396 players who voted on a forum poll isn't a "majority of players", is it?
Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen
- Thread starter excalibus
- Start date
396 players who voted on a forum poll isn't a "majority of players", is it?
I believe that is to take things to far.
The whole idea of creating a PvE mode is a bad one.
What happened in Mobius was an isolated case, it's so uncommon it's irrelevant, so much fear mongering on the forums. It's like newspapers creating a panic because paedophiles and terrorists are everywhere.
People will grief regardless, shooting people is just the most straightforward way.
Griefing that is NOT shooting is much harder to enforce.
Ultimately the only way you combat griefing is to remove these people from the group, if players are the ones responsible for doing that they are free to do as they please, remove who they want on the smallest amount of evidence.
If Frontier are responsible for removing players from groups then you are forcing Frontier to arbitrate and so offending players will be given the benefit of the doubt more often with "warnings".
Once a person is banned from a group, they're banned from a group, whoever does it.
Griefers are gonna grief.
Fail fast fail early, by blocking the most immediate methods of griefing (firing at people) via game-mode you encourage more imaginative methods of griefing.
If your griefers are not firing on people and instead using more subtle methods (because you've made it that there's no other way), finding, enforcing and removing griefers will be hugely problematic.
It is much easier for players to enforce this, than Frontier, players can just give the *suspected* griefer the finger, Frontier cannot.
It's also *yet another way* to split players from each other. Less and less interaction in this game because "OMG NOES, protect me from the bad men ;_;"
In summary keep the power in players hands, not Frontier's, they simply cannot be as effective at combating griefers as players can.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Pfffft!
What if I voted yes then changed my mind after reading the arguments against, that's not reflected in the vote.
Forum votes are always "knee jerk" without any thought to the nuance of the issues, a system where you vote before reading the discussions is a bad voting system, knee-jerk decisions are not an effective way to manage a game.
What happened in Mobius was an isolated case, it's so uncommon it's irrelevant, so much fear mongering on the forums. It's like newspapers creating a panic because paedophiles and terrorists are everywhere.
People will grief regardless, shooting people is just the most straightforward way.
Griefing that is NOT shooting is much harder to enforce.
Ultimately the only way you combat griefing is to remove these people from the group, if players are the ones responsible for doing that they are free to do as they please, remove who they want on the smallest amount of evidence.
If Frontier are responsible for removing players from groups then you are forcing Frontier to arbitrate and so offending players will be given the benefit of the doubt more often with "warnings".
Once a person is banned from a group, they're banned from a group, whoever does it.
Griefers are gonna grief.
Fail fast fail early, by blocking the most immediate methods of griefing (firing at people) via game-mode you encourage more imaginative methods of griefing.
If your griefers are not firing on people and instead using more subtle methods (because you've made it that there's no other way), finding, enforcing and removing griefers will be hugely problematic.
It is much easier for players to enforce this, than Frontier, players can just give the *suspected* griefer the finger, Frontier cannot.
It's also *yet another way* to split players from each other. Less and less interaction in this game because "OMG NOES, protect me from the bad men ;_;"
In summary keep the power in players hands, not Frontier's, they simply cannot be as effective at combating griefers as players can.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Pfffft!
What if I voted yes then changed my mind after reading the arguments against, that's not reflected in the vote.
Forum votes are always "knee jerk" without any thought to the nuance of the issues, a system where you vote before reading the discussions is a bad voting system, knee-jerk decisions are not an effective way to manage a game.
Last edited:
So with a polulation of 20,000 and during an election 10,000 people vote with 5100 to 4900 choose a over b, yet 10,000 people didn't bother to vote then the election is deemed null and void?
No, you know it and so do I.
The majority that have voiced an opinion are in favour of Open PvE. SIMPLE!
It would be fair to assume that this poll with 750 respondents and counting reflects the opinion of the populous. It's a big enough population to form a representative opinion.
I think this is a flawed argument. Uncommon does not imply irrelevant, or even unimportant.
I would also like to add that what is being asked for is a CHOICE.
To play the game 'Your way' and not the way someone else deems fit.
Solo doesn't offer the social element some people want.
Group doesn't offer the assurances some people desire.
Give them the choice to choose to play the game their way. That's all this is about.
To play the game 'Your way' and not the way someone else deems fit.
Solo doesn't offer the social element some people want.
Group doesn't offer the assurances some people desire.
Give them the choice to choose to play the game their way. That's all this is about.
The point being what does it achieve that a whole new game-mode has to be created?
If the event in question had never happened because there was a dedicated PvE mode it would make virtually no difference whatsoever to the playerbase except for a handful of people, in an event that happened in a year or so of playing.
Why is this actually important that we have to throw all these resources at it, the offending players have already been banned from the group.
It's only perceived as important because folk seem to have the impression it's likely to happen to them, it's not.
The best thing you can do is go to Reddit, get the names of the offenders and make sure they're kicked from your own private groups.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
So go use Mobius!
It works, it has done for over a year.
Or if you're worried about SDC turning to Distant Worlds to escalate, create your own private group.
Last edited:
Well there's also this Solo doesn't offer the social element some people want.
I don't want the community splitting further with more game-modes, there's little enough human interaction as it is, nor do I want Frontier resources used to do this, the assurances you want are at odds with what I want.
You have the ability to mitigate the issues right now, the event in question was a rare one, the CMDRs have been banned.
Oh but what if....
Fundamentally there should be risk in this game, that it can come from other players is a positive thing.
Nobody likes dying but it happens, accept that and accept there's an inherent risk in what you do.
Last edited:
I'd prefer to see them develop the criminality vs legality dynamic to the point it is a meaningful system.
That said I think they might be well served by giving players the option to have a short term invulnerability to PvP on first starting the game. Maybe 5 hours of gameplay for example. They already have enforced solo for until the first ump so they clearly recognise the issue to an extent. Furthermore they could inform new players at the start of the other PvE group options available, for those so inclined.
That said I think they might be well served by giving players the option to have a short term invulnerability to PvP on first starting the game. Maybe 5 hours of gameplay for example. They already have enforced solo for until the first ump so they clearly recognise the issue to an extent. Furthermore they could inform new players at the start of the other PvE group options available, for those so inclined.
A single volunteer handles a large part of the game that thousands of people want. On top of that the scale of it makes the software fall over when they try to do their volunteer work.
I don't think that could be called 'working'. That's failing to address a core requirement.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What observable difference would there be in Open if there was an alternative unlimited population game mode where PvP was disallowed? Bear in mind that we already have Solo and Private Groups for players who eschew PvP (although Private Groups have been proven to be vulnerable to players joining with no intention of abiding by the agreed rules of same). To suggest that adding one play option to the practically unlimited number of Private Groups (one per player account) will increase fragmentation is technically correct - however the increase would be infinitesimal.
Well yeah I was trying to turn the discussion this way in another of the multiple threads on this topic.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=233412&p=3584985#post3584985
The issue for me is that players needs better facilities to manage their groups. They can do this, but they needs the tools to do so, what we have is totally useless.
Last edited:
I don't understand this perspective...if there was an Open PVE mode (or a PVE mechanic) wouldn't this bring those disparate groups who are not in Open together? If these players avoid play in Open and want an Open PVE mode how does it impact the current Open environment? Is it not bringing like minded players together rather than keeping them split apart in small/solo groups?
These may not be things you want, but these are players you won't necessarily see in Open and who many have indicated a PVE Group/Mechanism is something they want.
If an alternative to Mobius is offered and some players split off then Mobius has less players. Less players in your group is less human interaction.
Open isn't necessarily the one true group or anything, I'm not saying that.
Everytime you create a new area dilution occurs.
Dilution isn't an isolated argument, it's just one example of a negative impact of creating a PvE mode in the context Mobius actually doing mostly what people want anyway.
As I say I feel this issue is being made out to be much bigger than it actually is. Like I've probably more chance of finding a barnacle than being griefed by SDC.
One thing I will say I am a bit concerned that SDC go after DW now, but this only because the community here has done what they always do and turn a molehill into a mountain giving SDC the attention they want and the exact reason they did this in the first place.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Well maybe but I don't really see how. Ignoring this event, Mobius is exactly a PvE mode, those wanting PvE are already there, your suggesting there's a whole bunch of PvE players who essentially want Mobius but are not in Mobius.
It is hard to gauge what would happen, but we have one PvE mode currently, we create another sure because it's "official" a large bunch of folks would go from Mobius to that, but I don't think it would be all, hence player dilution.
Last edited:
That's a bit straw clutching.
We're not in Open, so it won't make any odds.
Ed to add, what it will do is bring more like minded people together. Namely those who prefer cooperation.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I see it differently - an Open-PvE mode would allow some of the players in Solo and tiny PvE Private Groups to coalesce (i.e. de-fragment) into a single game mode that suits their chosen play-style.
I'm not sure why you say it's straw clutching?
I don;t see how co-operation is relevant, people co-operate successully all the time in open.
I've seen those video's to prove it!
Mate, the difference is in play style.
One prefer cooperation with all players. Us against the environment.
One prefers cooperation against all, well all those with a hollow box.
Their non-compatible.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There are two multi-player modes - both facilitate co-operative play. To suggest that players co-operate successfully "all the time" in Open suggests that they are never interfered with by other players - which cannot be the case (however rare such interference may be).