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

[excalibus]

I must correct that calculation. Its a false conclusion to assume that players who have not logged in into mobius since August 2015 have quit the game. Maybe they just have played open or other groups. Thats me. I was curious what Mobius is all about, joined it in June, looked around and forgot about it.

I will do the right step and sign out of Mobius now to free a slot for someone who really wants to play it. This doesnt mean I dont like the game. Currently I fly with the Distant Worlds Expedition, when I am back I will participate in Powerplay again and try some bountyhunting. I am far from done with ED

Note: I am for a public group mode like eza proposed. That would be the compromise I would like most.

I guess it depends on wether that stat is as you say users logged into mobius group or users members of mobius that have not logged into the game...

you may well be right and I may well have misinterpreted what mobius posted (as per faded glory's quoted mobius post earlier in the thread)

 

[Space Dandy]

there is no hard reasons for us as players to look at as to why players have left the game... obviosly if they are leaving at that kind of rate then all aspects need to be looked at that is for sure... none of us can directly claim that peopla have left for <insert reason> here that is for certain...

So to say any one aspect needs fixing 'first' as priority is probably not going to change that percentage much... So really all of it needs looking at, you cannot say that some of those people did not leave due to no open pve button on the front page either... just as I cannot say that some of them did not leave due to bugs / content / ganking / griefing / not the game they thought they were buying etc...


what however is a little disconcerting is that private groups have a hard limit on membership, so the arguement of 'we already have <insert PVE only PG name here> has now become a moot point and really does show that there needs to be an option for a PVE mode on the login screen... An official mode that won't reach some designated hard limit.

I will just have to say I am very skeptical that one single thing, no open pve, will noticeably change if people stay or leave vs all the XYZ lack of content, shallow gameplay mile wide, too many bugs etc etc complaints.


Groups having a limit is not a very good idea though so why not just remove the limit, it would be far quicker easier than adding a open pve with different rules than all the other modes and if they do change the rules might as well just give that ability to groups like they were suppose to have.

 

[excalibus]

Groups having a limit is not a very good idea though so why not just remove the limit, it would be far quicker easier than adding a open pve with different rules than all the other modes and if they do change the rules might as well just give that ability to groups like they were suppose to have.

It depends on where the limitation is, it it's in fdevs code then yes it is a simple fix and one would think that it would already be fixed... the fact it's not already fixed suggests to me that it is more than a code issue... perhaps it is more to do with the AWS system and some 'limitation' there that is beyond FD's control?

 

[Roybe]

Rewards? This game isn't about rewards in that fashion, it's about blazing your own trail and if that trail consists of other CMDRs destroyed hulls then that's the reward!

Again you are just speculating (immensely) and speaking as if it was gospel. Those are just your views, not facts.

And I was referring to you calling names that wasn't helping your cause (which btw I again am for the PvE Open option).

I didn't see name calling but...ok.

I am speaking 'as if' it is gospel...because it is. There are no game provided rewards for PvP and there will not...because there cannot be. The only PvP in the game that is rewarded is the PvP between groups..fighting it out using the PvE reward system.

Let me say it again....PvP is only a side show that has no meaningful in game reward...I will entertain the idea If and When someone:

PvP's without having to PvE for credits.

Someone makes it to Elite ONLY through PvP (not the CQC track..the regular combat track...or a new PvP track).

PvP has any meaningful input into PP, or the BGS.

I am glad you agree there is a necessity for an Open PvE mode. What I am pointing out is that the PvP players are the ones in charge of the 'toxicity' in Open. If they would understand that not only are they limiting their influence within the game...they are also forcing this issue on themselves. Since it's the 'dirty carebears' screaming...it's their fault. However, if the PK'ers weren't making a habit of killing other players (for no in game reward, mind you), the 'dirty care bears' wouldn't have a reason to scream.
Anyway...this is the nub of the problem in any game, historically, that mixed the groups...and will always be the problem. Just seperate the two player factions at the start....and move on....it's failed every time in the past...and will always fail..going forward.

Ultimately, without the PvP players moderating their actions in Open...they can keep PvP'ing...but they will be doing it with fewer and fewer folks.

 

[excalibus]

@Space Dandy

If they did implement a way of selecting a ruleset, and added that to group mode with some administration control panel for the group owner, and made the choice when creating a group to be either private or public, and listed public groups with a description of the groups rules and player types then that would indeed make life a lot easier for everyone...

Part of the problem I have with how groups are implemented at the moment is that unless you know the group name you are looking for, searching for it is difficult at best, secondly there is no group description for anyone to get an idea of what a group is about etc.

I think giving group owners the ability to make their groups public (which means people can see them easier) and if making them public, require a group description be completed as part of the 'process' with appropriate word filtering of course...

A public group could conceivable have multiple player administrators and the ownership could be transferred.

To 'register' a public group would require FD support to 'review' the description to ensure it meets the terms of the EULA or TOS and that there is no breaches (naming and shaming, racist / sexist remarks etc)

 

[Roybe]

@Space Dandy

If they did implement a way of selecting a ruleset, and added that to group mode with some administration control panel for the group owner, and made the choice when creating a group to be either private or public, and listed public groups with a description of the groups rules and player types then that would indeed make life a lot easier for everyone...

Part of the problem I have with how groups are implemented at the moment is that unless you know the group name you are looking for, searching for it is difficult at best, secondly there is no group description for anyone to get an idea of what a group is about etc.

I think giving group owners the ability to make their groups public (which means people can see them easier) and if making them public, require a group description be completed as part of the 'process' with appropriate word filtering of course...

A public group could conceivable have multiple player administrators and the ownership could be transferred.

To 'register' a public group would require FD support to 'review' the description to ensure it meets the terms of the EULA or TOS and that there is no breaches (naming and shaming, racist / sexist remarks etc)

This sounds similar to Blizzard's Open group creation in Diablo 3. It works well and if we have the option to set rules...would be one of the better answers. How big a public group could become would be an important consideration...because then you have the interesting situation of 'which group to join' (this would feel like 'which server are we going to join?')...even if there is an identical rule set (there is some issue at the 20k level...so that might be a limitation. Multiple groups with 20k for PvE only? But then with no barrier to entry (no one needs to invite or approve someone)...it should work out nicely)

 

[excalibus]

so what kind of selectable rules should there be?

Obviously there should be toggles for PVP / No PVP but would they be broad or would you need to set them for certain scenarious individually such as Powerplay systems, War Zones and Conflict Zones, then it comes to Res and nav beacons etc...

I think there should be some seperate settings myself for each area where PVP combat can occur, No PVP / PVP Enabled, PVP Conflict Target Only / PvP Wanted Only / PvP Anyone so the first would be a toggle either PVP or NO PvP, if PVP is enabled then the second would be a radio selection option, you can have only 1 type of PVP for that type of area.

You could do that for each of the main PVP areas, as mentioned above - CZ, Navs / Comp Navs, Res, WZ, Anarchy systems, Independant Systems, Major Faction Systems, Starter Systems, Comminity Goals.

Then you would have a fairly flexible system for the ruleset of different areas of the game and in fact the bulk of the 'description' of the group text could be built automatically from the options you select.

For administration tools there would need to be Auto Kick Player, Ban Player, Auto Accept Request, Transfer Ownership.

The auto kick player function would work in relation to if a player breaks a rule in the ruleset (assuming that the 'mechanics of no pvp are not actually changed and it's an honour system') so someone initiating the rule break would get kicked but not banned...

The autoaccept would be for automatically accepting requests to join the group and should you get kicked, then you cannot get back into the group for at least 24 hours unless the kick is lifted by a group administrator.

If you are banned from the group then your 'request' will never be automatically accepted and the admins will not be notified of your request to rejoin, a kicked player may try to request getting back in before the 24 hour period and no matter how many times the player requested to get back in only a single request would be shiown to the admins for that player so spamming to get back into the group would be ineffective.

i am sure there is more that other people could add to this...

 

[PiLhEaD]

The answer to the question is a blindingly obvious yes.

This will not devalue nor reduce the numbers already in open, but what it will do is encourage cmdrs out of solo, and that is a small step towards open.

To fear change is to reject life. Don't, embrace it.

 

[Roybe]

so what kind of selectable rules should there be?

Obviously there should be toggles for PVP / No PVP but would they be broad or would you need to set them for certain scenarious individually such as Powerplay systems, War Zones and Conflict Zones, then it comes to Res and nav beacons etc...

I think there should be some seperate settings myself for each area where PVP combat can occur, No PVP / PVP Enabled, PVP Conflict Target Only / PvP Wanted Only / PvP Anyone so the first would be a toggle either PVP or NO PvP, if PVP is enabled then the second would be a radio selection option, you can have only 1 type of PVP for that type of area.

You could do that for each of the main PVP areas, as mentioned above - CZ, Navs / Comp Navs, Res, WZ, Anarchy systems, Independant Systems, Major Faction Systems, Starter Systems, Comminity Goals.

Then you would have a fairly flexible system for the ruleset of different areas of the game and in fact the bulk of the 'description' of the group text could be built automatically from the options you select.

For administration tools there would need to be Auto Kick Player, Ban Player, Auto Accept Request, Transfer Ownership.

The auto kick player function would work in relation to if a player breaks a rule in the ruleset (assuming that the 'mechanics of no pvp are not actually changed and it's an honour system') so someone initiating the rule break would get kicked but not banned...

The autoaccept would be for automatically accepting requests to join the group and should you get kicked, then you cannot get back into the group for at least 24 hours unless the kick is lifted by a group administrator.

If you are banned from the group then your 'request' will never be automatically accepted and the admins will not be notified of your request to rejoin, a kicked player may try to request getting back in before the 24 hour period and no matter how many times the player requested to get back in only a single request would be shiown to the admins for that player so spamming to get back into the group would be ineffective.

i am sure there is more that other people could add to this...

All of the above sounds agreeable, however, with this level of complexity...it would be better to just add an Open PvE mode to start with. By the time the devs finish all the various flags it could take years to accomplish what would be a good rendition of this. The option to avoid PvP but still have a 'public' mode needs to occur sooner rather than later.

Here's something to think about...if they offered the above as Season 3 content...do you think that will hold the community together? What if it can't be done until Season 5, or 8? This is my concern with this game currently. Many are looking at Season 2 and waiting to see if they are going to spend the extra cash on the Season to Season promissory notes...or if they will wait until Year 10 and buy the whole game..finished and $60..or just walk away because the time period is to long to be bothered with.

The community is thinning out...all around...because the game, while catering to as many people as possible, is not leaving any single player feeling like their time in the game is well spent/honored by the game itself. The PVP players have shortcomings they wish were different...and the PVE people have shortcomings that they wish were different. Since no one is 'happy' then everyone is able to find somewhere else to be, game wise, that scratches their itches better.

 

[excalibus]

Roybe, indeed they need to get something sorted sooner rather than later as far as PVE Multiplayer goes...

I agree that to an extent the player base is thinning... They also need to make changes to the crime / punishment system as far as the consequences for PKing but they need to do that in a way that does not destroy the PvP they want in the game...

There is no way to please everyone all of the time that is for sure... and yes it will take time to develeop a ruleset I imagine... How much time, I do not know...

As I wrote earlier in the thread, it could even be TOS for the PVE mode that you the player agree to and if you breach it and get reported, investigated and found 'guilty' then you get banned from that mode... yes that would require more load on 'support and investigating' but for now that would not require any mechanical changes to the game, and that would give them time to develop the ruleset as and when they fit that in...

 

[Space Dandy]

All of the above sounds agreeable, however, with this level of complexity...it would be better to just add an Open PvE mode to start with. By the time the devs finish all the various flags it could take years to accomplish what would be a good rendition of this. The option to avoid PvP but still have a 'public' mode needs to occur sooner rather than later.

Here's something to think about...if they offered the above as Season 3 content...do you think that will hold the community together? What if it can't be done until Season 5, or 8? This is my concern with this game currently. Many are looking at Season 2 and waiting to see if they are going to spend the extra cash on the Season to Season promissory notes...or if they will wait until Year 10 and buy the whole game..finished and $60..or just walk away because the time period is to long to be bothered with.

The community is thinning out...all around...because the game, while catering to as many people as possible, is not leaving any single player feeling like their time in the game is well spent/honored by the game itself. The PVP players have shortcomings they wish were different...and the PVE people have shortcomings that they wish were different. Since no one is 'happy' then everyone is able to find somewhere else to be, game wise, that scratches their itches better.

Was gone visiting family.. another thought I had other than they should work on more tangible in game content is that if they do add a Open PVE with a different ruleset then they might aswell well do the whole group thing as really they will have to code in all these toggles, pvp on off etc, anyways.

They could always do the open pve as a test run I gather but I doubt it will do much to improve the retention rate.


Really we are all just speculating here and only FD have the stats to see what's really going on.

 

[excalibus]

Was gone visiting family.. another thought I had other than they should work on more tangible in game content is that if they do add a Open PVE with a different ruleset then they might aswell well do the whole group thing as really they will have to code in all these toggles, pvp on off etc, anyways.

They could always do the open pve as a test run I gather but I doubt it will do much to improve the retention rate.


Really we are all just speculating here and only FD have the stats to see what's really going on.

I am glad ytou had a chance to visit your family... I am sure (if they are anything like mine) they missed you while you were in ED

And yes I agree if they do a selectable ruleset then indeed add that to groups too

Of course we are all speculating... and yes FD are the only ones who 100% know what the stats are and what is really going on...

 

[Cynaqq]

We all know the reason FD is reluctant to add an Open PVE mode. It's not a secret, they've been open about that in the past. They find it ridiculous and immersion breaking to have some in game lore to justify preventing players from attacking each other. Keeping the game the same in all modes but limiting instancing to solo or a private group manages this up to a degree.

FD is between a rock and a hard place about this one. They either need to say to hell with immersion and include a 'agression prevention between pilots fed members module' or they need to step it up with the repercussions of attacking other players needlessly. The difficulty in determining this need makes the latter pretty hard to implement unfortunately.

I certainly wouldn't want to have this responsibility on me.

 

[DarkWalker]

We all know the reason FD is reluctant to add an Open PVE mode. It's not a secret, they've been open about that in the past. They find it ridiculous and immersion breaking to have some in game lore to justify preventing players from attacking each other. Keeping the game the same in all modes but limiting instancing to solo or a private group manages this up to a degree.

FD is between a rock and a hard place about this one. They either need to say to hell with immersion and include a 'agression prevention between pilots fed members module' or they need to step it up with the repercussions of attacking other players needlessly. The difficulty in determining this need makes the latter pretty hard to implement unfortunately.

I certainly wouldn't want to have this responsibility on me.

They might already be between a rock and a hard place in their desire to have the rules apply equally to NPCs and players. It's very difficulty to create rules and tools that make being on the receiving end and on the giving end even close to being similarly engaging, but that is the bar they set for themselves when they decide to have NPCs and players use the same rules. Reminds me of a blogger asking if he was hypocritical because he absolutely love to use Crowd Control against NPCs and other players, but utterly hate when it's used against him.

This is part of the reason I believe keeping the penalties for shooting NPCs and players the same is foolish. If you ever get to a point where traders and miners feel like they have adequate protection, pirates and bounty hunters — including those that target NPCs — will be in a bad spot.

 

[Suohhen]

They might already be between a rock and a hard place in their desire to have the rules apply equally to NPCs and players. It's very difficulty to create rules and tools that make being on the receiving end and on the giving end even close to being similarly engaging, but that is the bar they set for themselves when they decide to have NPCs and players use the same rules. Reminds me of a blogger asking if he was hypocritical because he absolutely love to use Crowd Control against NPCs and other players, but utterly hate when it's used against him.

This is part of the reason I believe keeping the penalties for shooting NPCs and players the same is foolish. If you ever get to a point where traders and miners feel like they have adequate protection, pirates and bounty hunters — including those that target NPCs — will be in a bad spot.

This also shows that at some point, the player base in general, and FD in particular, will be forced to remember that this is a game and not real life. Giving the player base more choice is not necessarily immersion breaking. Each player will make his/her own immersion based on how they play the game. There is no rock or hard place. Just do what makes logical sense.

 

[Deathwatch]

Their are reasons why I don't support a PvE mode at least in the ways you guys want it mainly due to the Background sim and the current way those whom play in Open take a higher risk level.

I wonder if a number of my suggestions in - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=232470 would be useful A) it would aid in bringing back certain things for players as well as help with learning curve etc B) leads to suggestions to reliably break down criminals in Open while meaning such invasion wouldn't be required for those in Private Group and Solo by removing their ability to affect the background simulation, that way if you want to affect the world you take the risk of angering others.

By increasing the reactions of NPC's both skill and police and the adding of NPC escorts and a module to beam MJ to shields it would make it harder to straight up gank a trader under escort etc.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Their are reasons why I don't support a PvE mode at least in the ways you guys want it mainly due to the Background sim and the current way those whom play in Open take a higher risk level.

I wonder if a number of my suggestions in - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=232470 would be useful A) it would aid in bringing back certain things for players as well as help with learning curve etc B) leads to suggestions to reliably break down criminals in Open while meaning such invasion wouldn't be required for those in Private Group and Solo by removing their ability to affect the background simulation, that way if you want to affect the world you take the risk of angering others.

By increasing the reactions of NPC's both skill and police and the adding of NPC escorts and a module to beam MJ to shields it would make it harder to straight up gank a trader under escort etc.

Players being able to mode switch at will and every player, regardless of game mode (and now game platform - with the introduction of the XBox One version) affect and experiencing the same shared galaxy state has been part of the game design for over three years now (Link to FAQ published the day after the Kickstarter launched).

Powerplay and Community Goals have been implemented in accordance with that design, i.e. all players can affect them - regardless of game mode.

Frontier are on record as stating that all game modes are equal and valid.

DBOBE is on record as holding the opinion that there is no "right way" to play the game.

 

[Deathwatch]

Players being able to mode switch at will and every player, regardless of game mode (and now game platform - with the introduction of the XBox One version) affect and experiencing the same shared galaxy state has been part of the game design for over three years now (Link to FAQ published the day after the Kickstarter launched).

Powerplay and Community Goals have been implemented in accordance with that design, i.e. all players can affect them - regardless of game mode.

Frontier are on record as stating that all game modes are equal and valid.

DBOBE is on record as holding the opinion that there is no "right way" to play the game.

I wasn't saying that they aren't treated equally and valid but what i was saying is in practice their not equal and valid, for example a wing of 4 players could dominate a Combat Zone in private without risk of attack by other players, whereas players in Open could be and thus they could do the same amount of work for less reward.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I wasn't saying that they aren't treated equally and valid but what i was saying is in practice their not equal and valid, for example a wing of 4 players could dominate a Combat Zone in private without risk of attack by other players, whereas players in Open could be and thus they could do the same amount of work for less reward.

The reward to playing in Open is testing one's skills against the other inhabitants of Open (when they are encountered - which can be rare indeed given that the vast, vast majority of Open is, just like Solo, completely devoid of other players).

 

[Thaliesin]

Interesting poll.
Add +19000 Mobius players to the results, please.