Open PvE
- Thread starter SiriusSeven
- Start date
- Status
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Again, this is relating to the "Solo vs Open vs Group" thread and is off topic for this thread. If you wish to pursue that topic, please do it there.
7000 out of 425000 is exactly 1.64705882352941%
If thats a real argument you want to use then 98,4% of the playerbase are not interested in a PvE mode.
My point: The member count of the Mobious group is as relevant as the above figures in this argument.
Edit: Real figures from Mobius would be nice: Stuff like:
- People logged into group more than once, twice etc.
- People who joined but never logged in
- average logged in players
Then the numbers could be giving us a hint of a trend among the players.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That would be assuming that every player who might wish to play PvE has even heard of the Mobius group. At last count there are c.489k players (this morning on the Backers' page of the game site). The latest forum registration is c.90,700. The last forum registration before the KS was announced was c.16,100. This means that c.74,600 new forum users have joined since E: D was announced. Even if every one of them was active (they're not all active) and an E: D player (Frontier produce other games), about 15% of players are forum users here - the 7,000 is closer to 10% of that figure.
You cannot say "Everyone who isn't a member of Mobius is not interested in a PvE mode". That is a generalization of the highest order and you should feel ashamed of yourself for it. You have no evidence one way or the other. How many don't know about Mobius, as there's effectively no advertising for it outside of the forums which are already only visited by a distinct minority of players? How many players are in Open but would prefer Open-PVE if it were offered? How many are in Solo because they do not wish to be someone else's target but find Solo to be very lonely and would absolutely join Open-PVE if it existed?
Your argument lacks any merit at all beyond demonstrating that a small number is a very small percentage of a much larger number. Everything else you've said lacks any kind of proof whatsoever.
I very much agree!
- - - Updated - - -
I have a better idea. Why don't we just try a formal "PVE ALL MODE" and see what happens? Why are you so bothered by the idea of simply trying it out?
To put it bluntly: I don't want to play with you, nor with players that think like you. I was promised a game where I can simply ignore you, and it's (more or less) working. I will leave the game if I'm ever forced to play the way you want.
What you find fun or engaging is not universal. For many your dream game would be a nightmare, not worth playing at all.
PvE is already a reality, and was (kinda) promised from day one. An official open PvE group would simply make it easier for those players that don't want to play with those that think like you to find each other and enjoy the game.
Because if any player can shoot at me, anywhere in the game galaxy (apart from clearly marked PvP battleground sites), then the game isn't catering to me at all. I don't accept non-consensual PvP, not now, not ever.
In other words, for me either I can completely opt out of PvP or else I will opt out of the game as a whole. I have no interest in being content for trigger-happy players.
Besides, I want the most challenging PvE game the devs can provide; having the safe areas be PvE and the areas with challenging PvE encounters be open to PvP would leave me without any place to play, as I would be forced to choose between seeking the challenging NPCs but having my enjoyment completely ruined by other players or going for the places where PvP couldn't happen but the NPCs are too easy to be worth my while. It's the main reason why, despite having backed Star Citizen, I don't think I will even create an online character; their plan is to tie the ability to escape PvP to the system safety, and if they go through with this idea the result will be an online game I will never be able to enjoy.
Nope, why? It would remove the worst of the hassle of being Pk'd in the game. NPC's could still kill.
Last edited:
This proves three things. Firstly, according to your calculations, what we're looking for would apparently have a tiny effect on your chosen mode, so why does it bother you so much? Secondly, 7000 members of the forum and others through word of mouth have found Mobius despite it being relatively hidden, choose to play this mode already without it affecting your chosen mode one iota. Lastly, it shows that you have missed the point of the thread.
1 - Mobius and others like him, could do with some decent tools to manage large groups, so he could spend more time playing than doing administrative duties.
2 - People appear to like to play cooperatively, so why not make it 'official'?
Congratulations on the new calculator by the way. Try entering 58008 and turning it upside down, its hilarious.
Currently I feel like I am playing PVE as I rarely see another CMDR player and PVE in all honestly is not challenging as a game at all.
Play as a trader, have no trouble fighting off NPC pirates or simply run away. Play as bounty hunter, destroy anything in 30 seconds... See the NPC's still try to do all the "bad stuff" to the CMDR the only difference is that they are bad at doing it...
PVE = not challenging..
Again there is no reason why the entire playing population can not play in open mode but have better policed areas (which seems to be an issue now)..
Last edited:
OK sorry but I need to nip this argument in the bud. It has not and will never be about challenge of lack of challenge for people who want to avoid PVP. It's about avoiding confrontational interactions with other humans, which some people just fine unpleasant and not fun. Saying that PVE is easy and thinking it's got anything to do with why PVEers prefer it is talking past the argument. Dedicated PVE players seek cooperative gameplay not confrontational gameplay.
Whether it is easy or hard is incidental. The fact that they aren't confronting and fighting with another human is the point.
Whether it is easy or hard is incidental. The fact that they aren't confronting and fighting with another human is the point.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
1) fine so you wont play in it... that is ok. As has been said so many times in this thread, its not about difficulty or "fear" for the majority, it is about enjoyment and many of us simply do not enjoy PvP and prefer to work together. I welcome tougher AI and what not in the game.
2) again your "no reason for the entire population not in open**".... has been debunked so many times. DB has commented that this game uses next to no bandwidth and he has even played it on a train tethered to his mobile phone, and it only using a few mb of data an hr. Until open can offer that kind of bandwidth use (not gonna happen) then there will ALWAYS be a reason for not forcing everyone to play in open, regardless of how well people play together in open OR if there is ever a PvE mode.
Personally for me, I travel a lot, and also often have limited internet at home, othertimes I have full bandwidth without limits.
Try and consider other people than yourself and their needs rather than just what YOU find enjoyable yourself. Everybody is different and they play games for different reasons. If we didnt it would be a pretty dull place.
Maybe a PvE mode will happen, and maybe it wont but to suggest there are no compelling arguments for it is false I guess it just depends on whether the devs think it is a good idea or not, and even if so then how much work it will be to implement it well..
**Though you are right on the police.... if the law ever begins to make sense, then I personally will be back in ALL when my internet allows it. But that is just me and again, for some police or no police, they just want to play together in a co-operative environment......
Last edited:
Perhaps what might be interesting for people arguing for or against different playstyles is to read about the Bartle types ( http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm ) which talks about the different kinds of experiences different kind of people look for in games. It explains how depending on personal preferences people find different things attractive in online games. The same way why some people prefer single player games to multi player, or the PvP style over PvE.
I think FD would be best of to provide as much as possible for ALL types of players. Especially Socializers would benefit from a PvE setting.
I think FD would be best of to provide as much as possible for ALL types of players. Especially Socializers would benefit from a PvE setting.
However, it's not impossible to cater for both the PvE, PvP and "I just want to hang out" crowd in one and the same universe; it does require a lot of careful design, though, to make it work. As it is, ED plays out mostly like a single player game with some multiplayer tacked on, although, it's fun as it is (for the time being, anyway). Interestingly, the only really competitive part where you gain or lose something persistent is actually exploration. I wish that PvP mechanics were more fleshed out with more meaningful gains and losses.
The thing is that ultimately you really can't please everyone, whatever feature you have, someone will like it and someone will find it to be a show-stopper (eg. you have people who detest exploration because of the existence of ADS! - while other explorers swear by it). If you try to cater to everyone it ends up being a bit watered down. I personally think that the game would have been better off done in a MMO style (it's advertized as such on Steam, btw, and when I saw MMO + Space flight + Elite it was a "must buy this" moment for me - finding the first isn't really true was a bit of a let-down to be honest), single server, single persistent world. However, it's fun as it is and has some great elements - space flight is lovely, exploring the milky way doubly so, fighting itself is rather fun.
The thing is that ultimately you really can't please everyone, whatever feature you have, someone will like it and someone will find it to be a show-stopper (eg. you have people who detest exploration because of the existence of ADS! - while other explorers swear by it). If you try to cater to everyone it ends up being a bit watered down. I personally think that the game would have been better off done in a MMO style (it's advertized as such on Steam, btw, and when I saw MMO + Space flight + Elite it was a "must buy this" moment for me - finding the first isn't really true was a bit of a let-down to be honest), single server, single persistent world. However, it's fun as it is and has some great elements - space flight is lovely, exploring the milky way doubly so, fighting itself is rather fun.
Last edited:
Let's imagine for a second - what if you could not distinguish the people from the machines? If PvE was, well, every bit like PvP?
I will not shoot at another ship without being sure it's a NPC. I never, ever, attack players unprovoked, even if by all accounts I should be attacking them on sight.
So, it would just completely prevent me from doing anything where I need to shoot first, like bounty hunting. Or, more likely, it would drive me to play solo, either by choosing the mode or by using my firewall to block out every player.
Depends on what you mean by PvE crowd and PvP crowd. Each of those gameplay styles have many branches; in PvP, for example, you can easily identify the arena PvP players (want well defined, balanced fights), the conquest players (want clearly defined and attainable objectives that actually matter to the game world), the sheep (want to be always at risk of a player attacking them), the wolves (want to be able to attack unsuspecting players), plus many permutations and subgroups.
And some of those are completely incompatible. If I can ever be attacked by a player without my explicit consent, no matter how rare it is, I'm simply not playing, regardless of how good the game otherwise is; some PvP players will never be happy if anyone can simply choose to never be subject to PvP. There are PvP players that will only play if losing doesn't cost them anything, while some will only play if they can inflict penalties on the losers. And so on.
While not exactly my case, my behavior do change drastically depending on whether I can effectively explore the whole game world/universe/whatever in full. If exploring it all is a feasible proposition, I won't rest until I have looked at every nook and cranny, unlocked every secret, and fully exploring the game becomes my main objective; if the game is either infinite or too large to be reasonably explored in full, I will typically only explore until I've seen a fair sample of what the game has to offer, and then eschew exploring except as a support activity. Kinda like how I play Minecraft and Terraria differently; in Minecraft I stay put and only explore as needed to find building materials, whereas in Terraria my first objective is to explore the world fully and I typically delete the game world after I've been through all it has to offer.
Whether it's a MMO depends on what you consider a MMO. Even in its Steam page it does make clear that players can choose to not be involved with anyone else; it's even listed as a single player game (well, as single-player, multi-player, MMO, and co-op, all at once).
And whether it would be better as a pure MMO depends on who you are talking to. Making it online only already required a number of compromises, such as removing time dilation/compression like the older games used. I backed the game's Kickstart for the offline mode, the one that was removed a mere month before launch; if I had known it would always require an online connection I would never have backed it.
There are a few automated Bartle Tests online, such as the one from Gamer DNA. My score in that, when it comes to the Killer archetype (the one typically interested in open world PvP), is 0%.
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the Bartle archetypes, while still as valid now as when they were developed in the 90s, are a very rough classification. Someone that plays to make noobs cry, and someone that plays to punish griefers and defend noobs, will both be the Killer archetype, despite how different their play styles are.
I'm not sure the rest of Bartle's article is still meaningful nowadays, though, at least in games that allow players to completely opt out of PvP. The article is, for the most part, about how each player archetype (Killer, Explorer, Achiever, Socializer) affects the game's desirability for both itself and the other archetypes, and its main conclusion is that Killer archetype players tend to drive everyone else out of the game, pointing to a need to make the game less enticing for Killer players and more enticing for the other archetypes (specially Explorer, which is seen as the only archetype that balances somewhat the Killer archetype players). But it gets there from the point of view that allowing players to have negative interactions is, if not essential, at least highly desirable for every game, and thus doesn't tackle what happens when negative interactions can be opted out. It should still be useful to analyze, say, the open mode by itself, but I don't think its conclusions can be applied to the ED game as a whole.
The private Mobius PvE group is closing in fast on 8000 registered players with no sign of stopping: http://elitepve.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3&start=220#p20903
Surely this should raise some eyebrows at FD?
One private individual responsible for hosting a PvE game mode that many players want, but FD doesn't cater to?
How many would choose this option if it was available on the main menu of the game for all to see instead of finding it randomly in a groups sub forum?
Edit: Could be fun with a beta period where an Open PvE mode option was available on the main menu. Just to read the influx.
Surely this should raise some eyebrows at FD?
One private individual responsible for hosting a PvE game mode that many players want, but FD doesn't cater to?
How many would choose this option if it was available on the main menu of the game for all to see instead of finding it randomly in a groups sub forum?
Edit: Could be fun with a beta period where an Open PvE mode option was available on the main menu. Just to read the influx.
Last edited:
Math time again, are we all sitting comfortably?, then I will begin.
7,800 members http://elitepve.com/viewtopic.php?f=...art=220#p20903
44,362 total forum members https://forums.frontier.co.uk/memberlist.php
17.58% of people with a forum account are a member of Mobius.
These two numbers are the only solid ones I know of, I do realise that some people might have discovered Mobius via reddit too, on the flip side not every forum account will be active so its never going to be concrete numbers.
Still its a big enough number that FD should be worried about one player managing the lot.
All I can say is its a bloody good job most of Mobius groups are PVE orientated, if they were not, one rousing speech and the Lave cluster would be saved.
It was the lave bandits that invaded the Mobius group to PK for fun wasn't it? not that I want to give anyone ideas, but I know where to hand in my alliance bounties
7,800 members http://elitepve.com/viewtopic.php?f=...art=220#p20903
44,362 total forum members https://forums.frontier.co.uk/memberlist.php
17.58% of people with a forum account are a member of Mobius.
These two numbers are the only solid ones I know of, I do realise that some people might have discovered Mobius via reddit too, on the flip side not every forum account will be active so its never going to be concrete numbers.
Still its a big enough number that FD should be worried about one player managing the lot.
All I can say is its a bloody good job most of Mobius groups are PVE orientated, if they were not, one rousing speech and the Lave cluster would be saved.
It was the lave bandits that invaded the Mobius group to PK for fun wasn't it? not that I want to give anyone ideas, but I know where to hand in my alliance bounties
Idk if that's exactly eyebrow raising level of players. isn't that only 1/2% of the total player base? It's not a large amount by any means.
What might be cool is if instead of pve mode, we get better group mode options,
No pvp dmg
No player to player collision dmg
Full price for stolen goods,
Double npc spawn rates
2x ship/shield health for players and npcs
2x fsd charge up and cooldown time
The possibilities are endless. I'd personally rather have that and I'm sure it would work out better for the mobius group as well.
Last edited:
- Status