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

[Robert Maynard]

Daaamn! I missed that earlier, but now I do remember it from when I backed the game. I wondered at the time exactly how that was going to be realised.
The "open groups" quote is a very good counter-argument and should be made more often!

I might not personally like the idea (preferring, as I do, a more high-risk EVE-like single-shard galaxy to play in) but I do like the way people have a choice of game modes available to them.

Do you know whether FD later elaborated upon this "open groups" idea? Or was it one of the FAQ entries they added during the campaign to allay people's fears? (like the "update: offline mode looks feasible" one or the "you'll be able to buy in-game credits for real money" one?)

---

It also sounds like someone at FD read that quote from the UO developer and took it to heart, resulting in the current game modes and the can't-come-soon-enough security system overhaul.

The quoted portion was, from memory, around from the outset. Looking at the Kickstarter FAQ, the last update to "How does multiplayer work" was on 14th November, 8 days after the Kickstarter launch.

How does multiplayer work?

You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.

Last updated: Wed, Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM +00:00

So, no, this was not added late in the Kickstarter to allay fears.

A point to note is that any player can create an Open Private Group (please pardon the oxymoron) that any player can freely join - so Open groups can be created at the moment. The missing part is "and the rules in each can be different" - there are no selectable rules when creating a Private Group.

 

[excalibus]

The quoted portion was, from memory, around from the outset. Looking at the Kickstarter FAQ, the last update to "How does multiplayer work" was on 14th November, 8 days after the Kickstarter launch.



So, no, this was not added late in the Kickstarter to allay fears.

A point to note is that any player can create an Open Private Group (please pardon the oxymoron) that any player can freely join - so Open groups can be created at the moment. The missing part is "and the rules in each can be different" - there are no selectable rules when creating a Private Group.

so really they are saying that more than one open group with different rulesets was something they offered at the kickstarter and therefore something that could well be in their development plans for the game overall?

If so then that is very good news IMHO

 

[InMemoriamSirocco]

There is already an open vs solo thread...

Just saying.

 

[eza]

You obviously have not read where I stated that this mode, and this suggestion is not something I would likely play but that does not mean I do not see a real need for a PVE Multiplayer mode available from the main menu for others and playing another 'game' is not really an optimal solution for frontier is it?

As for there being no risk, there is plenty of risk still given from NPC's

Sorry I should have made that comment general and not personal (or, better yet, not have made it in the first place!)
An optimal solution for Frontier is to continue ahead with their current plan of expansions and bugfixing.
There's very little money to be made from providing an open PvE mode.
They're not losing subscribers because of the lack of an open PvE mode, because anyone who cares has already bought the game.
If a new expansion comes out (eg. atmospheric planets or something) then there will be very few people who won't buy that new content because of a lack of open PvE mode. They'll buy it or not buy it because of the content in it, how much it costs, and whether they like the base game enough.

-

There is very little risk provided by the game. Especially compared to the previous Elite games (which, arguably, had zero risk because you could just reload a saved game and then not do the thing that got you blown up) which were very difficult (arguably, were more difficult for me because of my young age and relative gaming inexperience back then).

The risk that there is comes from multiple powerful NPCs, but you have to go looking for it (in SSSes and distress calls) rather than it being thrust upon you (eg: mis-jumps and thargoids in original Elite), and even when you've encountered these powerful NPCs you can still run away easily by jumping to another system.

Fighting NPCs is formulaic: after shooting a few you know exactly how they're going to fight you.

I've lost ships to NPCs, but each time it was because I was pushing my luck and continuing the fight with 10% hull because the enemy Anaconda was at 4%. The only deaths I couldn't have escaped were the ones where I boosted into the station walls.

However, we have been told by FD that improved NPC combat AI is coming, so I'm looking forward to seeing that soon

 

[Roland2]

It's a space combat game and it's online. How does that equal "not PvP"?

The "with friends, other pilots, or alone" line is an obvious reference to private group, open, and solo game modes.



Other Elite pilots like yourself is anyone else who also plays Elite in open. Not "like-minded" or "likeable" or anything else you'd like to read in to a clearly-articulated statement.

That "with friends, other pilots, or alone" quote is an obvious reference to private group, open, and solo game modes, respectively.

---

I can just take solace in the fact I'm playing the game I bought in to: an online incarnation of Elite with the risks and rewards which that entails.
Previous quotes by the FD developer Sandro, stating he doesn't want to further stretch the differences between players and AI, make this ever happening highly unlikely.

It's a space combat game and it's online. How does that equal "not PvP"?

How does it equal PvP? I've played other space combat games that are online that don't require PvP at all (STO comes to mind). As for combat games that are online, there are probably hundreds that don't require PvP (ESO, Warframe to name a couple).

That "with friends, other pilots, or alone" quote is an obvious reference to private group, open, and solo game modes, respectively.

I don't disagree, but it still doesn't say PvP. If I want to play "with" "other pilots" that could equate to open-PvE just as easily as it currently equates to "Open" mode.

 

[Loetmichel]

There is already an open vs solo thread...

Just saying.

Maybe try to read and COMPREHEND whats written here? its about open PvE, not about open vs solo.

Just saying.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There's very little money to be made from providing an open PvE mode.

.... the increase in subscribers (after the introduction of Trammel in 2000 as an attempt to stop haemorraghing players - which was successful) and longevity of Ultima Online (still going) would tend not to support this contention.

 

[willowfan]

There is already an open vs solo thread... Just saying.

Which is not what this thread is about. Though granted many of the arguments are splitting along similar lines...

 

[excalibus]

Sorry I should have made that comment general and not personal (or, better yet, not have made it in the first place!)
An optimal solution for Frontier is to continue ahead with their current plan of expansions and bugfixing.
There's very little money to be made from providing an open PvE mode.
They're not losing subscribers because of the lack of an open PvE mode, because anyone who cares has already bought the game.
If a new expansion comes out (eg. atmospheric planets or something) then there will be very few people who won't buy that new content because of a lack of open PvE mode. They'll buy it or not buy it because of the content in it, how much it costs, and whether they like the base game enough.

-

There is very little risk provided by the game. Especially compared to the previous Elite games (which, arguably, had zero risk because you could just reload a saved game and then not do the thing that got you blown up) which were very difficult (arguably, were more difficult for me because of my young age and relative gaming inexperience back then).

The risk that there is comes from multiple powerful NPCs, but you have to go looking for it (in SSSes and distress calls) rather than it being thrust upon you (eg: mis-jumps and thargoids in original Elite), and even when you've encountered these powerful NPCs you can still run away easily by jumping to another system.

Fighting NPCs is formulaic: after shooting a few you know exactly how they're going to fight you.

I've lost ships to NPCs, but each time it was because I was pushing my luck and continuing the fight with 10% hull because the enemy Anaconda was at 4%. The only deaths I couldn't have escaped were the ones where I boosted into the station walls.

However, we have been told by FD that improved NPC combat AI is coming, so I'm looking forward to seeing that soon

it's okay I am thick skinned and apology accepted no drama

I can say that with the current mechanics for certain missions, NPC's are getting better, and who remembers 1.4 when the forums where ablaze with complaints over NPC interdictions... etc... no doubt improved and harder AI will bring more of the same at some point, but I digress sorry...

I have fought many NPC's (racking up over 4K in kills so far and nearly all of them NPC's) and I would say that about 15% to 20% of that total, where not me seeking them out, where them interdicting me... That said, some of the hardest NPC battles I have had were with assassination targets where I had to seek them out, including one which went on for 20 minutes and ended up with me having to jump out before dying (ohhh so close to killing that elite anny too in my viper hahaha) and in my experience, unless you are setup a certain way for combat, they do present a reasonable challenge, and then comes the skill level of the PC player into that as well...

I still do not see how adding an option in the main menu for a PVE multiplayer mode that is visible to everyone the same as open, solo, group and CQC options are available will do any harm to the game overall

I do understand your points with regards to they won't lose 'subscribers' because that is not how the game is financed, but they do lose players (we have all seen enough ragequits etc yes?)

Heck I brought the game for one of my friends as a gift (he was an avid elite player back when) and he has said to me he does not even want to play the game unless it has a pve only mode...

 

[eza]

How does it equal PvP? I've played other space combat games that are online that don't require PvP at all (STO comes to mind). As for combat games that are online, there are probably hundreds that don't require PvP (ESO, Warframe to name a couple).



I don't disagree, but it still doesn't say PvP. If I want to play "with" "other pilots" that could equate to open-PvE just as easily as it currently equates to "Open" mode.

This part of the KS says to me that Elite Dangerous will be an Elite game like the previous games in the series, but online this time:

"In the game, you will of course begin with a spacecraft and a small sum of Credits. You will be able to trade, pirate, bounty-hunt, explore, and salvage your way to wealth and fame, building on those key elements of the previous games, and with sumptuous graphics only now possible with the performance of today’s machines. Only this time some of the ships out there will be other players like yourself – other members of a secret ‘Elite’ group of space-farers…"

In the previous games, your contact with other ships was combative not cooperative.

The text "PvE" can't be found on the KS pitch. I think this is because the text "MMO" also cannot be found.

 

[Lestenio]

.
There's very little money to be made from providing an open PvE mode.

Except the UO example that was added to support the PvP argument had a quote from the devs that a PvE mode doubled the player base. More players = more ££

They're not losing subscribers because of the lack of an open PvE mode, because anyone who cares has already bought the game.

We have no way to know that. But the fact that they want to do something about crime would suggest they have some concern and it would be foolish on their part to ignore it.

I also diasgree that anyone who cares has brought the game. That suggests they might as well take it off steam and not bother with more feature as there are no more potential buyers.

 

[Mohrgan]

This part of the KS says to me that Elite Dangerous will be an Elite game like the previous games in the series, but online this time:

"In the game, you will of course begin with a spacecraft and a small sum of Credits. You will be able to trade, pirate, bounty-hunt, explore, and salvage your way to wealth and fame, building on those key elements of the previous games, and with sumptuous graphics only now possible with the performance of today’s machines. Only this time some of the ships out there will be other players like yourself – other members of a secret ‘Elite’ group of space-farers…"

In the previous games, your contact with other ships was combative not cooperative.

The text "PvE" can't be found on the KS pitch. I think this is because the text "MMO" also cannot be found.

It's a sales pitch. There will be no connection to reality, just to aspirations. Trying to parse what FD intends from a sales pitch is doomed to failure. A carefully worded statement used to attract people to your product is never going to reflect the end results.

 

[Gedemon]

I would't mind if they change the current open/solo/private modes to something like this:

PVP
Play PVP mode if you want to be able to shoot other CMDRs
You can see all other PVP players here and shoot em down if you wish.
Don't whine if you get shot here


PVE
Play this mode if you want to see other CMDR's but in here you cant shoot them or be shot
Shots just passes though you.
You can ram each other but, you wont take damage doing so.


Private groups
Create you own private groups (as many as you like)
You can use this as classic-solo or if you want to play only with your friends.

My worst nightmare, splitting open in PvP only and PvE only....

 

[eza]

.... the increase in subscribers (after the introduction of Trammel in 2000 as an attempt to stop haemorraghing players - which was successful) and longevity of Ultima Online (still going) would tend not to support this contention.

I don't believe that the two are directly comparable.
Subscribers, by the very nature of subscriptions, are more invested. I think that it's easier to ask someone to pay once for a product than it is to ask them to pay for it every month.
FD don't have the same pressure put upon them, of having to maintain subscriptions to keep the servers running.

I don't think that the introduction of an open PvE mode will significantly increase sales of Elite - and I could be completely wrong about that

 

[Cmdr Cunomaglus]

My worst nightmare, splitting open in PvP only and PvE only....

You have some really tame, boring nightmares, mate. No spiders, no tentacles, no zombie spiders with tentacles...? Jeez.

 

[excalibus]

I don't believe that the two are directly comparable.
Subscribers, by the very nature of subscriptions, are more invested. I think that it's easier to ask someone to pay once for a product than it is to ask them to pay for it every month.
FD don't have the same pressure put upon them, of having to maintain subscriptions to keep the servers running.

I don't think that the introduction of an open PvE mode will significantly increase sales of Elite - and I could be completely wrong about that

no they just have to maintain expansions sales to keep a static profit margin, or increase future sales and expansion sales, to increase their profit margins...

Adding such a mode may well 'induce' more people to buy into the franchise, and in doing so result in more future expansion sales down the line...

 

[Mohrgan]

My worst nightmare, splitting open in PvP only and PvE only....

Why? Because players would be able to interact freely, without having to be held hostage to PvP? Because there would be less soft targets in open to be sheered? Just what exactly do you fear from players being able to coalesce in a mode that doesn't require each of us to become someone elses content at a whim?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't believe that the two are directly comparable.
Subscribers, by the very nature of subscriptions, are more invested. I think that it's easier to ask someone to pay once for a product than it is to ask them to pay for it every month.
FD don't have the same pressure put upon them, of having to maintain subscriptions to keep the servers running.

I don't think that the introduction of an open PvE mode will significantly increase sales of Elite - and I could be completely wrong about that

Possibly not directly comparable - however Frontier do know who plays in which mode and what they are doing. They can work out if there are emergent trends in movement between modes or if player numbers in a mode are reducing.

Yes, we have a buy-it-and-play-it model with optional DLC - however, future revenue from existing players relies (at least in large part) on DLC being purchased.

 

[Vyrsai]

Absolutely not. How badly broken would that immersion be. I can shoot this ship but when I shoot your ship my lasers turn into a stick with a flag on the end of it that says "bang"?

 

[Roybe]

Absolutely not. How badly broken would that immersion be. I can shoot this ship but when I shoot your ship my lasers turn into a stick with a flag on the end of it that says "bang"?

It's not required that you play there if your immersion is broken. You can play elsewhere.

See how great this is...more choices...more happy players!