Open PvE

[Reaper99]

Quote Originally Posted by Windscreen Smudge View Post

<snip>
Not the point. My point is that nearly everyone in this thread who thinks that this is a good idea thinks that it is going to be just as effective as Mobius. In reality it is going to fall far, far short of their expectations because it is not going to be implemented in the way they envision it and it is going to draw attention not just briefly as you describe, but daily.

Please explain how if you get a lifetime ban after the second PK (with a 6 month ban after the first to give the group a break) people can "draw attention not just briefly as you describe, but daily.".

If they want more than 2 goes at PKing in PVE they need to buy another copy, I think FD would endorse that.

I don't think anyone accused you of greifing in FD, but I would like to understand your motivation for doing it in other games.

Actually the top poster does make sense...the point of the second poster about buying a second copy...despite ip blocks that some use...even if ip is static...there is some truth in what the first quoted states.

An example: about 4 years back if I recall...might be plus or minus...any full time EVE player might recall this...the Goons went on a rampant killing spree...and I mean it was huge...there were bans...some may have created new accounts or created dummy accounts...some just anted up....others...their friends in the crew took up the battle cry.

An explaination...the Goons controlled many sub groups or corps as they were called...and if looking on a map of uncontrolled or unregulated space...the Goon squad had a huge chunk of it...people either did what they said...or got squashed...for the most part the Goons didn't get much hassle from the developers....it was this huge attack that took any kind of action...

I had multiple tiered ships busted up against members of this crew...and it took along time for my pilot to actually be able to stand toe to toe with them because of the way your toon acquired the abilities to survive and deal with pvp at the time...off topic there

don't know the climate there now...have friends that are die hard in the game living in wormholes and such...

Windscreen's point about drawing attention daily has some merit though...there are groups out there that look for a way to force their agenda...done in certain ways...his point can be valid...and possible.

Windscreen's implementation point...may have some merit...going from idea to realized function...sometimes there is things lost in its translation and the critter on paper is different than the beast created.

Gentlemen...in this I am not taking "sides" but in this particular case...the snipped statement has some validity as any of the old timers from EVE can attest to...and it was kinda messy.

Peace and prosperity by any means!!")

 

[Dave1235]

I am affraid that 4 PKs in 9 months in Mobius is not a good argument. Firstly, Mobius is not open group, you must wait before you can play in this group and you will get (probably) an instant ban from the group if you are griefing. This fact itself means that 99% of jerks will not try in the Mobius at all.

Why, in my previous posts I explained in PVE you would get insta-banned too, there is little difference. How does waiting a day for your join request change anything?

Secondly, there is (must be) a wast majority of players in Solo/Groups who do not have problem with griefing at all, because they are beyond the grasp of griefers. Also, there is a lot of players in Open, who maybe was griefed, but simply do not know about Mobius and think that there is no escape from griefing, except solo.

So lets advertise choice in the login menu, the only place all players have to visit

If all those players will come to the Open-PvE, they will become very attractive target for griefers, who will infiltrate without any problem, because it will be OPEN-PvE. So, the amount of griefing attempts will raise exponencially. Every MMO needs several full-time GMs. AFAIK, there are no GMs active in ED.

No it won't, please read my previous post, they would get banned quick sharp!

So, I am sure that for Open-PvE the game itself needs to implement some automatic mechanisms against griefing, better than bounty which can be easily cleaned by death. And better than automatic PK ban.

8Chars, the forum is being annoying tonight

 

[Dave1235]

Quote Originally Posted by Windscreen Smudge View Post

<snip>
Not the point. My point is that nearly everyone in this thread who thinks that this is a good idea thinks that it is going to be just as effective as Mobius. In reality it is going to fall far, far short of their expectations because it is not going to be implemented in the way they envision it and it is going to draw attention not just briefly as you describe, but daily.




Actually the top poster does make sense...the point of the second poster about buying a second copy...despite ip blocks that some use...even if ip is static...there is some truth in what the first quoted states.

An example: about 4 years back if I recall...might be plus or minus...any full time EVE player might recall this...the Goons went on a rampant killing spree...and I mean it was huge...there were bans...some may have created new accounts or created dummy accounts...some just anted up....others...their friends in the crew took up the battle cry.

An explaination...the Goons controlled many sub groups or corps as they were called...and if looking on a map of uncontrolled or unregulated space...the Goon squad had a huge chunk of it...people either did what they said...or got squashed...for the most part the Goons didn't get much hassle from the developers....it was this huge attack that took any kind of action...

I had multiple tiered ships busted up against members of this crew...and it took along time for my pilot to actually be able to stand toe to toe with them because of the way your toon acquired the abilities to survive and deal with pvp at the time...off topic there

don't know the climate there now...have friends that are die hard in the game living in wormholes and such...

Windscreen's point about drawing attention daily has some merit though...there are groups out there that look for a way to force their agenda...done in certain ways...his point can be valid...and possible.

Windscreen's implementation point...may have some merit...going from idea to realized function...sometimes there is things lost in its translation and the critter on paper is different than the beast created.

Gentlemen...in this I am not taking "sides" but in this particular case...the snipped statement has some validity as any of the old timers from EVE can attest to...and it was kinda messy.

Peace and prosperity by any means!!")

My intention was more to mention that a PVE group could just ban kidiots more than multiboxing, I intended to point out that FD would be fine with people getting upset on the forums about being ganked in PVE, if FD got paid ~ £15 per gank (and the person who got ganked was refunded in full in game).

Its P2P with 32 player instances, the gankers will never take hold, once a few invade PVE mode and suffer the consequences very few will follow if the consequences work, put the kidiots on the naughty step if needed.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Why is it you cannot understand that people are not all like you and if they are in solo or groups they are not "hole hiding".

Because they are. AI is so 1983.

- - - Updated - - -

You fail to understand, an open PvE mode would bring people out of their groups into a mode where they can see/ interact with other random members of the community.

It would not fracture the community, it will reinforce it if people can freely join a real PvE mode and not rely on Mobius for player interaction away from PvP.

It is not necessary. We have Mobius. That is good enough. There should be only one Open and when you choose open, you enjoy it with all the trim and trappings.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

The Open-PvE mode being requested would be in addition to the existing Open game mode. Players would seem to want to share the benefits of Open (i.e. being able to meet strangers with no need to identify, research, apply, be accepted into a Private Group) without others initiating PvP against them. It's more about playing *without* PvP....

I don't see the point. I find people annoying sometimes and prefer the option of plowing a hole through their hull or aerating their cockpit if need be. Population control is a great thing when used judiciously.

Open without the ability to hurt someone is just... well, dull. I mean, there's AI, but, AI is predictable and easy to escape from. The benefit to open is the unpredictable nature of other human players. Without PvP, the other humans may as well be AI. No thanks. Let's keep open completely open.

- - - Updated - - -

You are going to make me type this, aren't you....

PvP is not griefing. Griefing is griefing.

Oh but a large number of players that I've witnessed in the Elite community would have you think otherwise! So many have insinuated that even the slightest bit of PvP is griefing.

 

[Mouse]

Because they are. AI is so 1983.

- - - Updated - - -



It is not necessary. We have Mobius. That is good enough. There should be only one Open and when you choose open, you enjoy it with all the trim and trappings.

With the myriad of reasons for being in in solo and group, others don't need to have epeen ing contests with the likes of you or share your arrogance. IF PVP is how you prove to yourself that your "tough" then hey it is good you have something that helps your self-esteem. Stop insulting others and go make yourself happy in open.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

With the myriad of reasons for being in in solo and group, others don't need to have epeen ing contests with the likes of you or share your arrogance. IF PVP is how you prove to yourself that your "tough" then hey it is good you have something that helps your self-esteem. Stop insulting others and go make yourself happy in open.

I'm not insulting others--however, you, Sir, I have noticed, are /quite/ aggressive when it comes to talking about Open/Solo/PvE. I suggest you calm down a little.

This is a thread suggesting there be Open PvE. I'm of course responding in kind with my own two cents that there not be such a thing. You don't seem to like that. I see you viciously attack people all the time on these forums for even suggesting there be PvP. Chill out, man.

 

[Mouse]

I'm not insulting others--however, you, Sir, I have noticed, are /quite/ aggressive when it comes to talking about Open/Solo/PvE. I suggest you calm down a little.

This is a thread suggesting there be Open PvE. I'm of course responding in kind with my own two cents that there not be such a thing. You don't seem to like that. I see you viciously attack people all the time on these forums for even suggesting there be PvP. Chill out, man.

Yes, I can get aggressive, but only against those who insult others and feel they are superior to others because of their mode of game play. As you have been in multiple threads. You have constantly insulted those who play in Solo, and you are full of it as I've made many posts in support of PVP. In no place anywhere have I said PVP was bad, my issue is FORCED PVP, griefing, and those who use PVP not as a way to play a game but as a mechanic to be detrimental to others game play. You want to play in Open that is fine, you want to PVP in open, again fine. But knock it off with the insults to those who play in solo or in groups and those who would like a multi-player experience open like experience without PVP.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Yes, I can get aggressive, but only against those who insult others and feel they are superior to others because of their mode of game play. As you have been in multiple threads. You have constantly insulted those who play in Solo, and you are full of it as I've made many posts in support of PVP. In no place anywhere have I said PVP was bad, my issue is FORCED PVP, griefing, and those who use PVP not as a way to play a game but as a mechanic to be detrimental to others game play. You want to play in Open that is fine, you want to PVP in open, again fine. But knock it off with the insults to those who play in solo or in groups and those who would like a multi-player experience open like experience without PVP.

LOL sorry, my opinion is not going to change. Thanks though for your input. I will continue to ferociously defend open mode and it being the true style of play. I am not, however, being insulting. You are, though.

 

[Mouse]

LOL sorry, my opinion is not going to change. Thanks though for your input. I will continue to ferociously defend open mode and it being the true style of play. I am not, however, being insulting. You are, though.

You can play open all you want, you can like to play in open all you want, but it is NOT the "true" style of play. News Flash... No mode is the "true style of play". And again you insult anyone who doesn't play "your" way and then try to say that your not insulting but I am.

 

[GluttonyFang]

It would only appease both groups if those who do not like the setting of another player's PvP-Flag keep their opinions to themselves.... Sadly, I don't think that that is likely to be completely successful - from either side.

Just came back from a family trip, and I think I agree that it is an unfortunate reality to an extent.

 

[Mohrgan]

Offering a default PvE option on the log in screen is not a threat to open. Players who defend, or prefer open would still have all it has to offer now, not a bit less. All the risk, and danger you enjoy right now would stay exactly the same as it is today. There is nothing to fear from this idea.

It would only be there for players that have decided not to enjoy the environment that is open. It would be a middle ground between open's rich tapestry, and solo's personal isolation. A PvE option would simply offer the player that prefers a Co-Op play style one place to meet, and play with others looking for interaction without direct competition. I suggest we call it Co-Op mode, so as not to risk the dilution of open, with labels like open-PvP. A Co-Op mode would allow for players to truly have control over whom they choose to play along side.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is not necessary. We have Mobius. That is good enough. There should be only one Open and when you choose open, you enjoy it with all the trim and trappings.

In your opinion, maybe - other opinions will vary.

I don't see the point. I find people annoying sometimes and prefer the option of plowing a hole through their hull or aerating their cockpit if need be. Population control is a great thing when used judiciously.

Open without the ability to hurt someone is just... well, dull. I mean, there's AI, but, AI is predictable and easy to escape from. The benefit to open is the unpredictable nature of other human players. Without PvP, the other humans may as well be AI. No thanks. Let's keep open completely open.

Again, you are describing your reactions to events - not all players approach the game in this way (and there is no need for them to, anyway).

Not everyone wants PvP - it's that simple.

 

[KRONFROMGALVATRON]

Yes, I'd be in favor of a PvE open mode. But this may be at odds with the devs desire to create a realistic, sometimes dangerous world. There's no PvE mode in real life after all, sadly. Maybe on a commune in Oregon somewhere.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes, I'd be in favor of a PvE open mode. But this may be at odds with the devs desire to create a realistic, sometimes dangerous world. There's no PvE mode in real life after all, sadly. Maybe on a commune in Oregon somewhere.

I doubt that it is totally at odds with Frontier's aims - we do have Solo and Private Groups after all.

 

[Majinvash]

I doubt that it is totally at odds with Frontier's aims - we do have Solo and Private Groups after all.

No I expect it is against their vision.

"Blaze your own trail"

Producing a game where players could kill players...... You would have assumed that had done some market research.

You would have to rebrand it as...

"Blaze your own trail as long as you don't blaze over someone else's trail without first checking that the blazing you wish to blaze isn't counter blazing to their blaze."

Not sure marketing could spin that one.

Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite: Dangerous’ vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.

Majinvash

 

[Robert Maynard]

No I expect it is against their vision.

"Blaze your own trail"

Producing a game where players could kill players...... You would have assumed that had done some market research.

You would have to rebrand it as...

"Blaze your own trail as long as you don't blaze over someone else's trail without first checking that the blazing you wish to blaze isn't counter blazing to their blaze."

Not sure marketing could spin that one.

Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite: Dangerous’ vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.

Majinvash

Freedom of choice - for all players - if the choices of one player try to impose on the choices of another player, the latter can choose to play in a way such that the former player no longer inconveniences them.

Indeed the game has been produced whereby players can destroy other players - there is no must though. Similarly, players need not offer themselves up as content for the combative players (unless they choose to do so, of course).

 

[Mohrgan]

No I expect it is against their vision.

"Blaze your own trail"

Producing a game where players could kill players...... You would have assumed that had done some market research.

You would have to rebrand it as...

"Blaze your own trail as long as you don't blaze over someone else's trail without first checking that the blazing you wish to blaze isn't counter blazing to their blaze."

Not sure marketing could spin that one.

Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite: Dangerous’ vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.

Majinvash

Their, FD's, vision has included solo, and group play just as long as the ability to shoot at other players. There is no evidence that popping player's ships is at all part of core play. I mean, there is but one way to earn any currency at all with PvP, bounty hunting. That has to tell you something. Even in your quote from FD it reminds you that you have a choice over whom you play along side,

 

[Majinvash]

Freedom of choice - for all players - if the choices of one player try to impose on the choices of another player, the latter can choose to play in a way such that the former player no longer inconveniences them.

Indeed the game has been produced whereby players can destroy other players - there is no must though. Similarly, players need not offer themselves up as content for the combative players (unless they choose to do so, of course).

Which has been stated in many many other threads as simple to do by avoiding areas with dangerous players.

Making a whole new splinter for another group to play in another way, where would it end?

ED 2017 ... Load up and select from 26 game modes....

Open is Open, people need to accept that and deal with it.

This isn't about hurting peoples feelys, its about a game mode that is working as intended for a large group of the player base.

As much as I hate Solo and Private groups as an escape route from danger, they exist.

If Mobius was such a required mode, there would be a lot more than 10-11k of members. Which is 0.022 of the player base. ( Based on apparent copies sold )

People have google and I am sure they could find that group within a couple of searches if the demand was that high.

Actually just tried.. Type in PVE Elite Dangerous and their website is the second result.

Majinvash

- - - Updated - - -

Their, FD's, vision has included solo, and group play just as long as the ability to shoot at other players. There is no evidence that popping player's ships is at all part of core play. I mean, there is but one way to earn any currency at all with PvP, bounty hunting. That has to tell you something. Even in your quote from FD it reminds you that you have a choice over whom you play along side,

Then what would they have meant in the marketing material as "your deadliest enemy" .

Majinvash

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which has been stated in many many other threads as simple to do by avoiding areas with dangerous players.

Making a whole new splinter for another group to play in another way, where would it end?

ED 2017 ... Load up and select from 26 game modes....

Open is Open, people need to accept that and deal with it.

This isn't about hurting peoples feelys, its about a game mode that is working as intended for a large group of the player base.

As much as I hate Solo and Private groups as an escape route from danger, they exist.

If Mobius was such a required mode, there would be a lot more than 10-11k of members. Which is 0.022 of the player base. ( Based on apparent copies sold )

People have google and I am sure they could find that group within a couple of searches if the demand was that high.

Actually just tried.. Type in PVE Elite Dangerous and their website is the second result.

Majinvash

- - - Updated - - -



Then what would they have meant in the marketing material as "your deadliest enemy" .

Majinvash

Why should players restrict their access to certain areas of the game just because some other players choose to make those areas more dangerous for players?

Jumping to wild conclusions regarding how many modes we may end up with rather trivialises opposition to a mode that would satisfy a significant number of players who have no interest in PvP.

Open is Open - agreed. That's why, rather than ask that it be made into a PvE mode, players are requesting that a sister-mode is created that is PvE, thus leaving Open as it is.