting randoms in a CG. Open-only changes that dramatically.
Im sorry if that doesnt chime cathartically in this echo-chamber of a thread.
As it stands, PvP in PowerPlay is a selfish indulgence as it doesnt support your power, it doesnt stop opposing haulers who just drop to solo/pg.
It is just as pointless as CQC or fighting randoms in a CG. Open-only changes that dramatically.
Im sorry if that doesnt chime cathartically in this echo-chamber of a thread.
Git Gud
Lol, im a dissident-racing champion! (it's a thing
) , I still resent being obliged to stay up till catastrophic'o'clock hauling dissies to out-prep a terrible expansion. This is the pattern for some powers on a wednesday night, and it feels like it's strangling what's left of powerplay. The strategy is stagnant, but the battle is more risky than ever, and it is purely an internal threat from idiots or saboteurs who can never be seen. And no, this isnt a 'threat' to our control of our powers, its a threat to our economy. Massive loss-making expansions, pushed relentlessly every week just waiting for us to slip up or give up.
This isnt what powerplay was supposed to be.
This isnt what He wanted to create.
He works in mysterious ways, and since He is just a bloke called David, sometimes, based on years of evidence, he probably *changes his mind* on things.
So yeah, open-only powerplay would get me playing exactly the same amount in Open, and get a load of former members on our sidelines back in the game.
Or some Solo ideologues get their way, and i continue hauling against sabotage until PP dies off for good, a few months down the line. Gj
I understand that this is how you feel, but given that I am a PvE'er too, and don't agree with you, then we can be quite sure that this isn't true for everyone. Just as griefers don't represent all PvP'ers, then your views don't represent all PvE'ers. Some of us want our PvE to be believable
Maybe it is too late though as AntoineDoinel states - the game and community are so entrenched in the split between "PvP all the time every time" and "PvE for life" that trying to make the two play stiles interact a bit more seamlessly appears unthinkable.
If Frontier don't make any changes along the lines of what I have suggested (or other good suggestions to the same effect), then they will have to create an Open PvE mode or PvP flag. Having Mobius run and administrate the only PvE mode for free is just bonkers.
I understand that I am presenting my views and not the views of everyone. Any use of plural here is merely my assumption that I am not the only player with similar views. I would like to say here that I may sound a bit bitter here and there, but it is nothing against you as a person.
I think that technically, if you agree to be content for PvP players, you are not exactly a PvE player as such, because you participate in PvP. I find your suggestions absolutely unacceptable for those who want to only PvE (that is, exclusively PvE, you see, no PvP at all), because they would be forced to participate in PvP. I would perhaps call your playstyle PvA, rather than PvE, then. PvA means Player versus All, it is an older term I remember from the old Star Citizen forums, and I used to think it could work. I do not think so any more.
Now, what exactly is "believable PvE" in case of me coming back to the Bubble after months of collecting exploration data only to be destroyed in like two seconds in a station's no-fire zone by some jerk just for teh lulz? He perhaps loses some credits on the rebuy (if the security manages to destroy him at all), while I lose months of real time worth of gameplay. In seconds. Without being able to do anything about it. There is no "git gud" involved, there is exactly nothing I can do in my exploration kitted DBX against a PvP fitted and G5 engineered large vessel.
Your suggestions would do nothing against such cases. If you allow PvP somewhere, it will happen there. The more difficult you make it for the jerks to do it, the harder will they try to do just that, to prove how awesome they are in the "git gud" discipline. The PvP players do not want to play with the PvE players. They want to play against them. The two groups are absolutely incompatible, since the playstyle of one (PvP) means the disruption of the other (PvE). You cannot make it work together. Nobody can.
I would like to fly in Open PvE universe. I would even be happy to have it completely separated from the Open PvP universe. Even without any option to switch between them. I would see no need for such an option. Just allow those who want to play both PvE and PvP the option to have two character slots on one account, even if required to buy a second copy of the game.
Last edited:
It's the 'v'. They think the 'versus' means all other players are hostiles, kill first to live. Reptile thinking.
What I would like is PwP, 'with', not necessarily, automatically 'against'. In an ideal simulator.
How to get there? I wish I knew.[blah]
This is an idea I have presented before, but I believe it is relevant given all the PvP / PvE discussions lately:
Theory:
The main reason for the PvP hatred is that it doesn't happen by choice. Being blown out of the sky for no reason can happen anywhere, any time, with little to no consequence for the attacker. For PvE'ers that aren't specialised in combat, or even good combat pilots that haven't spent a large amount of time engineering, there is very little to do about this other than escaping (which still wastes time and is annoying compared to not being attacked) or moving to PG or Solo.
Solution:
Ensure that the different system security states actually mean something, AND give incentives for moving into more dangerous areas of space.
1. System Security. The security response in a high security system should be near instant and overwhelming. The defending ship should only have to be able to survive say 15 seconds before the attacker is swarmed by god-like system security ships and nuked to oblivion. Scale this progressively down to where low sec is more or less like medium sec is now, and anarchy is just that, anarchy.
2. Security State. Make the system security state obvious. Make a tutorial that explains to new players that they should remain in high sec systems, plot routes through high sec systems, and only take missions to high sec systems if they wish to remain safe.
3. Rewards. Make rewards for taking missions going to low sec or anarchy systems considerably higher (twice?) what you would get for a similar mission in high sec. Same for CG's - higher risk = higher reward. Ensure that this is true also in Solo by populating low sec systems with aggressive highly engineered pirates, bounty hunters and psychos.
4. Locations. Spread the system security states out according to some logic. Make some areas of the bubble dangerous, others safer, create crime hotspots, maybe connected to large material deposits (gold rush style).
Summary:
In short, make PvP a player choice even in Open. Stray out of high sec and you risk getting shot at. For me this would mean that instead of getting killed and thinking "what an ing *** he was" I'd think "damn, I should have stayed in high sec because I suck". It would be my choice to risk leaving high sec for a higher reward or a lucrative CG.
Would this entice anyone else back into Open? Edit: Assuming of course that you are interested in player to player interactions at all - if not then there is no reason to not be in Solo
Good ideas, but nothing will make me play in Open. Not even the total eradication of Solo and PG modes would make me stray into Open space. I just don't want to play that game, and it's not hte reason I purchased this game.
This game is heading down the drain with the eventual Open-only game agenda.
It's really quite simple, ladies and gentlemen. Reclaim YOUR game.
The reason they don't have any elaborate definitive content to flesh out this game is because they expect "emergent" content to do it for them.
It's really quite simple, ladies and gentlemen. Reclaim YOUR game.
The reason they don't have any elaborate definitive content to flesh out this game is because they expect "emergent" content to do it for them.
The funny thing is there's nothing "emergent" about gameplay here. This has all been done before and nothing is new. It's the same old PvP vs. PvE arguments I've seen elsewhere, just new terminology.
Exactly the point- they're simply milking the playerbase for all it's worth. People need to stop giving them power and control and take it back.
I play in open so a quick observation
No it can't its extremely rare, I think the fear of the above is the issue.
No it can't its extremely rare, I think the fear of the above is the issue.
most likely
verminstar
Banned
Its not fear, more like indifference and apathy...thats why yer never gonna fix the problem...ye dont understand the probelm ^