Open PvE
- Thread starter SiriusSeven
- Start date
- Status
Please read my entire post.
Meaning: same Thing as Moebius now, just officially supervised instead of burdening a player with that work.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
The quickest way to get it implemented would be for Mobius to quit and close the group down. You'd have 6000 angry people posting on the forums everyday until it was implemented
lol true that!.
it is a hard one tho because even amongst PvEers not everyone feels the same. Me for instance, I would hate to remove friendly fire, as it would be a nonsence and remove all tactical play.
I know it is horribly naive but I would love a world where people just stick to the spirit of the rules and run with that.
interestingly as i mentioned yesterday, in 10 for the developers 80% of people playing arena commander are currently playing either solo PvE or co-op PvE. us PvEers are a huge gaming group, way bigger than the pro PvPers would like you to believe. (and if need be i can dig out the link from the horses mouth to back that up)
I recall seeing the link yesterday
Indeed those are interesting stats.Also, I respect your point of view on ff. I think a workable solution for *some* would be combat in specific zone types (e.g., anarchy system). However, I recognize that this doesn't help explorers, and there are many many important anarchy systems...
I am warming up to the idea of an official mode with Mobius rules (I.e., friendly fire on & full PvP in conflict zones), with automated or very quick issuance of temporary bans for rule breakers (with post incident insurance for the victims)
Last edited:
*sigh*
I said "easiest thing to do" - that's an obvious comparison to everything suggested here. It doesn't mean it is easy by itself. In a heap of difficult things, one is obviously the easiest. Get it?
And nowhere did I say anything suggested here is beyond their capabilities. I said it is pointless, for multiple reasons, to devote time and resources on making a separate PvE mode when they can pick other options, some of which resolve several issues with the game at once (and by the way, do not end up segregating the community).
The arguments for a PvE mode have been thoroughly debunked, from a technical, financial and design perspective. I am always open to counter-arguments that go beyond mere unexplained disagreement, dogmatic PvE vs PvP thinking or quasi-mystical notions that game development is akin to magic and therefore only the wizards - in this case FD - can possibly know what can or cannot be done. So far I have not seen one such counter-argument in this thread.
There were a few good, creative ideas being thrown around (not talking about mine). Ironically, that was the part of the discussion that focused on improving existing Open play so that all players might find it more enjoyable.
A formalised coop/PvE mode would be great!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While the formalisation of a large PvE group in the shape of Open-PvE may seem pointless to some, for others who prefer the PvE approach to the game it remains a worthwhile endeavour.
Nothing* that Frontier can do will encourage all players into open - therefore we already have (and will continue to have) a segregated community.
While some of the proposals in the thread would probably go some way to encouraging some players to play in open, it does not need to be an either / or scenario - both things can happen.
*: short of removing solo and private groups - but that's force, not encouragement.
In the unlikely occurrence that Mobius can no longer function, it would take someone 3 minutes to set up a new group and perhaps 24H to get everyone in there.
Also, everyone seems the think there is no PvP in Mobius and that is a fallacy. It's the same game, same ships, same universe, same economy, same stations. There is PvP allowed in combat zones. See a red CMDR and he's fair game. However, those zones are consensual and PvP combat outside those is not tolerated. NPC's still interdict you.
Furthermore, Mobius members are typically open, generous and communicate freely. It's a community. New players can learn the game in a relatively safe environment before heading out into Open play and interacting with others.
It's a group that stopped 6,281 players from quitting in frustration.
Last edited:
I don't see us having a segregated community but two communities both with completely different values in regards to the game. Neither is better than the other and both should be catered to.
I love open but forcing all players in to the same mode will mean that one entire community of paying customers will always be unhappy and end up not playing the game meaning less ship skin and expansion sales and a lower possible lifetime for the game.
sounds like we agree on everything except how long it would take to rebuild. I think you underestimate the upfront workload of advertising the change and accepting 6000 requests with existing tools.
Last edited:
Agreed, the ideal implementation would have friendly fire enabled. You're always going to get the odd kid that thinks it's funny to grief though so it would either require strong moderation or automatic mechanics as I mentioned earlier in the thread.
I would've guessed a bit lower but I'm not really surprised at that percentage. I suspect a large proportion of PVP gamers prefer more balanced environments than either ED or SC provide.
See, that is something I disagree with and this is why (pay attention folks, this is how you counter an argument):
Let us assume that the main reason why the majority of players who currently avoid Open is the feeling of being forced into a victim role. This outlook is entirely justified - traders and people who are not interested in PvP are, due to design flaws of the game, forced to the bottom of the food chain, in which dedicated PvP players are the apex predators.
What FD can do then, is examine the causes of what is outlined above and then apply solutions which would remove such causes. The primary reason why PvP players are apex predators is because as it is, ED galaxy is one big lawless anarchy.
That's right. The ENTIRE GAME is equivalent to what is known as 0.0 space in Eve (system security is there rated from 10 - 0, with 10 being ultra-secure space and 0 being might-makes-right space). No wonder dedicated PvE players and many traders don't want to play in Open.
So the solution here is to, first and foremost, implement system security that means something. How they do it, it's up to the design team. If they want to keep things realistic (EvE resorts to instant response Concord ships which have instakill weapons, so not very realistic, but effective) they need to seriously beef up NPC AI, and the way police response is handled.
Second, the problem right now is not only that the entire game world is lawless anarchy, but also that there are ZERO penalties for being a PKer. In EvE, killing players, especially unsanctioned killing (read: piracy) will drop your security rating like a stone. And here's the catch - if it drops too low, you are KOS for Concord upon entry to a high-security system. Not "if you get caught" - you get caught immediately and terminated just as quickly.
Again, a somewhat gimmicky approach, but ED could do something similar which I already suggested: in high security systems, players with a criminal background would be marked red, a legitimate target for anyone at any time and most importantly, NPC ships would be actively chasing them both in SC and if they drop to sublight. They would not be able to stay in the system without being actively pursued. They certainly would not be able to go anywhere near stations.
The above would certainly make it possible to play as a PvE player in Open without constant danger of being killed, it would create serious consequence for choosing to be a criminal (and thus reduce the number of players who choose to go down that path) and would make Open more varied and interesting for all play styles as a result.
In my opinion the above solves more than one problem in the game and it encourages the community to play together.
Would it make ED a full-on PvE game? Not even close. But ED was never meant to be such a game in the first place.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I specifically said "all" rather than "some" - you seem to ignore that and then go on to paint a picture that might encourage "some" players into open - those players who might be content to play in a "PvP made more consequential" version of Open with enhanced NPC response. Your proposal fails to deal with those players who do not want to be targeted by other players *at*all*, therefore it's not dealing with the "all" part of my statement.
A couple of points:
First, I *agree* that meaningful changes to security would encourage *some* Solo/Group/Mobius players to return -- but not everyone. If I've learned anything from the forums it's that there is no single topic where everyone agrees. I think that, for a good many people, *any* PvP would be unwelcome. Open PvE has a place, even if a stronger Open game design woos back some players.
Second, I think meaningful security and even better AI would benefit all game modes. Such changes should be done regardless.
On that note, I had an idea for sentries to be placed in high security space every 60 lightseconds or so (especially in popular corridors). They could launch FDS-enabled (superluminal) cruise missiles at any ship reported of a crime. If you want to pirate, do it quickly because there is a lot of kinetic energy in a metal slug dropping out of SC at 0.99c
Last edited:
Why let perfect be the enemy of the good?
Those players have solo or private group modes available to them.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Why let perfect be the enemy of the good?
Those players have solo or private group modes available to them.
.... and the restrictions of private groups are what this thread is about - that hasn't changed - it would seem that there is a need for an Open-PvE mode with no (in my opinion) compelling argument against.
@Meritz
Logical and well stated. Repped for that.
I suggested a similar system long time ago where each player had a stigma or infamy that could not be paid down or zeroed. Kill a clean CMDR and your standing in the community would go down, sort of thing.
I'm speaking for myself when I say I'll play in Open when the disruptive elements are controlled. That is when the out-right cheaters and kill-thrill pilots are leashed and suffer penalties for their negative play. My losing several weeks of work/gains in literally a few seconds (for no reason other than lulz) is the reason I left Open. I want to play on a level playing field with everyone else, nothing more, nothing less.
Robert Maynard's statement of "Nothing* that Frontier can do will encourage all players into open," is correct (emphasis added). However, I'll bet 80% of players in solo and private groups would come back given the right game balance.
Logical and well stated. Repped for that.
I suggested a similar system long time ago where each player had a stigma or infamy that could not be paid down or zeroed. Kill a clean CMDR and your standing in the community would go down, sort of thing.
I'm speaking for myself when I say I'll play in Open when the disruptive elements are controlled. That is when the out-right cheaters and kill-thrill pilots are leashed and suffer penalties for their negative play. My losing several weeks of work/gains in literally a few seconds (for no reason other than lulz) is the reason I left Open. I want to play on a level playing field with everyone else, nothing more, nothing less.
Robert Maynard's statement of "Nothing* that Frontier can do will encourage all players into open," is correct (emphasis added). However, I'll bet 80% of players in solo and private groups would come back given the right game balance.
Last edited:
I gave you multiple compelling arguments. It takes away developer resources from other, more important issues. It is expensive. It doesn't address primary problems between PvE and PvP rulesets. It is difficult to implement without compromising core design of the game. It splits the community *firmly* apart instead of trying to bring it together.
No, there is no need for open PvE. Or rather, there is need for a lot of things, and open PvE mode is quite close to the bottom of that list.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Thanks, and yeah, I'd expect about the same result. With the added bonus that the game itself would be better balanced and more fun to play. Solutions which take out more than one problem at the same time should always be preferred to those which tackle only one (and that with dubious and possibly negative results).
The common theme to many of your arguments is that Open PvE is a low priority issue, far down on the list, and not worth developer time in light of everything else.
The thing is, we've all got different lists in our head. Open PvE is low on your list, and near the top on mine. Unless you work for FD, it's all a matter of opinion.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
More important in your opinion, of course, I expect that it would be higher on the priority list of someone who does not wish to play in open.
Dealing with PvE / PvP in open is not what this particular thread is about - hopefully Sandro's crime update implementation will go some way to improving that situation.
I would hazard a guess that (at least some of) the community community is already fairly firmly segregated. If nothing is done for PvE players then Mobius' group will simply continue to get bigger and bigger.
We shall have to agree to disagree then - we are all told to play how we want to and some wish to play PvE so I think that there is a need. Again, the priority of the potential Open-PvE implementation on the list of things to do is open to debate as differing opinions exist.
- Status