Simple Solution to Gankers versus Carebears

You can't, obviously, but if folks choose to be in Open Play then it's the same rules for everyone. None of this invincibility toggle/PvP flag/Open PvE malarkey. If you don't want to risk PvP then play in PG or Solo. It's fine.
That wouldn't be any different for an "Open-PvE" mode. Everyone in normal open would still be bound by the same rules. You would encounter no-one with special rules. I'm having trouble seeing the difference that you would actually be able to see. There would be no flags, no toggles/etc.
 
That wouldn't be any different for an "Open-PvE" mode. Everyone in normal open would still be bound by the same rules. You would encounter no-one with special rules. I'm having trouble seeing the difference that you would actually be able to see. There would be no flags, no toggles/etc.
So what, do you just imagine Open PvE as some kind of massive Private Group?
 
Essentially yes, basically a PG with no ceiling for player count or manual member management.
I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

In that context I think it's a terrible idea. As far as it affecting my game? I'd be getting a bunch of fellow Commanders jumping into a lame version of Open Play and, with just some of the potential problems so eloquently described by Ian Doncaster, having a real bad time.

I love this game and want to see the people it works for enjoy it to its fullness. Open PvE ain't gonna do that and would make all of us poorer for it. If that's what you want go find another game, cause this one ain't for you.
 
I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

In that context I think it's a terrible idea. As far as it affecting my game? I'd be getting a bunch of fellow Commanders jumping into a lame version of Open Play and, with just some of the potential problems so eloquently described by Ian Doncaster, having a real bad time.

I love this game and want to see the people it works for enjoy it to its fullness. Open PvE ain't gonna do that and would make all of us poorer for it. If that's what you want go find another game, cause this one ain't for you.
This makes as much sense as arguing there is no point in making any ice cream flavor than vanilla. Those who want Open play with it's ruleset will pick open play, those who don't will just have 1 more option depending on how social they feel. Checked the last 4 pages, either didn't find or missed whatever post enumerated the specific issues caused by a PvE mode and I don't see any that don't exist already resulting from PG/Solo.

You having a worse time in a specific mode doesn't mean everyone will. All to often people conflate those 2 resulting in the opinion that a specific game has a highly specific and right way to be enjoyed and a "best version of the game" stemming from that. They also take this same stance of the game being poorer from such a myopic view, often robbing more players than they serve for lack of imagination. I've been playing for years, the notion this game isn't for me because I would likely use an open PvE mode is, respectfully, ignorant regarding what people can get from it.
 
This makes as much sense as arguing there is no point in making any ice cream flavor than vanilla. Those who want Open play with it's ruleset will pick open play, those who don't will just have 1 more option depending on how social they feel. Checked the last 4 pages, either didn't find or missed whatever post enumerated the specific issues caused by a PvE mode and I don't see any that don't exist already resulting from PG/Solo.

You having a worse time in a specific mode doesn't mean everyone will. All to often people conflate those 2 resulting in the opinion that a specific game has a highly specific and right way to be enjoyed and a "best version of the game" stemming from that. They also take this same stance of the game being poorer from such a myopic view, often robbing more players than they serve for lack of imagination. I've been playing for years, the notion this game isn't for me because I would likely use an open PvE mode is, respectfully, ignorant regarding what people can get from it.
You try to please everyone you're going to please no one. See Fallout 76 for a recent great example on how Elite would likely suffer.

Here's the post in question that everyone keeps referencing.

The simple explanation is that it's not possible, in the way that people want it to be.

Deaths in "PvP open" to other players are actually pretty rare, especially if you take minor precautions such as reasonable shielding, avoiding the small number of predictable hotspot systems, or paying attention and jumping out long before the hostile ship has a chance to attack you. So, we can conclude that players in "PvE open", to switch from their existing Solo/PG environments which are actually PvE, would have to have a guarantee similar in strength to the Solo/PG one that they wouldn't be attacked or killed by other players.

The problem then comes that there are a lot of ways to get someone killed without actually shooting them.

1) PvE means weapons do no damage to other players. An Orca just rammed you to death.

2) Okay, PvE also means no ramming damage from other players. An Orca just rammed you into a planet/station, which is an NPC, so you do take damage from that, so you're dead. If you're not dead, the Orca didn't take any damage from ramming you, so it can just do it again until the station/planet kills you.

3) Okay, PvE also means no momentum transfer from player rams. Now there's a pair of Sidewinders sitting in the mailslot stopping you getting out while your loitering timer counts down. You can't brush them aside, because player-player collisions don't transfer momentum. The station will be bringing PvE murder to you in a few seconds.

4) Okay, PvE also means no collision detection between player ships. Leaving aside the really silly screenshots, there's now an Eagle hiding inside your T-9 as it exits the station, firing its own lasers inside the strict no fire zone. Enjoy your brief career as ablative armour.

5) Okay, PvE also means that other players can't be in the same instance as you. Let's see them get through that!

...and that's just a few ramming-related issues.

Given all the ways in which another player can cause your death without directly killing you, Frontier can hardly advertise a mode as being "PvE Open".

Solo works because the other players can't instance with you. Private Groups (mostly) work because human moderation can see through exploits like these and identify and kick out the aggressor in a way that automated gameplay checks can't. All of the ramming options above could be also, with a little bit of work, used in reverse to make it look like the innocent pilot was the aggressor, at least to an automated check.

So the explanation is that Frontier can't enforce by code "PvE Open", and doesn't want to spend money on however many staff moderators it would take to review all the support tickets from people being killed there to determine which were genuine, and which were people trying to get other people banned from PvE Open... and the inevitable complaints when they make the wrong call from time to time.
Fact of the matter is you likely won't get what you want and that's OK.
 
You try to please everyone you're going to please no one. See Fallout 76 for a recent great example on how Elite would likely suffer.

Here's the post in question that everyone keeps referencing.
Trying to better please your own PvE-focused players isn't trying to please everyone so we don't have to worry about that.

Edit: So basically the issue isn't one with the concept, enjoyability or spirit of the game, but an issue with technical limitations which admittedly require more and more niche cases for indirect engagement to occur while eliminating direct engagement entirely? Do people use the same reasoning to suggest there should be no C&P system in the game?
 
Last edited:
This makes as much sense as arguing there is no point in making any ice cream flavor than vanilla. Those who want Open play with it's ruleset will pick open play, those who don't will just have 1 more option depending on how social they feel. Checked the last 4 pages, either didn't find or missed whatever post enumerated the specific issues caused by a PvE mode and I don't see any that don't exist already resulting from PG/Solo.

You having a worse time in a specific mode doesn't mean everyone will. All to often people conflate those 2 resulting in the opinion that a specific game has a highly specific and right way to be enjoyed and a "best version of the game" stemming from that. They also take this same stance of the game being poorer from such a myopic view, often robbing more players than they serve for lack of imagination. I've been playing for years, the notion this game isn't for me because I would likely use an open PvE mode is, respectfully, ignorant regarding what people can get from it.
I've noticed that a common refrain among pro-PvE folk seems to be "it won't affect you so what's the big deal?"

Has it occurred to you that the merits of an idea aren't always about what directly affects a person?

An invincibility toggle in a spaceship game built on the premise of a dangerous, unpredictable universe is against its very spirit. It's cheesy. It's weak. It's a red carpet for people who- and there's no delicate way to say this-should probably either stick to PG or play another game entirely.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed that a common refrain among pro-PvE folk seems to be "it won't effect you so what's the big deal?"
Close but not quite. It's more about how it affects you in ways unique to that mode vs other modes that already exist.

Has it occurred to you that the merits of an idea aren't always about what directly affects a person directly?...
I'm not aware of any such effects that again, don't already exist. And the issue with your example is that it wouldn't exist with a PvE open mode because there would never be any such toggle or chance of encountering someone operating under different rules. You can't encounter people in solo from Open. This is no different.
 
Close but not quite. It's more about how it affects you in ways unique to that mode vs other modes that already exist.



I'm not aware of any such effects that again, don't already exist. And the issue with your example is that it wouldn't exist with a PvE open mode because there would never be any such toggle or chance of encountering someone operating under different rules. You can't encounter people in solo from Open. This is no different.
And again... it's not about how it does or doesn't affect me. It's about the spirit of the game, and whether or not that spirit is worth compromising to appease the very weakest of the playerbase. In my view, it isn't. In yours, it is- and that's fine.

I just think that if you want to play in open, play in open.
 
Last edited:
And again... it's not about how it does or doesn't affect me. It's about the spirit of the game, and if that spirit is worth compromising to appease the very weakest of the playerbase. In my view, it isn't. In yours, it is- and that's fine.

I just think that if you want to play in open, play in open.
No, it's about you, because your perception of the spirit of the game is violated. Because your perception of those that would use it is negative. You can't say that in you view these things exist while saying it's not about how it affects you. You can't punctuate the reasoning with your preference and say it isn't about you. Well, actually, you clearly can, it's just incredibly inconsistent reasoning.

Now conversely, if the spirit of the game is as you stated and these things are inviolable principles, PG and solo wouldn't exist because there indeed would be a "spirit" guiding the design towards the "proper" open experience. Instead the capabilities of PG have been expanded over time to further enable "unspirited" play.
 
No, it's about you, because your perception of the spirit of the game is violated. Because your perception of those that would use it is negative. You can't say that in you view these things exist while saying it's not about how it affects you. You can't punctuate the reasoning with your preference and say it isn't about you. Well, actually, you clearly can, it's just incredibly inconsistent reasoning.

Now conversely, if the spirit of the game is as you stated and these things are inviolable principles, PG and solo wouldn't exist because there indeed would be a "spirit" guiding the design towards the "proper" open experience. Instead the capabilities of PG have been expanded over time to further enable "unspirited" play.
Funny how you still fail to grasp that open is and will remain PvP if anyone decides to shoot, and for the rest that want to fly in their own safe bubble, there is private and solo.

What part is too hard to understand?
 
Funny how you still fail to grasp that open is and will remain PvP if anyone decides to shoot, and for the rest that want to fly in their own safe bubble, there is private and solo.

What part is too hard to understand?
I'd work on your reading comprehension. There is some much of your post that comes from a complete misunderstanding that I can't even tell what you think you read and I don't want to assume malicious intentional misinterpretation.

Edit: No seriously, What part did you read that suggested to you I thought PvP or Open would be eliminated or changed? Genuinely baffled.
 
Last edited:
No, it's about you, because your perception of the spirit of the game is violated. Because your perception of those that would use it is negative. You can't say that in you view these things exist while saying it's not about how it affects you. You can't punctuate the reasoning with your preference and say it isn't about you. Well, actually, you clearly can, it's just incredibly inconsistent reasoning.

Now conversely, if the spirit of the game is as you stated and these things are inviolable principles, PG and solo wouldn't exist because there indeed would be a "spirit" guiding the design towards the "proper" open experience. Instead the capabilities of PG have been expanded over time to further enable "unspirited" play.
It comes down to this:

One of us has a vision of open to be a challenging, dynamic experience where anything is possible. An environment in which initiative, skill, and effort are rewarded.

The other wants it recreated into a safespace nursery, a pale shadow of the above. A video game version of the sad, pathetic losers who go strutting around in ill-fitting uniforms, flashing decorations they never earned for valor they never displayed.

In essence, PvE-open is the version of Jean-Luc Picard that didn't take the knife to the heart.
 
Last edited:
It comes down to this:

One of us has a vision of open to be a challenging, dynamic experience where anything is possible. An environment in which initiative, skill, and effort are rewarded.

The other wants it copy-pasted into a safespace nursery, a pale shadow of the above. A video game version of the sad, pathetic losers who go strutting around in ill-fitting uniforms, flashing decorations they never earned for valor they never displayed- and indeed stole. The version of Jean-Luc Picard that didn't take the knife to the heart.
No, this is is slightly incorrect. Neither of us is proposing a change to open as it currently is, as was elaborated several times.

One of us is advocating the addition of a separate mode for those who aren't interested in hostile engagements but do want to be more social, and the other is advocating that this is antithetical to some personal notion of "spirit".

Not seeing in this discussion:
Business/finance case for changes.
Not arguing either side.
Business cases are hard to argue for those that have no knowledge of the real numbers of players broken down by mode. That said, were a single cohesive shard a selling point I could see an argument for avoiding PvE-Open. Problem is that:
  1. Total avoidance is already possible so real purists (I have to interact with everyone) have no actual skin in the game
  2. Instancing purist similarly have no skin in the game because of P2P instancing
Now, conversely, those who lost interest in the PvE game because of the low social potential in PG or nonexistent solo social opportunities likely hung up their flight suit for good. Would this lure them back? Depends on how far off they are and whether their numbers were significant, but those who join groups tend to stay with games longer than those who don't, and that makes those who are in small groups or solo greater churn risks that those in open. Could Open PvE elevate their retention by creating those social opportunities? Dunno, but from a business perspective that would be the whole point of trying.
 
Last edited:
No, this is is slightly incorrect. Neither of us is proposing a change to open as it currently is, as was elaborated several times.

One of us is advocating the addition of a separate mode for those who aren't interested in hstile engagements but do want to be more social, and the other is advocating that this is antithecal to some personal notion of "spirit".
I'm well aware that you're proposing a separate mode. I'm just saying that it's a terrible idea on multiple levels.
 
Top Bottom