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

[Arkadi]

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?

I meant the "request duel mode" could be a safety trigger for mutual combat only in most regions of space. But that trigger could also be turned off in some regions where pvp combat can and must happen like in warzones or when countering pilots who undermine systems for powerplay or for pirates who want to play theire pirate game in anarchy systems (edit: and maybe for some community goals)

 

[Marra Morgan]

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 think it definitely highlights the need for better admin tools for Private Group owners. I'm sure that there's a significant chunk of Mobius' 20k players who aren't actually active, so he could certainly benefit from the ability to clear out inactive players.

Also, there should be tools to delegate admin responsibilities. Although I'm happy with the current game-mode options and not particularly compelled for any changes to it, the fact that a single player is using his own time and resources to provide a service for so many players is the strongest argument for an official PvE mode.

 

[Siobhan]

I think it definitely highlights the need for better admin tools for Private Group owners. I'm sure that there's a significant chunk of Mobius' 20k players who aren't actually active, so he could certainly benefit from the ability to clear out inactive players.

Also, there should be tools to delegate admin responsibilities. Although I'm happy with the current game-mode options and not particularly compelled for any changes to it, the fact that a single player is using his own time and resources to provide a service for so many players is the strongest argument for an official PvE mode.

He got some stats from ED. There are about 1500 inactive out of almost 20000, so not as many as you'd think.

 

[Marra Morgan]

He got some stats from ED. There are about 1500 inactive out of almost 20000, so not as many as you'd think.

Yes, that's less than I would've guessed, I thinking around 15-20%.
92.5% is an excellent retention rate

Still, an admin screen which could be sorted by date last logged and the options to do a bulk remove would be a huge help for freeing up space, which does appear to be limited. It's good that FD are sorting it out.

 

[excalibus]

Can everyone please consider some of the reasons people don't want to play in the main open environment but would like to play in a PVE Multiplayer environment.

Medical / Psychological disorders where enacting / receiving violence from other humans is not good for their disorder but violence from / on NPC's is no problem but they want to socialise with other people in the game because they do not socialise much in real life due to their 'disorder'

Medical / Psychological disorders where reactions to PVP tend to get very extreme and are ultimately not in the best interests of the player playing. Weather it be due to physical or psychological reactions.

People wanting to play and socialise without the desire of being on the edge of their seat with worry or trepidation everytime the meet another player in game.

People who, have been ganked or griefed or otherwise suffered a deeply negative experience in the mixed mode open play and do not wish that to be repeated and so are currently playing in SOLO but miss the social aspect of a multiplayer environment...

And I am certain there are more equally valid reasons as well... What gives us the right to deny anyone playing they way they want to play?

Should we let our own 'fears' or perceptions of the current open mode degenerating more stop these people from having that choice?

One thing I will say is very certain to happen, no not all gloom and doom, but based on historical empirical evidence of other games where mixed mode was the only real multiplayer environment to play in, people will continue to leave open, where will they go? Sure some will go to solo, some to private groups and some will just go to another game and leave ED behind. It's those that leave altogether who will most certainly affect the game in 2 different ways, firstly they may well tell their friends about the game in a negative context, in which case, less word of mouth sales, and secondly, they won't be buying into future content and that means even less revenue down the line for Frontier.

Soo... We all really need to ask ourselves, is this what we want for the future of the game?
Do we really care about the future of the game overall more than our own individual play styles?

 

[Roybe]

There are shards (well i don't know what exactly to call them, I was only using that word because I was quoting someone who did). Open, PG, and Solo are all different "shards", but all affect the same BGS / PP.

And if you are punching someone in the face in a system that you are attacking to take over, hell yeah I should be able to retaliate. It makes the BGS and PP totally stupid and a giant waste of time and effort on FDs part.

Then you are failing to understand the basic idea of this game. This game is designed so that the only PVP that is rewarded in the game is the movement of PVE trophies against others. The way to beat another player or player group is to out PvE them. Direct PVP is a side show! If you think this is 'broken', 'stupid', 'bad design' then this game is not for you! <shrug> This is all we are going to have in this game, ever.

 

[excalibus]

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

A few facts...

There is no inference that I 'know' what 'pve players' want.. had you read the thread through you would already know what my 'background playstyle' is, what 'mode' I have played in since beta and what my 'motivations' are for posting this thread and poll...

I play PVE and limited PVP (CG's etc) in open, have done so since beta... and an open PVE mode most likely would not be a mode I would move to either...

Ironman mode.. now that would be great for those that want it, no denying that
I doubt we will get multiple commander slots but we can hope honestly it would be nice...
Passengers are coming this season if I am not mistaken (possibly could be mistaken and that is just reading about 'passengers' in the newsletter.. again here is hoping they come this season
Piracy and Smuggling is in the game, is it the same as the DDA? I dunno I never saw the DDA but no doubt it will continue to get worked on and improved over the lifecycle I am confident of that.
Exploration has been an ongoing thing and they sure move slowly with it I will agree...

I am not sure weather or not those things are more important than each other or any other aspect of the game really... And I would not 'expect' them to suddenly overnight implement a PVE mode available from the login promt either... One would hope they would include us players in disucssions for how such a mode would be implemented first...

I wonder, truely how many people buy the game wanting an PVE only experience, go into open, and find out the 'hard way' that it is not PVE only, then simply quit the game instead of coming to the forums to discuss things...


Yes I am very well aware of Sandro asking for 'some input' and mentioning that they are looking at further 'improvements' to the crime and punishment system... I was involved in the preliminary discussions back early last year when they were talking about introducing an improved crime and punishment system...

We will see what they do to 'improve' things I guess on that front but I am not going to pin my 'hopes' on it solving the issues they need to solve to get more people into the current open mode... If things were not already deteriorating in open play, they would not even be looking at improving the crime and punishment system further in my opinion..

 

[Roybe]

Just a quick note from reddit from the Mobius group:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...sa_mobius_elitepve_has_temporally_broken_the/

 

[excalibus]

Just a quick note from reddit from the Mobius group:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...sa_mobius_elitepve_has_temporally_broken_the/

Thankyou

And this would not have occurred with a PVE Open mode as there would not be a 'group member limit'
And from what I gather the fix when it comes is going to be a short term fix until a more permanent fix can occur...

 

[eza]

OK you lot - I've got the solution that will please both sides (haha - yeah right - like that'll ever happen!) let me present the new menu option:

Open
Public Group
Private Group
Solo

That should fix the issue! ;-)

Mobius becomes a public group. Frontier add the ability for a group to have either more than one admin or a 'moderator' role.
Everyone's happy-ish:
1. FD don't have to administer an open PvE group themselves.
2. The text "Open PvE" doesn't appear anywhere.
3. It goes along with the KS pitch of "open groups"... then at a later date the "different game rules" can be added.

 

[Pluvialis]

All because you cannot accept the "Dangerous" portion of this game's title and deal with player combatants.

But we can accept it, and do accept it, and yes, we KNOW the game's title has the word 'Dangerous' in it. We know this because we're reminded of it every ten minutes by people who want to validate a particular play style by invalidating others, and who each apparently think they're the first to notice that the title of the game has the word 'Dangerous' in it.

You aren't the first to notice.

What you may also have noticed is that the title is irrelevant to this argument not only because it's a silly title (although it is), but because A) Frontier have explicitly said that all play styles allowed for by the game mechanics are valid; and B) the argument depends on the interpretation of the danger as coming exclusively from other players.

(And in reply to the objection that NPCs don't provide real danger, the point has to be made that players don't either: in the end what we're taking about is challenge, especially enjoyable challenge - and I'm as like, if not more likely, to get that from an NPC as from you.)

 

[excalibus]

OK you lot - I've got the solution that will please both sides (haha - yeah right - like that'll ever happen!) let me present the new menu option:

Open
Public Group
Private Group
Solo

That should fix the issue! ;-)

Mobius becomes a public group. Frontier add the ability for a group to have either more than one admin or a 'moderator' role.
Everyone's happy-ish:
1. FD don't have to administer an open PvE group themselves.
2. The text "Open PvE" doesn't appear anywhere.
3. It goes along with the KS pitch of "open groups"... then at a later date the "different game rules" can be added.

That could work Eza, and public groups would be 'listed' when you click on it, with a description box explaining what the group is for and the rules of the group... But it would require a settable ruleset before it could be implemented really... otherwise it's the same as we have now where mobius can be infiltrated by PVP'ers etc instead of being able to block PVP entirely...

But yes it is a step in the right direction for sure...

Of course some better group administration tools would also be required...

And the current issue with mobius reaching the group members limit would also need to be addressed....

 

[Faded Glory]

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.

Yes, that seems to be a concern for some posters, either because they feel that current Open would become an unpleasant place to play, and some perhaps because they are concerned that they would lose weaker targets. My own feeling is that having the options available will ultimately be better for the game as it will allow more players to play the game the way they want, creating a more successful game (the game presumably needs more rather than less players).

I doubt that FD can ever please everybody 100%.

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"

I guess you would be talking about a flag type system where players indicate their willingness to engage in PvP or not. It's been suggested a few times, and of course some players like the idea, but for others it's an 'immersion killer' because now they can see other players but cannot attack them because their flag is off, which may be worse than not seeing them at all.

Making PvP 'compulsory' for PP sort of goes against the ethos of allowing players to choose, and I think would be a sticking point for some, and it can (and has been) argued that PP is not reliant on PvP in any way, but is designed around PvE with PvP as an allowed activity. (I should say that I don't have a vested interest in this as I don't engage in PP.)

But we can accept it, and do accept it, and yes, we KNOW the game's title has the word 'Dangerous' in it. We know this because we're reminded of it every ten minutes by people who want to validate a particular play style by invalidating others, and who each apparently think they're the first to notice that the title is the game has the word 'Dangerous' in it.

You aren't the first to notice.

What you may also have noticed is that the title is irrelevant to this argument not only because it's a silly title (although it is), but because A) Frontier have explicitly said that all play styles allowed for by the game mechanics are valid; and B) the argument depends on the interpretation of the danger as coming exclusively from other players.

(And in reply to the objection that NPCs don't provide real danger, the point has to be base that players don't either: in the end what we're taking about is challenge, especially enjoyable challenge - and I'm as like, if not more likely, to get that from an NPC as from you.)

In fact, the reason the word Dangerous is in the title (as I understand it) is that it's the lowest combat ranking to be accepted into the Elite Pilots Federation, nothing to do with whether the game is dangerous or not...

And I agree entirely that challenge is a much more appropriate word than danger when referring to a computer game.

 

[Vyrsai]

Then you are failing to understand the basic idea of this game. This game is designed so that the only PVP that is rewarded in the game is the movement of PVE trophies against others. The way to beat another player or player group is to out PvE them. Direct PVP is a side show! If you think this is 'broken', 'stupid', 'bad design' then this game is not for you! <shrug> This is all we are going to have in this game, ever.

You are not helping your cause talking like that. You are just spewing your opinion as fact. I know what I want is just my opinion and I'm not telling you to play something else.

Try again.

Also I'm ok with having a PvE Open option now, seeing as Mobius is having issues due to player cap it seems it is indeed needed!

 

[Yukon Sam]

OK you lot - I've got the solution that will please both sides (haha - yeah right - like that'll ever happen!) let me present the new menu option:

Open
Public Group
Private Group
Solo

That should fix the issue! ;-)

Mobius becomes a public group. Frontier add the ability for a group to have either more than one admin or a 'moderator' role.
Everyone's happy-ish:
1. FD don't have to administer an open PvE group themselves.
2. The text "Open PvE" doesn't appear anywhere.
3. It goes along with the KS pitch of "open groups"... then at a later date the "different game rules" can be added.

I think it would need hard-coded rule enforcement at implementation to work. Allowing admins to flag their groups as public and make them searchable via directory is worthwhile, but without coded enforcement of PvP status, it's just begging abusers to set up honey traps.

 

[excalibus]

Also I'm ok with having a PvE Open option now, seeing as Mobius is having issues due to player cap it seems it is indeed needed!

Indeed, this is something none of us players could foresee... and all the more reason why a Multplayer PVE mode should be managed by Frontier really, because if there is a hard coded group limit in PG then clearly that will not suffice for an Open PVE mode will it...

 

[Vyrsai]

Indeed, this is something none of us players could foresee... and all the more reason why a Multplayer PVE mode should be managed by Frontier really, because if there is a hard coded group limit in PG then clearly that will not suffice for an Open PVE mode will it...

For sure, now I would really like it if PowerPlay was seperated on Open and Open PvE -- I know it most likely will never happen.

 

[DarkWalker]

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.

There is a difference between "persistent" and "instanced". You want things to be single instance so players are forced to interact with each other, without a workaround; that — forcing players to interact with each other — was never in the plans for ED, though, which is very likely why when choosing the networking architecture they weren't turned off by P2P's inability to force players to meet.

And no, it doesn't serve just the PvE players. Many kinds of PvP are served perfectly well by P2P architectures. But yeah, it's not a feasible architecture for a game with EVE-style control of space, which seems to be what you wanted.

(But then, of course, if this game had EVE-style control of space I would never have bothered to even keep following it, much less to back the game. I don't want EVE with joysticks.)

1. I have paid for, and have never minded paying for subscriptions to games I determine worth my while.

Not having a subscription was among the main promises Frontier made about the game, though.
Which, in turn, makes shifting the game to Frontier-supplied instance servers close to impossible, due to the ongoing costs.

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.....

Not being willing to let Solo players be in a static universe and wanting their input in how the galaxy develops were the reasons offline mode was canned, you know. Many of the players that got the game for the offline mode actually begged Frontier to let them have an offline game with a static universe. Heck, for many players having anyone else influencing the galaxy, at all, is actually a downside.

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?!

Plus, players that know a bit about networking, or know enough google-fu to find the info, can easily prevent anyone else from seeing them while still playing in Open. Player blockades, players controlling space, and all those things that require players to be able to block each other were never part of the game plan.

---

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.

Among other things:

- Not dependent on the goodwill, and continuing engagement, of a single player. As things stand now, should anything happen with the player Mobius, thousands of players will suddenly find the game far less enjoyable.

- Potentially making it more effective. Mobius can only kick unruly players after they have already caused damage; an official PvE mode could prevent the damage from being caused in the first place.

- Publicity, as you say. The vast majority of players aren't aware that a PvE group exists, so Mobius has only a small amount of the potential players it could have, the rest being either in Solo, unhappy in Open*, or else might have even left the game altogether. An official PvE mode will mean those PvE players that don't

* Not saying that everyone in Open is unhappy, not by a long shot. But those that are currently in Open and would leave it for a PvE Open mode are probably unhappy where they currently are.

---

He got some stats from ED. There are about 1500 inactive out of almost 20000, so not as many as you'd think.

Wait, what? That is enormously better than I expected, and likely far better than ED's retention as a whole. We are, after all, talking about a game that sold over 600K copies through Steam alone, but that has less than 6K concurrent players playing through Steam on its weekly peak.

 

[Vyrsai]

Wait, what? That is enormously better than I expected, and likely far better than ED's retention as a whole. We are, after all, talking about a game that sold over 600K copies through Steam alone, but that has less than 6K concurrent players playing through Steam on its weekly peak.

Yeah same here, I actually think that those numbers ( 1500 inactive out of almost 20000 ) are way off. I believe Mobius is healthy (majorly so since its cap has been met for invites) but it can't have 20,000 active players when all of ED on Steam has only 6k active at it's peak at a time.

And yes I know people play ED without Steam but it's still more than likely that those numbers are off.

 

[Siobhan]

Wait, what? That is enormously better than I expected, and likely far better than ED's retention as a whole. We are, after all, talking about a game that sold over 600K copies through Steam alone, but that has less than 6K concurrent players playing through Steam on its weekly peak.

To be fair, I've only seen what Mobius posted in the ElitePVE group, so I cannot personally vouch for accuracy, but you're right about how much higher it is than it should be, all things being equal. And if it is accurate, it clearly says that people in the Mobius group (i.e. PVEers) stick with ED way way more than people in Open. I do think FD should investigate it, since it implies that the current state of Open is driving folks away big time.

NB this is opinion based only on what I've seen. Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you like, so don't take my word for it.