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

[DarkWalker]

I believe there are quite a number of single/persistent world MMOs out there, all of them with players with different kind of connections ranging from 10MB cable to 1GB fiber. It has nothing to do with the game developers providing any kind of connections to the players. Don't be silly and make exaggerations like that.

Single shard? I know of EVE and a few small ones. EVE has no issue with it because its combat is slow-paced, so the latency you get for connecting to it from halfway across the globe isn't much of an issue; most of the small ones, on the other hand, either follow EVE's lead in having slow paced combat or else are meant to be played from just a single country, or a number of close by countries.

ED is a fast paced, global game. If it didn't use peer to peer, it would need to segregate players into continent-based server farms (or some other similar solution) in order to bring latency down, just like most server-based MMOs do.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Haha no!

It's not too far away - about 2.3k from Sol.

What are you afraid of? Spending time chasing me? My horribly built explorer Asp? Actually having to go outside the bubble? I really don't know.

Regardless - both our actions will still affect the same background sim. There is no way around it. You can kill things, and I can explore, and they all affect the BGS to the same degree.

 

[excalibus]

The BGS is not affected in any way by the introduction of a PVE mode on the main login screen, it would work as it currently does now, across all modes of play and that is by design. If you do not like that 'design' facet of the game, start a thread on it and discuss why it should or should be across all modes... Heck, you could even add a Poll at the front of the thread too

That aside, what we have with the BGS is by design, it has been designed that way from the ground up, so no I do not see that changing and nor should it, as I am sure it is , for some, a reason to play the BGS in other modes than Open.

As for powerplay, that is a totally different part of the game IMHO, not something that overly interests me either I must say... But I do enjoy playing the BGS to further my own chosen minor factions reach (NPC Minor Faction for clarification)

 

[dxm55]

Single shard? I know of EVE and a few small ones. EVE has no issue with it because its combat is slow-paced, so the latency you get for connecting to it from halfway across the globe isn't much of an issue; most of the small ones, on the other hand, either follow EVE's lead in having slow paced combat or else are meant to be played from just a single country, or a number of close by countries.

ED is a fast paced, global game. If it didn't use peer to peer, it would need to segregate players into continent-based server farms (or some other similar solution) in order to bring latency down, just like most server-based MMOs do.

Yeah, to the second part. Regional servers (US/EU/Australasia). All self contained, and separate from each other.
Personally, I'd prefer that system to a single spreadsheet being affected by multiple instances. At least I know I can fully interact with all players in my region.

 

[Vyrsai]

The BGS is not affected in any way by the introduction of a PVE mode on the main login screen, it would work as it currently does now, across all modes of play and that is by design. If you do not like that 'design' facet of the game, start a thread on it and discuss why it should or should be across all modes... Heck, you could even add a Poll at the front of the thread too

That aside, what we have with the BGS is by design, it has been designed that way from the ground up, so no I do not see that changing and nor should it, as I am sure it is , for some, a reason to play the BGS in other modes than Open.

As for powerplay, that is a totally different part of the game IMHO, not something that overly interests me either I must say... But I do enjoy playing the BGS to further my own chosen minor factions reach (NPC Minor Faction for clarification)

I don't really have an issue with the BGS, mainly just PowerPlay being connected since it is a war for control of inhabited space.

As far as ---

it has been designed that way from the ground up, so no I do not see that changing and nor should it

--- I can say the same for not needing a 4th option on the Login Screen, the 3 current options for playing were here from the ground up: Open, PG, and Solo. (minus CQC which is a completely different game)

 

[excalibus]

Unless there's a truly persistent universe where every player is in, then the game, or player base, is already fractured.

That's why I realized recently, there's no point further for me to discuss or debate about PVE vs PVP. I'll just play the mode I want, in the way I want.
If I play open and I feel friendly, I'll chat up the next player I see. If I'm in a nasty mood, I might just attack him for no apparent reason.

As is already known, the 'universe' is tied together through the BGS and that is indeed 'persistent', and it will improve I think when we get persistent NPC's etc. so we already do play in a persistent universe.

That is all the Multiplayer PVE community want, the ability to play they game they way they want, in the way they want...

 

[Asp Explorer]

Yeah, to the second part. Regional servers (US/EU/Australasia). All self contained, and separate from each other.
Personally, I'd prefer that system to a single spreadsheet being affected by multiple instances. At least I know I can fully interact with all players in my region.

So - I can see two problems with that.

1 - are you going to pay for them?

2 - when I travel from the USA to Europe you are going to force me to start another game?

3 - when I get back from Europe all my "progress" has been lost on my USA save?

I really cannot see that ending well

 

[excalibus]

I don't really have an issue with the BGS, mainly just PowerPlay being connected since it is a war for control of inhabited space.

As far as --- --- I can say the same for not needing a 4th option on the Login Screen, the 3 current options for playing were here from the ground up: Open, PG, and Solo. (minus CQC which is a completely different game)

Yes, but what you cannot say is that frontier never said we could have 4 modes of play, being Open, Open Groups (with different ruleset), Private Groups and Solo. So what is currently missing is the Open Groups with Different Ruleset option isn't it?

And as has been pointed out, an option from the login screen for a PVE only mode would more than likely work to consolidating the fractured PVE Community that is currently spread across the other 3 modes.

I do understand the 'fear' that it will draw some players from open because playing in an open mixed environment is not really how they want to play anyway... So what is the problem with them having a mode of play that truely suits with them playing the way they want?

 

[dxm55]

As is already known, the 'universe' is tied together through the BGS and that is indeed 'persistent', and it will improve I think when we get persistent NPC's etc. so we already do play in a persistent universe.

That is all the Multiplayer PVE community want, the ability to play they game they way they want, in the way they want...

The Universe as I see it in ED is not a true persistent world. Merely a giant spreadsheet being accessed by multiple instances.
But yes, it does serve only the PVE people it would appear.

So - I can see two problems with that.

1 - are you going to pay for them?

2 - when I travel from the USA to Europe you are going to force me to start another game?

3 - when I get back from Europe all my "progress" has been lost on my USA save?

I really cannot see that ending well

1. I have paid for, and have never minded paying for subscriptions to games I determine worth my while.
2. Of course not, silly. When you create an account, it is tied to a particular region. If you were on vacation and wanted to play, you'd get more latency at the most....
3. Refer to 2.

Yes, but what you cannot say is that frontier never said we could have 4 modes of play, being Open, Open Groups (with different ruleset), Private Groups and Solo. So what is currently missing is the Open Groups with Different Ruleset option isn't it?

And as has been pointed out, an option from the login screen for a PVE only mode would more than likely work to consolidating the fractured PVE Community that is currently spread across the other 3 modes.

I do understand the 'fear' that it will draw some players from open because playing in an open mixed environment is not really how they want to play anyway... So what is the problem with them having a mode of play that truely suits with them playing the way they want?

No. FD should have gone for 2 separate spreadsheets.

1. The Open BGS
2. The PVE BGS

Solo and Group should have been pure offline and P2P respectively, in a static universe. Forget a dynamic universe if all you're interested in is playing with yourself. Jeez.....




But I digress folks. As I said. With the game being what it is, I'm playing Solo mostly for personal progression, and Open when I'm out just looking for trouble.

 

[Asp Explorer]

1. I have paid for, and have never minded paying for subscriptions to games I determine worth my while.
2. Of course not, silly. When you create an account, it is tied to a particular region. If you were on vacation and wanted to play, you'd get more latency at the most....
3. Refer to 2..

4: VPN a foreign account and lulz at the 3-4 second delay of damage and enjoy the flood of RAEG.

 

[excalibus]

The Universe as I see it in ED is not a true persistent world. Merely a giant spreadsheet being accessed by multiple instances.
But yes, it does serve only the PVE people it would appear.

The BGS serves everyone, I play in open and I enjoy manipulating the BGS in my chosen group of systems, and it seems there are other commanders there doing the same in that area as well...


My response about PVE players wanting to play the game the way they want in a multiplayer environment was with regards to the second paragraph in the post I quoted...

That's why I realized recently, there's no point further for me to discuss or debate about PVE vs PVP. I'll just play the mode I want, in the way I want.
If I play open and I feel friendly, I'll chat up the next player I see. If I'm in a nasty mood, I might just attack him for no apparent reason.

Just the same as you have the option to play the way you want...

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

@DXM55 I gather you don't really care if a PVE Mode was available from the front login and see no real reason why it should not be supported, your only issue is with the BGS spanning across all modes as it currently does... Is this fair to say as being accurate?

 

[Pluvialis]

Players that may well not encounter griefing and have a fun time in Open...

... would surely stay in Open where the fun is, no?

Sorry. It's not good form to rewrite a sentence, but this is the argument that puzzles me: "Open is intrinsically fun and loads of people enjoy being in it - but for some reason would immediately bail to Open PVE if we risked introducing one."

Plus if it's an "official" PvE then you will also more than likely draw people from Open who don't join other PGs at the moment because they're not

I honestly don't think it very likely that someone who doesn't find Open any fun would endure it because they perceive the existing Solo and Group modes as not being official.

But it may well be that if they're forcing themselves to use Open when they don't really enjoy it, they'll leave the game sooner than if they're allowed to play in a mode that suits them.

I do believe that a single Open PVE mode will consolidate players who would otherwise be scattered across groups and in Solo, and will encourage them to enjoy player interaction and may well embolden them to try full Open at some point.

In other words I believe it more likely that Open PVE would help player retention, and therefore support the game.

 

[Cynaqq]

A giant spreadsheet is what a persistent universe is supposed to be as far as computers are concerned.

Indeed, ED universe is a giant spreadsheet accessed by thousands of tiny instances but the persistence part comes from the fact that the numbers on that spreadsheet are changed and recorded constantly according to player actions.

If it records and remembers, such as the case with minor faction expansions, it's persistent. If it reverts back to its original state such as with commodity prices (has short term persistence though) and RNG spawns like SSs, it's not persistent.

There are persistent and non persistent parts to the ED universe but the minor factions and powers are indeed persistent.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Try explaining that to the pew-pew crew

 

[Vyrsai]

Deleted.

I'm unsubscribing to this thread, it's just a big circle jerk. /hug all

 

[dxm55]

@DXM55 I gather you don't really care if a PVE Mode was available from the front login and see no real reason why it should not be supported, your only issue is with the BGS spanning across all modes as it currently does... Is this fair to say as being accurate?

Quite so. It's fair enough that a PVE environment is catered for those who wish to play it in that style. I just think that it shouldn't share the 'verse with players who are more for an "everything goes" mode of playing.

This is not to say that all PVP players are mindless, aggressive brutes who only understand business from the smoking end of a gun. Far from that.
I just believe that there are players who will play the environment and also against other players directly, when the occasion arises.

I've already given examples before. If my faction has worked tirelessly to bring goods or trade to a station/system to influence it one way, it just seems silly... stupid... that other players in Solo or Group/PVE (in future) can undermine my work with impunity.

And the only defense I have against it is to .... grind harder?!

IMO, that just doesn't cut it. Logically I would go out and do something about it. Like organize a defense and have my faction intercept and destroy any enemy ship that tries to approach my turf.

So yes, in a PVE world, the counter-grind is what it's about. And that's a different style of play that just doesn't mesh with a Open world.

A giant spreadsheet is what a persistent universe is supposed to be as far as computers are concerned.

Indeed, ED universe is a giant spreadsheet accessed by thousands of tiny instances but the persistence part comes from the fact that the numbers on that spreadsheet are changed and recorded constantly according to player actions.

If it records and remembers, such as the case with minor faction expansions, it's persistent. If it reverts back to its original state such as with commodity prices (has short term persistence though) and RNG spawns like SSs, it's not persistent.

There are persistent and non persistent parts to the ED universe but the minor factions and powers are indeed persistent.

My only analogy comes from whether the database can be appended from one source, or multiple sources.

In the case of a single persistent world, all updates and actions come from one source. While currently, it's multiple updates from so many sources. Indeed your "updates", could be overwritten by someone else who was in a separate instance, but in the same timeframe, from/as you. And all your effort would be for nought because you couldn't block the other party from interfering with your interests.

That's all there is to it basically.

 

[Deerjesus]

Honestly, I've never seen a community so fixated with effectively removing a large portion of a game because 'they don't like it'. This is a terrible idea and would segregate the already seemingly small player base there is, further making the rare player interaction even rarer. All because you cannot accept the "Dangerous" portion of this game's title and deal with player combatants.

 

[CMDRCMDRCMDRCMDRCMDR]

BEEP BOOP *CARE BEARS DETECTED* *CONSTRUCTING SAFE SPACE*

 

[dxm55]

Honestly, I've never seen a community so fixated with effectively removing a large portion of a game because 'they don't like it'. This is a terrible idea and would segregate the already seemingly small player base there is, further making the rare player interaction even rarer. All because you cannot accept the "Dangerous" portion of this game's title and deal with player combatants.

I used to think that way.

But I've grown to accept that people want to play their own game. PVE players don't want PVP players to affect their gameplay.
And that's cool.

Likewise, players like me (somewhere between PVE and PVP) don't like the idea of unhurtable/unblockable Solo/PVE players being able to screw with my environment without me being able to stop them.... the way I choose to, whether it be counter-grind, or via the barrel of a gun.

As much as they complain about another player spoiling their game, the reverse is now true for me. Invisible, untouchable adversaries who're interefering with my work are spoiling my game.

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

 

[Arkadi]

I voted "NO", becouse as long as everyone can switch modes from solo to group to open at any time without consequence for missions, powerplay or whatever there really is no reason to make one more instance to divide playerbase and make actions nonconsequential in terms of multiplayer gameplay.

It is true that the game needs some time to learn. But new players can easyly switch to solo-mode for save-space already and its not that hard to learn that private-groups are there for pve-gameplay.

If there was a consequential open-play that would not be enbaeling gamemode switching at any time - then maybe I would opt for "yes" becouse then open would really be that dangerous cut-throat galaxy that was advertised - and then maybe there would be the need to give the more peacful players an easy option to have a mulitplayer withou pvp. Since this is not the case and pvp can be evaded very easy I see no point in opening another ~group~ gamemode.