No-one is suggesting removing anything, just adding an officially recognized Open PvE mode, and one might find that player interaction in an Open PvE mode becomes more frequent. Who knows.
Ah. So that's why it's called Elite : Dangerous, is it?
Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen
- Thread starter excalibus
- Start date
No-one is suggesting removing anything, just adding an officially recognized Open PvE mode, and one might find that player interaction in an Open PvE mode becomes more frequent. Who knows.
Ah. So that's why it's called Elite : Dangerous, is it?
They have tools necessary to play the game how they want, yet that isn't good enough. There are significant issues that need to be focused on and the latest outcry is because those tools are suddenly not good enough. Have your cake and eat it too, essentially. This vocal minority just baffles me with some of their demands.
@FadedGlory
Making a PVE only mode is the same thing as removing PVP combat from that specific mode. And part of player interactions is killing other players.
Last edited:
Open would still be there, just as it is now, no-one is suggesting removing or changing it, and you can still kill other players there.
Open would still be there, just as it is now, no-one is suggesting removing or changing it, and you can still kill other players there.
And yet guys in Open doing PP can't block/stop/destroy opposing ships in PVE/Solo from interfering with their system goals, other than doing a silly grind in return.
That's why the BGS should be split between the modes. And solo/group should be static... or if the PVE's don't mind, be linked to that.
Meh... wait a minute. It wouldn't make a difference. With instancing on a 32 player max. Nothing really matters anyway.
Pfffffft.... why am I even wasting my time here?!
Last edited:
To be honest, the guys in Open can't do that now, whether it's because of instancing, the ability to play in different modes, or the fact that there are different platforms (PC / Mac - Xbox) who don't see each other at all.
The argument of splitting the BGS has been made often before, and regardless of the merits or otherwise of that argument, FD have indicated that they want all modes and platforms to share a common BGS, and it is generally believed (on the forums) that maintaining two (or more) BGS's would actually be a significant undertaking for FD, as the different BGS's would diverge (probably almost immediately), and would therefore require a significant amount of additional developer time in curating them.
Open would still be there, just as it is now, no-one is suggesting removing or changing it, and you can still kill other players there.
OMG this takes me back to the old gamemode discussion in those other threads turning into mudraking between pvp and pve lovers. :/
I am outing my self as powerplay gamer who would love to see open play without the possibility to switch to save-mode and powerplay being an open-mode playstyle only. But I acknowledge there are other gamers who want that player vs player interactions are on a mutual agreement base only - and finally I am ok with this.
Also its not only about killing other players. Killing is the last resort. It is about having the possibility to guard space from hostile invasion. This means that patroling or blockading can be effective strategys to protect or attack traderoutes, powerplay controlsystems and so on. The player vs player engagement can be very fun when words are exchangend before guns speak. In my experience its not often the case that other pilots wont talk and show mercy if the other one submits and promises to leave that space or drop that cargo. Thats all meant with "dangerous" gameplay and not shooting only - although shooting is fun too - if it is agreed on mutualy - and that can be done. If one encounters a so called "griefer" and was shot mercyless one can still switch gamemode to evade that psycho player in the next instance.
That sayed, I want to stress that making anohter PVE only mode (or taking Mobius out of groups and publish that group as gamemode) could indeed harm open in drawing more players away from it. I dont want that.
Last edited:
That's all fine, and no-one wants to take away your ability to try and patrol and blockade a system, or indeed to kill other players as a last resort (or any resort). It would be as effective with an Open PvE mode as it is now.
As you say, if a mode of play is agreed upon mutually, then it's likely to be fun for all involved, and I don't see why any players who enjoy that gameplay would move to a different mode, be it Open PvE or Solo or Group. Surely the only players who would be drawn away from Open as it is now are players who don't actually like that kind of gameplay.
Well yes. I added the last bit in my post. No point talking about it since everything is instanced. Oh well, was a waste of time with all the 'ing.
But I still wonder about what you said about dev time to curate a second BGS. Logically it wouldn't need to. Simply replicate the BGS into BGS2 (arbitrary name). Open points to BGS. PVE points to BGS2. Nothing else to be done. Separate spreadsheets. Your only concern would be storage.
If that's how the BGS works, then yes, I would agree. However, from my understanding, there is a lot of developer input into the BGS, whether it's writing / creating the content (CG's for example) that occur due to player actions, or curating player suggested content and story.
Obviously, not being an FD employee, I don't know better than anyone else how it works, although they have from time to time re-iterated that they want all players to share the same BGS.
And for what it's worth, they have also never indicated that they want an Open PvE mode, no matter what we think...
If that's how the BGS works, then yes, I would agree. However, from my understanding, there is a lot of developer input into the BGS, whether it's writing / creating the content (CG's for example) that occur due to player actions, or curating player suggested content and story.
Obviously, not being an FD employee, I don't know better than anyone else how it works, although they have from time to time re-iterated that they want all players to share the same BGS.
And for what it's worth, they have also never indicated that they want an Open PvE mode, no matter what we think...
Well, at the end of the day, we're all just players, here to discuss, speculate, suggest, and sometimes to butt heads on what we would like to see, or what we think would be better for the game.
For what it's worth, I'll simply adapt to whatever it is and play the game my way. If that way happened to be the way it was meant to play, then hoo-hoo bully... And if the way I play is considered hostile, powergaming or metagaming, then too bad for anyone in the way.
Last edited:
Although it could be argued that until ED the majority of the franchise had been far more simulation than the original - certainly in terms of flight physics, if (sadly) not ship control.
For me at least, ED is a retrograde step in that it was made far more arcadey. In 1984 this might've been the cutting edge, but not so much after seeing First Encounters - not to mention Flight Sim X/X-Plane, Martin Schweiger's Orbiter, and the like.
Sorry. Drifting off-topic. My point is that Elite was not a simulator by any measure. FE2 and FFE were far more so.
Dont get me wrong. I am happy that ED has a PVE group like Mobius is. I even am a member for the times I am in the mood for peacful traderuns, or when coming home from exploration. Its great to have this community. I just dont really get what would be the benefit if the pve group would become an official game-mode, other then having more publicity.
In my selfish way I'd think that maybe more players will try to look into open play when pve is not advertised in the menu but hidden in the groups menue. But honestly, if there is a big craving for an pve mode - I wont object. I still think its not such a pressing issue, becouse pve groups already exist. Mobius has more then 10.000 members right?
Absolutely.
And for what it's worth, I think you should be able to play the game your way, as should everybody else...
I think it currently has around 20,000 members, and yes, the publicity, or awareness that such an option exists is probably what's at the heart of this thread / discussion. It's generally assumed that only about 10% of a game's community investigate the forums, so yes it's quite possible that some players who venture into Open seeking cooperative, social gameplay aren't actually looking for PvP, and have it forced upon them as a result.
In the end, it's probably healthier for the community if players choosing Open understand that there is the possibility of being attacked by other players for no reason (not saying it will happen, but that it can), and are there willingly, wanting both the friendly player interaction, and the possibility of antagonistic interaction. If that's not what they want, then having it happen to them because other options aren't readily or clearly available is more likely to cause them to abandon the game, which is emphatically not good for the future development of the game (they won't spend money on upcoming new content).
Unfortunately, it seems like Mobius has already reached the maximum group size ED can currently support, and there is now a waiting list. CMDR Mobius told us that ED are working on it, but it'll probably be a while. Maybe this will affect the requirement for OpenPVE.
I see your point, but: if PvE was widely promoted the worst case (blame my paranoia) for open would be that many sane and sensible players would leave for PVE and Open would become the hell of "grievers and psychos paradise" some already depict it as - with only those triggerhappy cowboys remaining there.
I am clearly exaggerating of course. But thats the fundamental worrysome thought I have.
The counter-thesis would be: I believe that a singel big open group with a colorful mix of players with various playstyle preferences would be healthy - becouse trigger happy psychos and griefers would be only a little drop in the mix.
On another thought: maybe if that PVE mode would have some functionality like requesting combat to another pilot and the ability to accept or deny this request, maybe it could become a thing. This option could be canceled in WarZones and also for pilots who participate in PowerPlay and fly in enemy control-systems - those pilots would have to auto-accept combatrequests (maybe also anarchy-systems could override the request system, thats to be thought about).
This would be a blast. I would instantly join such a game mode
edit: for reference one could call this alternative PvE the "Combat Request Mode"
edit edit:
in my wildest dreams this would be the game menu (just my dream - derailing):
I am clearly exaggerating of course. But thats the fundamental worrysome thought I have.
The counter-thesis would be: I believe that a singel big open group with a colorful mix of players with various playstyle preferences would be healthy - becouse trigger happy psychos and griefers would be only a little drop in the mix.
On another thought: maybe if that PVE mode would have some functionality like requesting combat to another pilot and the ability to accept or deny this request, maybe it could become a thing. This option could be canceled in WarZones and also for pilots who participate in PowerPlay and fly in enemy control-systems - those pilots would have to auto-accept combatrequests (maybe also anarchy-systems could override the request system, thats to be thought about).
This would be a blast. I would instantly join such a game mode
edit: for reference one could call this alternative PvE the "Combat Request Mode"
edit edit:
in my wildest dreams this would be the game menu (just my dream - derailing):
ALL CONTENT ACCESS GAME MODE:
Combat Request Mode
NO POWERPLAY AND NO FACTION INFLUENCE GENERATED in this game mode:
Solo
Groups
I would love it!
Combat Request Mode
NO POWERPLAY AND NO FACTION INFLUENCE GENERATED in this game mode:
Solo
Groups
I would love it!
Last edited:
I would hate it and be more than a little annoyed that FD took my money and cut features that were not advertised as open only.
I really don't understand that part, I get wanting a PvE mode, but what you are asking for is basically a duel mode, which at least to me, really doesn't prove or do much, at best I see dueling as PvP training, but why train if you don't want the real deal?
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
Please don't give me anything about anything missing from the kickstarter, let's not even go down that discussion route. There's so much stuff that was mentioned that isn't in the game (including decent PvP repurcussions) that would improve the game much more than this. Although it is worth mentioning that Sandro has already been talking recently about changing the way that piracy, bounties and PvP is handled and if they implement some of the things they were talking about then it would certainly stop the majority of people killing players in underpowered ships.
Do not dare put words into my mouth by saying I am trying to deny people from playing the game "'the way they want to play'". You cannot use that argument for something that isn't even in the game, but then I suppose it goes to show your blinkered view.
And as for your last statement. Again DO NOT put words into my mouth. I am not going to continue this conversation, but perhaps you can tell the other folks in this thread why, for example, this should be implemented before, say.
Ironman mode
Multiple Commander Slots
Passenger Gameplay
Smuggling as it was in the DDA
Piracy as it was in the DDA
Anything improved for explorers
Just to name a few. I imagine those alone would be stopping more people from playing the game "'the way they want to play'", compared to the whole of the Private Groups community you speak for.
(and before you mention it, I know you haven't specifically stated you speak for the whole of the PvE community, but you certainly infer you know what they all want. Funny really as I just play PvE
Last edited: