Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen

[Distance]

I don't know why people are voting no. I'm pure pvp and think giving players a pve mode will be great because it will stop the majority of the noise about griefing. The only downside is how they implement it and how immersion breaking it could be.

If they did though they should change log ogg timer in open to 1 min and start handing out proper punishments for combat logging. They should do this anyway tbh.

 

[Pluvialis]

Great, there's two games I can think of then that immediately lend themselves to that sort of gameplay; Euro Truck Simulator and American Truck Simulator. Have at it.

As simple and simplistic as that suggestion is, it is not consistent with FD's stated vision for the game.

The idea this game was built on was that everyone should be able to play their way. It's true that ED's history so far has shown that that isn't possible. But your approach here amounts to declaring the game "PVP-or-get-out": those who don't want to play the way you say we all should can leave 'your' game and go to others.

Sadly that's not a unique attitude around here - but please don't imply that it's what the game was designed to be.

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

20,000 out of 1.4 million

1.42%

Numbers would probably be different if we could get FDev to give a statistic on just how many of those accounts were active in, say, the last 2 months but the point is there. Mobius makes up less than 2% of the existing user group based off of accounts sold.

How many are in Open against Solo or PG modes? How many play Open grudgingly? How many would prefer to play offline altogether?

20,000 isn't many, you're right, when weighed against the number of licences sold. But it is a significant number. Beyond that, all is speculation. I note the poll is currently divided by one vote - but as mentioned already, even this is showing us only those on the forums who've chosen to vote.

 

[Pluvialis]

How many of you who are dissing open actually play there?

99.999% of the time open is fine. Only time I have been attacked is in CGs.

I'd far rather FD focused on features and bug fixes than create a new game mode that isn't needed.

First, it's not all about 'dissing' any game mode. Speaking personally I've always tried to be clear that I have no problem with multiplayer except that I don't want to be involved with it. I want to play ED because I love Elite games - even though in gameplay terms this one's a huge step backwards, it's still an Elite game.

But I don't want player involvement. If I could play offline I would, but that option was removed. So I do the next best thing, which is Solo. Yet I'm complained about by players in Open who object that I'm unfairly affecting their background simulation while playing in a mode that prevents them attacking me.

That gives me an interest in this discussion. It's nothing do do with 'dissing'.

Second, the "well I don't have a problem with Open" argument is common, but irrelevant. The concerns here are being raised by people who do have problems. Unless the implication is that your experience proves them all liars, your experience doesn't have a bearing on how they see the game.

Finally, there's the old "A isn't a problem for me personally, but B is, so FD should work on B exclusively" argument, which is also irrelevant. We all have things we'd like to see FD working on. For me it's that offline mode. But I'm not the be-all and end-all of ED, and they're under no obligation to serve my priorities.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

I don't know why people are voting no. I'm pure pvp and think giving players a pve mode will be great because it will stop the majority of the noise about griefing. The only downside is how they implement it and how immersion breaking it could be.

If they did though they should change log ogg timer in open to 1 min and start handing out proper punishments for combat logging. They should do this anyway tbh.

Because some of us don't believe in protected PvE.

 

[Space Dandy]

I don't get what the big deal is...anyone wanting to learn the game (newbs) should go solo till they learn to fly and then those that want pure pve can go group like Mobius.


I voted no because FD should be working on more content rather than this since we already have this via groups.

 

[SnowyNI]

Because some of us don't believe in protected PvE.

You left out "plz don't take my ~victims~ opps! Fun away!".

 

[xondk]

Remind me what the game is called? .... Oh yeah ... Eliteangerous
How about remove all game options and have 1 .... Play
It would stop this PvE, PvP, Open, group talk

Just remember it should be 'dangerous' for everyone not just the new/weak/traders, just saying. Currently it is not dangerous one bit for those that prey on either of those three, and griefers take advantage of that.

 

[Deleted member 102790]

I don't get what the big deal is...anyone wanting to learn the game (newbs) should go solo till they learn to fly and then those that want pure pve can go group like Mobius.


I voted no because FD should be working on more content rather than this since we already have this via groups.

As a programmer I can tell you this would be trivial to implement (eg hidden private group) so your content argument is irrelevant. As is Jackboot's comment (above)

"Newbs should fly solo" - thank you for telling everyone what to do!. This is not an argument either.

"Because some of us don't believe in protected PVE" (above) - this is not an argument.

Rather than "timidland" I believe some want to play "simulatorland" <previous page> but otherwise a great point was made there.

I play in open and expect to continue to do so. The only harm is people leaving open who don't want to play pvp anyway. What enjoyment could you get out of that anyway? <wonders>

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

Just remember it should be 'dangerous' for everyone not just the new/weak/traders, just saying. Currently it is not dangerous one bit for those that prey on either of those three, and griefers take advantage of that.

Good point. I wish we had also super strong police in high tech areas to make things more dangerous for me in my FDL.

edit: I expect this poll to REALLY not represent the player-base. More "extraverted" types feel more lonely in space and are also more likely to post on the forum.

 

[Distance]

Because some of us don't believe in protected PvE.

If you keep killing/interdicting people who don't want to pvp you're just gonna end up with more people leaving the game or combat logging/exploiting.

If you're never going to play it then why should it bother you? I don't play solo but I see a need for it.

 

[Roybe]

Nobody is saying you should care about killers, but FD need to consider the overall consequences of such a massive change to the game - not just the views of one particular group of players (no matter how loud they scream on the forums).

We keep telling them this about the PvP players and they continue to listen! LOL~

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

If players switch to Solo they have to sacrifice community interaction - that is the trade off. Open PvE advocates want all the perks of open without the riskier aspects of it. This would reduce the overall appeal of open to non-combat players thus reducing the amount of potential emergent gameplay in open. So on that basis I will never support an Open PvE mode.



Because it's not what their other customers want (as indicated by the poll as a snapshot) as it would affect open participation numbers, making that mode less appealing.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything against your will. FD provide you with options which you can either take or leave.. Those options are Solo, Private Group, Open or CQC.

Changing it now will just cause a big uproar - keeping things how they are is safer for Frontier.

If PvP is so desirable and wanted...I suggest the PvP players put their money where there mouths are. Declare a boycott of Open...publically, and stand by it....no PvP for x days. Let's see what happens to the population of Open during that time.

 

[Deleted member 102790]

If you keep killing/interdicting people who don't want to pvp you're just gonna end up with more people leaving the game or combat logging/exploiting.

If you're never going to play it then why should it bother you? I don't play solo but I see a need for it.

I agree - I don't play solo either but see a need for others.

Roybe - that is it. Could be only 200 players who don't want this so I do not expect them to do it (boycott). I see the same names again and again...

 

[Geezer32]

Even though I despise PvP I vote no.

I actually don't like that there is a Solo mode at all, I'd like to see one big game world where everyone exists together. Unfortunately this won't work unless FD significantly rework the online mechanics because lets face it every online game is full of griefers and hormone saturated teens with a bloodlust much like my 5 month old kitten that chases and attacks anything that moves. He just can't help it.

I suppose we shouldn't blame then as it's a generation that learnt their social skills from playing COD and Halo. But I digress, there seems to be a mentality around here that anyone in Open is "asking for it" much like the girl who got because she wore a short dress. I guess those explorers who went to check out the Merope 5c barnacles that were murdered by the Anacondas were asking for it too.
Players should be able to participate in community goals without others waiting to kill them while they are out gathering x resource just because they can, and if it does happen, the player killer should expect some real heat.


I don't think that peaceful players should be forced to play solo where it can be a quite lonely place just to avoid getting killed by a billion dollar Corvette as soon as they peek out of Eravate station. The issue with open is the unwilling PvP participant has a lot more to lose than the griefer getting his jollies. There is basically no consequence for attacking an innocent trader in a secure system, but the trader may lose out in millions in cargo and rebuy so it's no wonder they hide in solo.

The bounty system needs to be reworked so there is real consequence for attacking a clean player such as cops that will actually hunt you down, fines that scale so they actually hurt etc. Players that continually show psychotic antisocial behaviour should be booted into an instance that has only others like them such as other online games do.

There is a place for PvP, and there are ways the game could accommodate them such as a proper bounty system, anarchy systems, a meaningful reputation system that affects gameplay etc. but without any consequence its just GTA online with spaceships.

 

[ocflyer]

I really don't see the need and would rather FD focused on other issues.

Unprovoked PVP is rare in my 7 months in game.

Unprovoked PvP is common in my experience. Anyone who does a CG in Open experiences it regularly.

 

[gazzareth]

I'd love to see PVE hard coded into the game (as an option) - would be great to have it as a general option ie PVE Open as well as groups having the option to set their own rules or at least specify PVE along the terms the OP suggests.

G

 

[Gold Member]

Pretty much a waste of time.

 

[Geezer32]

One option I can think of to incentivise traders back into open is to say offer a high value mission to deliver a McGuffin that is only available to high ranked traders. The tradeoff would be that the trader needs to run the gauntlet through a PK killzone, where if the PK'er is successful they could take the high value McGuffin themselves and sell it for large profit.

 

[Bacalao]

No. it would be incredibly odd to allow a player to attack a wanted NPC, but not a wanted player - there's no logic to it unless you're going to spin some pilots federation lore yarn into it that PF members don't attack each other.

Like how incredibly odd it is that there is some pilots federation lore yarn that we are hollow boxes and NPCs are solid boxes (even though they still have a pilots federation ranking)?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Nah, I don't see "Open PvE" being a good thing, I think Mobius does a good job regulating itself and so people are more satisfied because it is done on their own initiative, if FD were to do it, anyone gets killed, then there would be all kinds of issues. Shutting out the ability to interdict, harm or otherwise interfere with other commanders is just as hand-wavy- as having hollow boxes. Can't we all just be equals?----------------------------------Like I said Mobius works so well because it's a player initiative, the players want it so they have it, just the way they want it. If FD put in a universal PvE option then you have to cater to a universal crowd or you're pandering to one group over another, Mobius doesn't have to deal with that precisely because it is a private group, by it's very nature it gets to be exclusive rather than universal; it can eject whoever it wants, whenever it wants, for whatever reason it wants with impunity, it's private. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------How could FD every enforce anything near as eloquent as "don't spoil another players fun". Is blocking a mail slot spoiling it? Is sniping targets in a RES spoiling it? Is killing NPC allies spoiling it? Is following someone around jumping in their line of fire spoiling it? It'd be easier to grief in an Open PvE than it is in Open, because then there would be actual ground for griefing. In the end the only rules between players FD can enforce are the rules we have in Open, essentially no rules, so no griefing, you get what's on the tin. (I don't know what they did to the spacing issues on this board but I'm finding it impossible to post anything that doesn't come out like an amorphous blob.

 

[Deleted member 102790]

Geezer32 I like your posts however I find pvp (what little I have done) exciting. While I really think your ideas are good and would encourage some back into open (I would votes yes for them) I guess some still would want a "simulator" (though how many I do not know- it might just might be far less but probably not all).

Gold Member - I saw your other comments about PVE wanting people being wimpy and special snowflakes et al (I didn't know what was a waste of time)

Is it wimpy you need someone to play with even if that person does want to play with you?

Everyone should do what you want them to do? Why? Because you are a special snowflake?

Pot calling the kettle black much?

Really can't people who do not want open PVE understand that "other players are wimps" is not an argument? They want a "simulator" not "street fighter 2" (btw I loved SF2 )

edit Either way if FD improves things so more solo players come to Open and a SOLO player moves to Open PVE what does it matter?

Is that not what to aim for rather than being against open pve?

 

[Suohhen]

I don't understand why people think FD would have a problem implementing this. Just make it so you can't shoot another player. Anyone choosing this mode would not be trying to shoot another player anyway, so what difference does it make to those playing normal PVP. People need to stop trying to control other peoples gameplay. This kind of mode doesn't hurt or interfere with anyone else.

 

[Bill Clement]

There's a bizzare mindset at work in this community. Help me out fellers, it's hurting my head.

Firstly, there is no meaningful penalty for PKers- call them anything you want, from hero to zero- there is pretty much nothing stopping an individual just shooting nine hells out of anything they meet. That is unlikely to change any time soon.

Secondly, although players can play alone, this is marketed as a multi-player experience. Some players don't like being PKed, but really like the idea of a multi-player experience. The game already supports this, as a lesser, more difficult to arrange game mode. You can play with friends, but you have to set the group up by yourself.

Thirdly, all the op is suggesting is making that mode, one that already exists and is populated by a 'tiny' community of over 20,000 players, 19k+ in one group alone, easier to enter and arrange.

What's the problem with that?

Most games have a co-op mode these days. I regularly play a popular shooter based around modern tank warfare. It's PvE mode is extremely popular, to the extent that many players avoid it's PvP mode. Funnily enough, their forum is filled with threads decrying the mode, insisting that it should be made less attractive than the PvP one. I don't understand that, either.

Some people don't want to be killed by human players. The aggressive, macho antics of our own PvPers might have something to do with that- 'it's Elite Dangerous ', 'baby turtles that stay on the beach too long get eaten', 'cowards and cheats avoid open'.

Guys, some people don't want to play that way. We're lucky they've stayed at all- there are plenty of other games out there they could be playing instead. We, this community, need players, both established and fresh. A co-op or PvE mode appeals to people, even those who like pretending to blow up enemy tanks! Why shouldn't we have one, too? If players leave open for the proposed mode, what does that tell you about what we've turned open into?