Open PvE

[Distance]

I read it last night but I had had a couple

I think it pretty much brings us back to square one which is the "0 weapons damage" on players. I believe this is the only thing holding them back from implementing it.

I personally can't see a valid argument against it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree with you there but from a technical perspective that's all the other "modes/flags" do as it's all still the same game.

I bought the game myself because you could choose at a whim which mode you could play. I soon found out that as it's all the same game and playing in open away from the main player populations it's exactly the same as playing solo or pve with the added bonus of meeting random people where ever you are even if this could be a risk.

On a personal note as I see you popping in here and the solo vs open thread, what are your personal thoughts on a pve flag/mode?

I am not in favour of invulnerable player ships - that in and of itself would enable players to interfere with other players' games - so, no I would probably not support a PvP-OFF flag.

An open PvE mode, on the other hand, would be, in my opinion, a good addition to the three game modes that we have. The difficulty would be in how to ensure that players abide by the rules. One solution would be for a player to be banned (initial time out, increasing with each offence then a full ban from open-PvE) from open-PvE for interdicting / attacking / destroying another player. That would need to be supplemented by the targeted player requiring to pay nothing at all for their new ship, cargo replacement, repairs, etc. that were incurred as a result of another player's actions.

 

[Distance]

I am not in favour of invulnerable player ships - that in and of itself would enable players to interfere with other players' games - so, no I would probably not support a PvP-OFF flag.

An open PvE mode, on the other hand, would be, in my opinion, a good addition to the three game modes that we have. The difficulty would be in how to ensure that players abide by the rules. One solution would be for a player to be banned (initial time out, increasing with each offence then a full ban from open-PvE) from open-PvE for interdicting / attacking / destroying another player. That would need to be supplemented by the targeted player requiring to pay nothing at all for their new ship, cargo replacement, repairs, etc. that were incurred as a result of another player's actions.

So we agree. The only way we don't is on terminology as I personally describe the modes as (matchmaking) flags as that's the way they work. When I'm talking about flags I never mean for allowing players to mix. It would be pure insanity to by flying around in open and see a player ship you can't shoot.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

I'm pretty sure all players regardless of their stance on pvp could get behind this.

Well you would be wrong. Magic to stop damage to PvE flagged players may satisfy some, but will not satisfy others because it is such an external gamey immersion destroying mechanic.

 

[SiriusSeven]

Well you would be wrong. Magic to stop damage to PvE flagged players may satisfy some, but will not satisfy others because it is such an external gamey immersion destroying mechanic.

Then don't play in the hypothetical Open PvE mode then? We're discussing adding choice, not removing options.

If stuff happening in a different mode that you don't see and only effects you via the big sim breaks your immersion then I don know what to say.

 

[Distance]

Well you would be wrong. Magic to stop damage to PvE flagged players may satisfy some, but will not satisfy others because it is such an external gamey immersion destroying mechanic.

If you read the thread you'll see we're discussing is as a mode, the terminology on modes and flags is also included.

The flag is identical to the way solo and groups operate, you won't be matched with pve flagged players in open. You'll never see them and they'll never affect your game play to that respect. It's exactly the same way you don't see mobius players in open as they are flagged to a group.

 

[Taylor]

I play co-op PvE with friends in private servers.
Non of us are in the Mobius Group.

How many other like us, are just using the Private Group function for our own PvE.
A great deal more than are in Mobius Group I'd wager.

Don't see the issue here, Make an open PvE Mode and let people come together for a pure Co-Op experience.

It won't take much from the PvP player base, because the people who want PvE aren't playing in Open anyway..

I play Solo because I have no interest PvP and don't know anyone that plays.
I only found out about Mobius Group today from reading this thread entitled 'Open PvE' - No prizes for guessing why I started reading it
I can assure any doubters that there is more interest Open-PvE than the membership of Mobius Group would suggest.
But such groups still lead to fragmentation rather than a rich player universe. As Krow said, implementing an Open-PvE mode "won't take much from the PvP player base" but it would give PvE-Players an option to experience a richer environment.

In Star Trek, the Borg shields adapt and are impervious to the Federation's weapons. It's not that silly. We are all part of the Pilot's Federation. Just add to the lore that Pilot Federation weapons cannot damage Pilot Federation shields. Think of it like an evolution of existing IFF (identification friend or foe) military technologies.

That's an excellent suggestion for keeping the lore straight

... There's a vocal section of both sides of the argument on the forum but the forum population is tiny compared to the overall player base. It's just as possible that they add in pve and only the minority uses it and in that instance nothing changes except they have retained more players that would have probably left anyway.

If players really are dedicated the proper pvp rather than jumping players who would rather be playing in a pve mode then they will stay in open regardless of the addition of a pve mode and open will be all the better for it.

Right now there's calls to water down open to account for two play styles and that ends badly for everyone. The simple addition of a pve mode means open stays the same and players have more choice in how to play the way they want to play like FD promised in the first place.

+1. I was trying think of how to word it but you hit the nail on the head.

Fundamentally there is no downside to a true PvP-Universe by adding a PvE one.

 

[Meritz]

I am not in favour of invulnerable player ships - that in and of itself would enable players to interfere with other players' games - so, no I would probably not support a PvP-OFF flag.

An open PvE mode, on the other hand, would be, in my opinion, a good addition to the three game modes that we have. The difficulty would be in how to ensure that players abide by the rules. One solution would be for a player to be banned (initial time out, increasing with each offence then a full ban from open-PvE) from open-PvE for interdicting / attacking / destroying another player.

As I mentioned earlier, it would be trivial to exploit that and have innocent players banned from Open PvE. And no, there isn't anything that could be done programmatically. You cannot reliably deduce player intent from game logs.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As I mentioned earlier, it would be trivial to exploit that and have innocent players banned from Open PvE. And no, there isn't anything that could be done programmatically. You cannot reliably deduce player intent from game logs.

Missed your previous post - however, it is easy to kick a player for interdicting, attacking or destroying another player. If the targeted player does not retaliate then the attacker / interdictor will be the only one to be kicked. Intent does not matter in the slightest in this case.

Found your previous post - ramming, wasn't it? Easily enough solved in Open-PvE by removing damage from collisions (between players only) and not allowing players to shove each other around.

 

[Major Plonker]

I'd be interested in an open PVE mode, not if it had PVP damage completely disabled though, that sounds terrible (my weapons tear this ship apart but don't scratch this other ship? Seriously?).

I'd have it so if you go over a threshold of PVP damage you get kicked to solo for a week. Your PVP damage dealt stat would start to count down over a time period as long as you don't hit a player within a cooldown period. The numbers (threshold and cooldown period) would be balanced in a way to ensure you have no problem with the occasional stray shot, but uncontrolled fire or deliberate griefing would have you playing on your own for a week. (idea stolen from the friendly fire mechanic in Planetside 2)

 

[Simi Kusoni]

Missed your previous post - however, it is easy to kick a player for interdicting, attacking or destroying another player. If the targeted player does not retaliate then the attacker / interdictor will be the only one to be kicked. Intent does not matter in the slightest in this case.

Found your previous post - ramming, wasn't it? Easily enough solved in Open-PvE by removing damage from collisions (between players only) and not allowing players to shove each other around.

How would this be balanced around wars, community events etc?

I presume some kind of emergent game play is to be added to the game in future patches, and it is already having difficulties with implementing this due to solo mode (see Lugh), wouldn't adding a PvE open mode just complicate matters further?

 

[Yokoshima]

About as many as SWG lost with the same stunt. All of them. Well, not quite. A small bunch of PvE players would hold on - until SC comes out, then they'd jump ship as well.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



No armor tanking in this game. Stack shields instead.

Yeah, I know. that's the problem. I like doing BOTH. Again, I like to tank. 1200 points of hull is nothing to sneeze at and I don't like wasting it. If all I cared about was shields I'd get a vulture, because not getting hit at all trumps SCBs. In PvE I can actually shield and hull tank. Also I love the FDS (looks, feel, etc.). Not the worlds best PvP ship.

 

[Yokoshima]

I am not in favour of invulnerable player ships - that in and of itself would enable players to interfere with other players' games - so, no I would probably not support a PvP-OFF flag.

An open PvE mode, on the other hand, would be, in my opinion, a good addition to the three game modes that we have. The difficulty would be in how to ensure that players abide by the rules. One solution would be for a player to be banned (initial time out, increasing with each offence then a full ban from open-PvE) from open-PvE for interdicting / attacking / destroying another player. That would need to be supplemented by the targeted player requiring to pay nothing at all for their new ship, cargo replacement, repairs, etc. that were incurred as a result of another player's actions.

The only thing I would add is the attacking penalty (not the killing) should never result in a premaban, and each X amount of time since the last offense it resets because glancing blows and all that. In addition I would like to see no penalty for PvP in your own wing. Kinda of like a duel. And you know make it so the offending ship has his FSD disabled for 15 min. That could be fun too.

 

[SiriusSeven]

How would this be balanced around wars, community events etc?

I presume some kind of emergent game play is to be added to the game in future patches, and it is already having difficulties with implementing this due to solo mode (see Lugh), wouldn't adding a PvE open mode just complicate matters further?

That depends. For blockades, yeah it's the same problem as solo.

But for problems caused by low spawn rates, low target-count environments, and bounty splitting/stealing, a well populated PvE mode would be on similar footing to a well populated Open mode.

And then there are the technical glitches. People reporting SC lag due to 100s of contacts. This too would be the same in the proposed mode.

There remain many issues to solve with community goals.

 

[Yokoshima]

Missed your previous post - however, it is easy to kick a player for interdicting, attacking or destroying another player. If the targeted player does not retaliate then the attacker / interdictor will be the only one to be kicked. Intent does not matter in the slightest in this case.

Found your previous post - ramming, wasn't it? Easily enough solved in Open-PvE by removing damage from collisions (between players only) and not allowing players to shove each other around.

Is it possible to just make it impossible to interdict other players? Or if you get a kill bounty it is active in all systems and persists for say a week? That, imo, would be harsh enough penalty to discourage PvP. Sure it could still happen but the attacker would loose so much more. So the person who got attacked could, you know, get over it. Disabling ramming would allow griefers to block docks. Some say that that would be a huger issue. Don't know why, takes ~40s to log into solo. Or they could just extend the "loitering" range. Video capture software is easy enough to come by. Small video could easily result in bans. Doubt many people will risk throwing away $60.00 + time just to annoy someone.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

If you read the thread you'll see we're discussing is as a mode, the terminology on modes and flags is also included.

The flag is identical to the way solo and groups operate, you won't be matched with pve flagged players in open. You'll never see them and they'll never affect your game play to that respect. It's exactly the same way you don't see mobius players in open as they are flagged to a group.

Thank you. I can read. Indeed, I have done so. I was just responding to your silly post that all players could get behind it. As we have seen on every subject on these forums, there is nothing everyone gets behind, because there are so many different points of view, and different ways to play the game.

 

[Globusdiablo]

....My chief concern is that Mobius has done great work, but if he goes on vacation, retires, or various other real-life issues occur, then the Mobius group is no more. It's a scary single point of failure for us PvE folks.... rebuilding the group would be a massive undertaking. Also, I don't think Mobius is known to non-forum goers, so many are perhaps missing out on PvE player interactions.

Indeed. It would be nice if FD catered for the PvE crowd with a similar mode. Though I do understand why they don't/can't...

....I'd probably still like it to have PvP in conflict zones like Mobius does. It's pretty much what I wanted all along, except I was ok with the intended PvP primarily in anarchy space like the game was originally peddled as.

Right on the nose.

 

[Meritz]

Missed your previous post - however, it is easy to kick a player for interdicting, attacking or destroying another player. If the targeted player does not retaliate then the attacker / interdictor will be the only one to be kicked. Intent does not matter in the slightest in this case.

Found your previous post - ramming, wasn't it? Easily enough solved in Open-PvE by removing damage from collisions (between players only) and not allowing players to shove each other around.

In which case you make it really easy to block people - even trick stations into blowing them up. Park a couple of freebie sidewinders in the egress port, alternate a bit and no one gets in an out. And then you laugh as you watch the station blow up expensive player ships because their undock timers expired. And if you do enable players to shove each other around, you just use bigger ships.

In Open this would eventually result in the griefer getting blown out of the sky. In PvE mode, you disabled the PvP damage.

Why do you think virtually every PvE MMO out there has no player character collision? Because they don't know how to do it? Nope - because it opens a whole range of inventive griefing tactics that are incredibly hard to verify and deal with.

 

[Robert Maynard]

How would this be balanced around wars, community events etc?

I presume some kind of emergent game play is to be added to the game in future patches, and it is already having difficulties with implementing this due to solo mode (see Lugh), wouldn't adding a PvE open mode just complicate matters further?

That's the difficult bit. In Mobius' PvE Private Group, PvP is allowed in combat zones (and nowhere else). This is one possibility as to how conflict could be taken into account in Open-PvE mode. On the other hand, it could just as easily be no-PvP *at*all*.

The only thing I would add is the attacking penalty (not the killing) should never result in a premaban, and each X amount of time since the last offense it resets because glancing blows and all that. In addition I would like to see no penalty for PvP in your own wing. Kinda of like a duel. And you know make it so the offending ship has his FSD disabled for 15 min. That could be fun too.

I'd tend to agree, however destroying a player ship would presumably result in a significant ban from the group and could also incur a hefty fine to be paid by the attacker for knowingly breaking the rules of Open-PvE

Is it possible to just make it impossible to interdict other players? Or if you get a kill bounty it is active in all systems and persists for say a week? That, imo, would be harsh enough penalty to discourage PvP. Sure it could still happen but the attacker would loose so much more. So the person who got attacked could, you know, get over it. Disabling ramming would allow griefers to block docks. Some say that that would be a huger issue. Don't know why, takes ~40s to log into solo. Or they could just extend the "loitering" range. Video capture software is easy enough to come by. Small video could easily result in bans. Doubt many people will risk throwing away $60.00 + time just to annoy someone.

Stopping player interdicting other players would be possible in Open-PvE (in [made up on the spot] lore [applicable to Open-PvE], all player ships are fitted with a 100% effective anti-interdiction device as standard.

Destroying a player in Open-PvE would presumably result in the player being locked out (of Open-PvE only) for a period of time - one option would be for the offender to be locked in open for the duration of the ban as, presumably, they prefer PvP anyway....

Any bounty incurred could be active in open, as you say, for a week.

Docks already "discourage" loitering!

 

[Robert Maynard]

In which case you make it really easy to block people - even trick stations into blowing them up. Park a couple of freebie sidewinders in the egress port, alternate a bit and no one gets in an out. And then you laugh as you watch the station blow up expensive player ships because their undock timers expired. And if you do enable players to shove each other around, you just use bigger ships.

In Open this would eventually result in the griefer getting blown out of the sky. In PvE mode, you disabled the PvP damage.

Why do you think virtually every PvE MMO out there has no player character collision? Because they don't know how to do it? Nope - because it opens a whole range of inventive griefing tactics that are incredibly hard to verify and deal with.

It's trivially easy to avoid this griefing mechanism - log out and back in again - your ship will appear outside the station.

Also, the station frowns upon ships blocking the docking port.