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

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Meh, just give these guys their PVE servers.
.

its not even about servers... we are ALL on the same servers. The additional cost and workload is simply programming in some sort of penalty for forced PvP, or adding a 10x multiplier for crimes committed in such a mode, with eventual banning for repeat offenders, or auto refund of stuff for those victims of PvP (and basically the blame for this is ALL down to the idiots who cant read, or are unable to stick to simple rules........ genuine PvEers would need none of this and then work wise would just be a few clicks of a mouse button for frontier to set up).

that aside, in essence we are all playing in the same mode, just with a series of behind the scenes matchmaking options.

now personally i am not a fan of magic lasers or ghost ships where weapons pass through, mainly because it removes all tactical play of policing your fire... most of the people just do not want aggressive PvP, however it does not mean they do not want a complex game where you have to be careful with those around you (PvE is not the same as easy mode - and indeed for the most part i would like the game harder).

in an ideal world the PvE mode would have no special rules at all, just a signed consent form not to PvP and it would all be fine. however a small number have shown that they are too stupid to be able to adhere to that.....

 

[Mohrgan]

You want a button without new rules ??? Really ?

What does that mean? I have not proposed one thing that would upset the current balance between the modes concerning the BGS. If a player in solo, or in a private group with a no PvP rule set, can affect the one and only BGS now, why would another matchmaking choice change that? This is an example of moving the goal posts. You have seen a path to accepting a Co-Op mode, but there has to be just one more thing. You can't affect the BGS, because that's ours. Well it isn't open's BGS and it never was. Adding a Co-Op mode changes nothing with relation to the BGS.

 

[excalibus]

No, I'm saying that it's not as simple as putting a bit flag on a player, the rules for a PvE mode have to be carefully designed because of the way the whole game is designed.

And how can you see a separate BGS as a "punishment", I would love to have access to my own to play with a few likeminded players, without the heresy that is powerplay.

its a null argument because SOLO already affects the BGS, Group Play already affects the BGS (the same BGS is across all modes) and that would not require any changes in reality to wether or not a PVE only mode was introduced...

The ruleset for a PVE Multiplayer mode, would be about negating the possibility of PvP Combat which is what people who play PVE really want, it's not about negating PvP at the BGS level.

Those people would still play Powerplay as they do now in group or solo, with and against the other modes players.
Those people would still engage in community goals as they do now in group or solo - with / against all other modes players.
The people trading would still be affected by and affecting the prices of goods in a given system due to their actions because the BGS is linked across all modes of play
The people fighting in CZ's would still affect the total influence shift in systems because, you guessed it, the BGS is across all modes of play

Making a ruleset that negates the PvP combat aspect of the game does NOT autmatically mean that the BGS ruleset has to or even requires changing.

And depending how they implement the ruleset - either game mechanics or an 'agreement' to follow rules laid out detailiing that breaking those rules could result in a permanent ban etc which would be at frontiers discretion, would determing if any actual gameplay mechanics for the mode would even need to be programmed...

 

[excalibus]

You want a button without new rules ??? Really ?

oh there could indeed be rules no problems there, it could be game mechanics enforced ruleset, or it could well be an 'agreement' that is linked to your login account and comes with a very harsh penalty clause if you are caught breaking the 'agreement' that could well end up with the breaching player losing access to all modes except for private group and solo...


I wonder how many PvP players would be willing to risk having that actually occur should they enter the PVE only mode and then get caught engaging in PVP activities? Hard lined? You bet...

 

[Gedemon]

What does that mean? I have not proposed one thing that would upset the current balance between the modes concerning the BGS. If a player in solo, or in a private group with a no PvP rule set, can affect the one and only BGS now, why would another matchmaking choice change that? This is an example of moving the goal posts. You have seen a path to accepting a Co-Op mode, but there has to be just one more thing. You can't affect the BGS, because that's ours. Well it isn't open's BGS and it never was. Adding a Co-Op mode changes nothing with relation to the BGS.

you're proposing an officialy moderated group based on acceptance of written rules that are not coded in the game ? Just an official Moebius ?

I don't see how FD could spare some resources on that (they'll have to judge if a kill is accitendal or not, and a lot of the PvE player want a mode where they can't be killed at all, post-penalties are not what they ask for)), and it opens the door to other officially moderated group request every time 20k players want to play with specific rules.

Configurable rules for private group are much better IMO, food for everyone.

It would be simplier on separate galaxies (and I would prefer that for myself, open the door to modding too), but still doable on the global galaxy if they are well designed (maybe just on/off switches

its a null argument because SOLO already affects the BGS, Group Play already affects the BGS (the same BGS is across all modes) and that would not require any changes in reality to wether or not a PVE only mode was introduced...

The ruleset for a PVE Multiplayer mode, would be about negating the possibility of PvP Combat which is what people who play PVE really want, it's not about negating PvP at the BGS level.

Those people would still play Powerplay as they do now in group or solo, with and against the other modes players.
Those people would still engage in community goals as they do now in group or solo - with / against all other modes players.
The people trading would still be affected by and affecting the prices of goods in a given system due to their actions because the BGS is linked across all modes of play
The people fighting in CZ's would still affect the total influence shift in systems because, you guessed it, the BGS is across all modes of play

Making a ruleset that negates the PvP combat aspect of the game does NOT autmatically mean that the BGS ruleset has to or even requires changing.

And depending how they implement the ruleset - either game mechanics or an 'agreement' to follow rules laid out detailiing that breaking those rules could result in a permanent ban etc which would be at frontiers discretion, would determing if any actual gameplay mechanics for the mode would even need to be programmed...

I've answered above about a moderated mode, so now I'd like to know those exact required rules before agreing that they won't change anything related to the BGS.

Actually the game rules are identical for Open, Solo and Private, so there is no problems if players are in one of those, you shoot a player or a NPC, you get a bounty and/or a kill that will affect the BGS.

Now if you add a very simple PvE fire rule in one mode only what will happen ?

1st proposal: you kill a player, you get a bounty, you are banned from the group and the BGS is still updated like the other modes. Not acceptable for you, because accident can happen and PvE players don't want to be killed by another player in any way, even if there is a penalty for the offender.

2nd proposal: you can't kill a player but you get the bounty and the BGS is not updated as in the other mode (a bounty is issued, but no kill). Not acceptable for me, you can exploit the BGS.

3rd proposal: you can't kill a player, you don't get a fine/bounty when hitting it, and now you can hunt big ships in RES/CZ without having to care for friendly fire, and so you're much more effective than in solo, open, private. Not acceptable for me, you can exploit the BGS

 

[Robert Maynard]

1st proposal: you kill a player, you get a bounty, you are banned from the group and the BGS is still updated like the other modes. Not acceptable for you, because accident can happen and PvE players don't want to be killed by another player in any way, even if there is a penalty for the offender.

2nd proposal: you can't kill a player but you get the bounty and the BGS is not updated as in the other mode (a bounty is issued, but no kill). Not acceptable for me, you can exploit the BGS.

3rd proposal: you can't kill a player, you don't get a fine/bounty when hitting it, and now you can hunt big ships in RES/CZ without having to care for friendly fire, and so you're much more effective than in solo, open, private. Not acceptable for me, you can exploit the BGS

4th proposal: you get prohibited from accessing Open-PvE for repeated firing on another player, i.e. not following the simple rules of the mode.

 

[Gedemon]

4th proposal: you get prohibited from accessing Open-PvE for repeated firing on another player, i.e. not following the simple rules of the mode.

That the first one, kill/ban.

Fine for me but I'me sure there have been oppositions about it from PvE people in this thread.

 

[Rampant]

Sorry, the arguments in this thread are turning circular and repetitive... have fun people

I take it that you can't resolve the conflict in your own position and put that into words that people can understand, then...

Cheerz

 

[Robert Maynard]

That the first one, kill/ban.

Fine for me but I'me sure there have been oppositions about it from PvE people in this thread.

Oops - missed that.

There'd be no need for a bounty or the BGS to be involved at all - a PvP kill in a PvE mode could be treated as if it hadn't happened at all, i.e. the target is fully reimbursed with *everything* they had prior to the attack.

The attacker would not register a kill (or even a bounty, maybe) and would be placed in Open at the next instance change with the instance that they were in being tagged as "no new players" to stop more players encountering the rule-breaker.

If the target was the only other player in the instance then the instance could simply be immediately tagged as forming part of Open rather than Open-PvE, removing the rule-breaker from the mode.

 

[Gedemon]

Oops - missed that.

There'd be no need for a bounty or the BGS to be involved at all - a PvP kill in a PvE mode could be treated as if it hadn't happened at all, i.e. the target is fully reimbursed with *everything* they had prior to the attack.

The attacker would not register a kill (or even a bounty, maybe) and would be placed in Open at the next instance change with the instance that they were in being tagged as "no new players" to stop more players encountering the rule-breaker.

If the target was the only other player in the instance then the instance could simply be immediately tagged as forming part of Open rather than Open-PvE, removing the rule-breaker from the mode.

Better, yes, but...

shield/hull damage can happen (you can still pvp and let a npc finish your target), or an already damaged player's ship can be destroyed by a single accidental friendly fire, triggering the ban.

 

[excalibus]

you're proposing an officialy moderated group based on acceptance of written rules that are not coded in the game ? Just an official Moebius ?

I don't see how FD could spare some resources on that (they'll have to judge if a kill is accitendal or not, and a lot of the PvE player want a mode where they can't be killed at all, post-penalties are not what they ask for)), and it opens the door to other officially moderated group request every time 20k players want to play with specific rules.

Configurable rules for private group are much better IMO, food for everyone.

It would be simplier on separate galaxies (and I would prefer that for myself, open the door to modding too), but still doable on the global galaxy if they are well designed (maybe just on/off switches



I've answered above about a moderated mode, so now I'd like to know those exact required rules before agreing that they won't change anything related to the BGS.

Actually the game rules are identical for Open, Solo and Private, so there is no problems if players are in one of those, you shoot a player or a NPC, you get a bounty and/or a kill that will affect the BGS.

Now if you add a very simple PvE fire rule in one mode only what will happen ?

1st proposal: you kill a player, you get a bounty, you are banned from the group and the BGS is still updated like the other modes. Not acceptable for you, because accident can happen and PvE players don't want to be killed by another player in any way, even if there is a penalty for the offender.

2nd proposal: you can't kill a player but you get the bounty and the BGS is not updated as in the other mode (a bounty is issued, but no kill). Not acceptable for me, you can exploit the BGS.

3rd proposal: you can't kill a player, you don't get a fine/bounty when hitting it, and now you can hunt big ships in RES/CZ without having to care for friendly fire, and so you're much more effective than in solo, open, private. Not acceptable for me, you can exploit the BGS

However FD impelemented would be their choice, this is not really meant as a discussion on implementation and the points above about ways of doing the implementation are only a very small limited view of either end of the 'extremes' for ways it could be implemented, nothing more, nothing less...

Ergo there is no foundation that I need to lay out before you choose if it will affect the BGS or not... All actions as they are now will affect the BGS exactly the same as they currently do...

Any 'exploits' would be worked out as part of the ongoing development process...

However it is implemented, weather it be through a no fire on PC mechanic or whatnot is irrelevant to the BGS side of it, if its a no fire on PC mechanic then that does not negate the need to have care in a CZ / RES because there are clean NPC ships flying around as well not only PC ships right...

Secondly the fire could be made so it 'registers' and no damage it taken by PC's, and then a bounty is issued on the firing player which the NPC's would then engage as it works now if you fire on a clean PC in a Res in Mobius. You get made wanted but can (according to the mobius rules) only be killed by NPC's....

As I have said before in this thread, these are just some possibilities in a vast array of possible ways that it could be implemented...

So can we now move on from what effect it will have on the BGS and weather or not there would be 'exploits' because your arguements on the BGS affects are fairly void until an in depth implementation discussion...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Better, yes, but...

shield/hull damage can happen (you can still pvp and let a npc finish your target), or an already damaged player's ship can be destroyed by a single accidental friendly fire, triggering the ban.

If a player were to cause hull damage to a ship then that could trigger a suspension from the group - and also, if that target was subsequently destroyed then they could be fully reimbursed. The question would be - how many players would be prepared to take a suspension to stop another player incurring a financial loss on destruction to NPCs? If one Wing member hit another then it could be considered that both should have been more careful and no PvE-related penalty would be required - the ship destroyed would cost the player as normal with losses of contents.

So called "friendly fire" / "accidental fire" would need to be dealt with carefully - I suggested a Pilot's Licence points system (analogous to the UK's driving licence system where 12 points on the licence can get a driver banned from the road) where repeat offenders / careless shooters would be suspended from the mode (banned for those who incur sufficient suspensions) for not taking care to adhere to the rules.

 

[excalibus]

Better, yes, but...

shield/hull damage can happen (you can still pvp and let a npc finish your target), or an already damaged player's ship can be destroyed by a single accidental friendly fire, triggering the ban.

you are talkling about edge cases that will always exist... and it could well be that sure you pvp the target, only instead of their death, they get a 'free trip' back to their last station (oh I can see the exploit in this one lol) with all their goodies and data intact and you get kicked to open...

In the event of an 'edge' case then perhaps there could be an way for support to 'unban you' as long as you had sufficient evidence and the other player involved corroborated your story that it was not intentional...

Or it could even be a points system like Robert proposed earlier which would build up and slowly decay over time should you fire on another ship...

Should you destroy another ship even by accident then too bad for you, you would be kicked to a non PVE only mode and it would be an appeals process to get back into PVE...

 

[Gedemon]

@excalibus : As I've read your unedited message (I'm happy that you've edited it, the moderation would not have liked my answer), I'm going to leave the thread, I just hope that you've at least noted that I'm afraid (maybe irrationnaly from your PoV, but hey I see people afraid of open where I've not been killed once by another player when I wasn't ready to pay the price, not even when trading in a shieldless Type 6...) of the repercussions of a new mode on my gameplay.

That was the motivation behind my "no", my questions and my propositions, not "any reasons"

Now I still don't see the real need, you still can't understand my fears, and you'd prefer the specifics of the rules to be discussed in another thread, okay, fine. (and on a final note I do agree that the friendly fire problem is not impossible to solve with carefull planning)

 

[Udayana]

Voted no. Don't think I can think of anything more dull than knowing all Commanders I meet are going to be friendly. For me the insecurity of not knowing, with associated handshaking, trust building and present risk of double cross is exciting, interesting and much more fun. New players in small ships are more vulnerable yes, but I'd encourage them (and anybody else) to play with stealth and nouse, but with the hyenas and the lions, in the jungle.

Don't take this the wrong way. It may be very dull for you, but you're free to choose of course whether or not you want to play in PvE or PvP. No one is forcing people to abandon PvP. But the other way around, for people saying 'no way i'm gonna support that' is just forcing your preference of game play on others.

Besides, would it not be better if you know your opponents in game are dedicated PvP players? All CMDR you'll see choose to play PvP, hopefully it also reduces combat log? Especially for pirates that must be frustrating, seeing people in open but combat log because they do not want any PvP.

Same thing could be said for PvE mode, if you get pirated (if PvE rule is enforced, and player piracy allowed) you'll be sure it's a real pirate asking for your cargo, and not some dude just looking for combat starting to fire away without warning.

And as others have said, it is already possible to do this. But it's not transparent to every player. You either know about Mobius, read about it on the forums. Or you don't and is forced upon PvP or playing with just a few friends (if you happen to have some that plays Elite) in private group..

 

[excalibus]

@excalibus : As I've read your unedited message (I'm happy that you've edited it, the moderation would not have liked my answer), I'm going to leave the thread, I just hope that you've at least noted that I'm afraid (maybe irrationnaly from your PoV, but hey I see people afraid of open where I've not been killed once by another player when I wasn't ready to pay the price, not even when trading in a shieldless Type 6...) of the repercussions of a new mode on my gameplay.

That was the motivation behind my "no", my questions and my propositions, not "any reasons"

Now I still don't see the real need, you still can't understand my fears, and you'd prefer the specifics of the rules to be discussed in another thread, okay, fine. (and on a final note I do agree that the friendly fire problem is not impossible to solve with carefull planning)

Yes I did choose to reconsider the wording... I did get a bit short and that does no favours to any of us really... So my apologies for that...

That said, I do understand your fears honestly, and it's not that I feel they are undfounded or irrelevant either as neither of us really know how such a mode would affect open play with any certainty.

I do know that it would most likely bring together a lot of players spread across various PVE groups and those in solo for the very reasons that even in mobius they could still suffer from PVP combat thanks to 'infiltrators'... Do I think some of those 'fears' people playing like that are over accentuated? personally yes I do to some extent..

I decided to put this poll up and put forward this idea of a PVE Multiplayer mode because I do know there are numerous people who would enjoy that sort of experience, me personally, I do like the current open mode of play for all it is... But that said, I can see the real need for an Open PVE mode that is accessible from the main login screen, I really can.

There are all sorts of reasons why people don't want to experience PVP combat and they are relegated to either play in solo or in groups that put the will of one player in charge of their gameplay happiness. Not an ideal situation I am sure most of us can agree on.

I would hope that when the time comes (and I do believe it will come where it will be a necesarry thing for frontier to implement) that they will include us players in the discussion of how it will all work...

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

Voted a firm Yes. :thumbsup:

Anything that gives the normally-Solo PVE player more options to play with other like-minded CMDRs is a GOOD THING(TM).

Given the game already handles instancing for Solo, instancing for Open, altering the code is probably fairly easy to do instancing for PVE-centric players.

 

[Lheim]

I'm willing to bet that there are a sizable portion of Mobius players who would have already left the game if they hadn't found the ersatz pve mode.

I also believe that the percentage of players who haunt forums and reddit is smallish and so is the number of people who could have ever found it.

The obvious inference from those two things is that a sizable number of people leave the game when they get frustrated with the pvp elements. That's gut feeling but backed up by a decade of personal experience with mmo style games and the UO story.

 

[DarkWalker]

Why aren't they all in Moebius, what's wrong with it ?

First, most players never look at a game's forums. The usual figure is that about 90% of the players never bother even looking at it. Since Mobius is mainly advertised in the forums, the players that don't visit the forums — in other words, the vast majority of players — are very unlikely to even know Mobius exists.

Second, Frontier never gave us the tools for setting a group to PvE that they promised. Mobius makes do by banning players that attempt to engage in PvP outside the group's rules, but that can never be good enough because it doesn't prevent the harm from happening.

The Mobius group is a valiant effort, but it can never be enough because players simply don't have the needed tools to make a proper PvE mode.

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

Now if you add a very simple PvE fire rule in one mode only what will happen ?

1st proposal: you kill a player, you get a bounty, you are banned from the group and the BGS is still updated like the other modes. Not acceptable for you, because accident can happen and PvE players don't want to be killed by another player in any way, even if there is a penalty for the offender.

2nd proposal: you can't kill a player but you get the bounty and the BGS is not updated as in the other mode (a bounty is issued, but no kill). Not acceptable for me, you can exploit the BGS.

3rd proposal: you can't kill a player, you don't get a fine/bounty when hitting it, and now you can hunt big ships in RES/CZ without having to care for friendly fire, and so you're much more effective than in solo, open, private. Not acceptable for me, you can exploit the BGS

My proposal is, you fire at another player in a PvE mode, the damage is applied to you instead of the intended target. So, you still need to care about friendly fire (otherwise you will be damaging yourself), despite being unable to damage other players with weapons.

Yeah, that could be used for some light griefing by intentionally flying into the line of fire of another player, but it would be fairly hard to pull off (as whoever did it would need to anticipate the movements of both the player and his target, and the return fire from the NPC would still be hitting and damaging him) and even if successful the damage caused would be minimal (as the griefed player could just stop firing).

And, in any case, I'm not a professional game dev. The people that are making ED are. And the ones that know the inwards of the game are them, not us. I'm sure they would have better ideas than we could anyway, specially for the little details of how a PvE mode could be implemented.

 

[excalibus]

@darkwalker... that last bit is an interesting take on it... you fire your weapons on a player it damages your own ship... have a cookie