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

[lenna]

And the dream of an open dangerous galaxy dies as more cotton wool is added to make everything "safe".

Well, you could always play another game like EvE?
---
In all seriousness though, the current Open galaxy would not be made any less dangerous for PvPers if those that are not interested in PvP are removed from it - that is all an additional Open PvE environment would in-effect result in. In fact, there would probably be no change to the current Open environment.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm looking for "valid reasons". And til now I haven't seen one.

Whether you consider reasons offered to be valid is just your opinion - which you are, of course, free to hold.

Just as any player can choose to play in any mode for any reason without the need to justify it to any other player.

 

[capt_sparks]

Whether you consider reasons offered to be valid is just your opinion - which you are, of course, free to hold.

Just as any player can choose to play in any mode for any reason without the need to justify it to any other player.

Considering both sides of the debate, I suppose it is up for FD to implement an Open PvE then. How and when they can do that is also up for speculation. Or perhaps FD has a better idea on dealing with it, who knows. I'm just an armchair captain here.

 

[DHMeyer]

"It is more important that Frontier focuses on bug fixes and their development time is spent on new content as opposed to creating Open PVE mode" - this argument seems to come back in this thread frequently, so I would like to address it, as I didn't have the opportunity to do so before.

Yes, fixing bugs is very important. Developing new content is very important. And so it would be also good to see Frontier putting more thought into crime and justice system, what they put in place needs amendments. But... All these things already have resources allocated to them. We just have to wait and see what Frontier does to fix existing issues and what new content they create. We also do not know when those fixes and new solutions will be implemented and if they are going to work correctly. That is also one of the reasons why other, very simple solutions are asked for.
Personally I haven't encountered any bugs so far in any form other than posts on the forums, but mileage may vary for other players.

As for the resources required to create Open PVE... I'm not much of a programmer, the last time I wrote a line of code in C was about a decade ago and it was never meant to become my profession. But as far as I can see and understand the code behind the game, all elements required are already in place and implementing an Open PVE is not something that would need undivided attention of the whole developers' team and compiling existing code into a solution that's been asked for is not going to be time and resources consuming.

When developers (I think DB) were explaining game modes in interviews, they explained them as "groups". Solo being a private group without other players, Open being a public group with other players and private groups being... well private groups with multiple players. My guess is that in terms of the game design it looks just this way. The fact that interface looks exactly the same in every mode also seems to suggest this is the case. So what is needed to create Open PVE is another public group with multiple players.

As for tackling PVP rules in such a mode, the code is there as well. There is code that manages damage to the ships under enemy fire, complete with a ruleset diminishing damage done by small weapons to large ships (so damage can be partly blocked, which means it can be blocked completely as well). There is code that manages damage done to the ship during collisions with other ships and other objects.

You take this code and create conditions under which it applies in a new public group.
1. If ship A (player) fires at ship B (also a human player) damage done equals zero.
2. If ship A (human player) rams into ship B (human player) damage done equals zero - that's an optional thing and only if such technique becomes frequently used to cause PVP damage in PVE mode.
3. You make certain areas of space non-PVP (inhabited systems controlled by one of the major factions, for example) and in those areas it's not possible to deal damage to other players' ships.
4. You make certain areas of space PVP - uninhabited systems, anarchy systems, combat zones, extraction sites, signal source instances etc. In those areas it is possible to deal damage to other players' ships.

This is all it takes. Nobody is asking Frontier to build a new Large Hadron Collider. Nobody is asking Frontier to remove PVP element from the game whatsoever (they have done it in Solo by not allowing other players to join your own private group) or change existing game modes (well, they better look into private groups anyway). What they are being asked for in this thread is taking the code they already have and creating a simple and easy fix to meet the demand for Open PVE mode. Whereas other solutions, such as fixing current private groups system and making it functional or adding crime and punishment systems requires from them a lot of time, attention and creating new mechanics and we don't know when it happens and if the solutions are going to be satisfactory.

 

[JuicerPrime]

And the dream of an open dangerous galaxy dies as more cotton wool is added to make everything "safe".

If you really want "danger" in a game, go to EVE Online. It's been squatting for a decade in the gameplay territory FDev have only dipped their toes into with Elite's open galaxy. It has a dev-supported legacy of griefing, scamming, permanent asset loss (sometimes in the multiple-thousands-of-real-world dollar's-worth range) and PvP which is far harsher than ED in comparison -and it still has hi and low-sec space for players who enjoy different playstyles.

 

[VR Murgle]

Frankly I can't see any reasons why anyone would be against this...

 

[Jason S]

They went and created a solo mode, a private mode and a open pvp mode.

So the only guaranteed pve is to play solo or a small trusted group which seems rather mean.

They should have an open pve mode.

For all those that say it will split open: I do not think it will so much as many of the people will move from solo or group to that mode.

 

[PiLhEaD]

I'm looking for "valid reasons".... "There are also people who just don't want that sort of gameplay for other reasons as well" - I'm sorry I can't accept this as a valid reason...

It's not necessary for anyone to provide any 'valid reasons' as to why they play in the manner they choose.

It is their (and your) decision to play as they (and you) desire.

After which all arguments against PvE boil down to 'I don't want others to be able to play in a way that they want to, because I don't want them to be able to' - which is no argument at all.

The case for a proper engineered PvE has been clear from the ouset - you only have to see the popularity of Mobius, with it's 97% active player base.

The PvE'ers (arguably representing 10-20%* of the active player-base) are quite reasonably asking for a FDev engineered PvE environment.

* The maths: Steam represents 660K copies of ED (47% of overall sales), with 12% active in the last two weeks. 12% of 1.4M is iro 168K active users. Mobius is iro 18.5K active users. Assuming 168K split evenly between solo/open, Mobius is iro >10% of the playing user base, or >20% of the on-line-multiplayer user base (assuming a 50:50 split).

 

[Roland2]

I'm saying no.

Spoiler

I think there should be an overhaul of consequence and security for sure. But I think PvE and PvP are out-of-game terms, because we get hung up on who is shooting. There is only PvElite.

Elite is a virtual galaxy with laws. Both NPC and CMDR should be bound to them. If you have a bounty, it should be collectible by any pilot, both NPC and real player.

Spoiler

Limiting who can shoot who is a band-aid for a much bigger issue. The laws, punishment, and risk vs reward of dealings in dangerous space need to be fixed and they need to be fixed REALLY badly.

Bounties are not collectible by any pilot now, since a wanted player can go to solo, or private group. Adding a PvE mode wouldn't change this.

 

[capt_sparks]

I have a feeling though that FD won't implement such an Open PvE. Ideally they envision a 1-instance galaxy for every player that's dangerous and just as exciting and fun, so they will really tackle the issues about justice to fix Open. Solo and Private Groups are meant to be "crutches" for other player needs. If I'm wrong and FD implements an Open PvE, then I'll drop FA-off my 1B+ Imperial Cutter to Achenar 3 from a height of 1000kms. (And of course I'll join and play to the mode where most people will be.)

 

[Robert Maynard]

I have a feeling though that FD won't implement such an Open PvE. Ideally they envision a 1-instance galaxy for every player that's dangerous and just as exciting and fun, so they will really tackle the issues about justice to fix Open. Solo and Private Groups are meant to be "crutches" for other player needs. If I'm wrong and FD implements an Open PvE, then I'll drop FA-off my 1B+ Imperial Cutter to Achenar 3 from a height of 1000kms. (And of course I'll join and play to the mode where most people will be.)

The fact that Solo, Private Groups and Open were all announced as part of the game design at the same time does not support that contention. Neither does DBOBE's statement that there is no "right way" to player the game.

It will be interesting indeed to see whether Frontier just improve Private Group management or introduce an Open-PvE mode.

 

[KaizoMK]

Frankly I can't see any reasons why anyone would be against this...

From a player perspective, [insert open vs solo mega thread here.]

From FD's perspective, there's no reason not to, and many reasons to do so. It's all a matter of priority. If they retool security and punishment, it could wait a bit. If not, they need to implement it pretty soon.

 

[Siobhan]

And the dream of an open dangerous galaxy dies as more cotton wool is added to make everything "safe".

You appear to have a confusing definition of safe and unsafe.

For example, I don't like PVP myself. I have done it, and rather successfully, in EVE long ago, but while indulging, I never actually felt unsafe any more than I feel "safe" in Mobius or in Solo. It's not as if I have electrodes attached to my body to shock me if I lose a ship or am hit by a laser. I can't actually be hurt, and therefore safety is ... perhaps wrong.

Of course there is also mental safety. Some people, some I know, have various degrees of PTSD from past history. It affects people differently, as does all real world conflict. Some people just don't want to be triggered by having people around who're likely to cause emotional stress. Some just want a break from a stressful working life. And oddly enough, some people just want to enjoy the game and play their own way.

But, E is neither safe nor unsafe. Not "Dangerous" as some people think it needs to be. It's a game. People paid their money to have FUN! If your fun is PVP combat, then fine, please, enjoy yourself... but do so with other people who want to have fun in the same way, and leave the others alone.

The talk of "splitting open" if OpenPVE happens is kinda pointless if not having it forces everyone to Solo mode.

 

[excalibus]

@bitstorm... yes yes yes more cotton wool... ahhuh... sure that is the arguement that will win over... Sorry for the sarcasm but really, that sort of comment just goes to show how much you realise your 'other points' against the proposed options have been adequately countered...

As pointed out above eloquently by siobhan it's not about safe / unsafe...

 

[the100thmonkey]

You appear to have a confusing definition of safe and unsafe.

For example, I don't like PVP myself. I have done it, and rather successfully, in EVE long ago, but while indulging, I never actually felt unsafe any more than I feel "safe" in Mobius or in Solo. It's not as if I have electrodes attached to my body to shock me if I lose a ship or am hit by a laser. I can't actually be hurt, and therefore safety is ... perhaps wrong.

Of course there is also mental safety. Some people, some I know, have various degrees of PTSD from past history. It affects people differently, as does all real world conflict. Some people just don't want to be triggered by having people around who're likely to cause emotional stress. Some just want a break from a stressful working life. And oddly enough, some people just want to enjoy the game and play their own way.

But, E is neither safe nor unsafe. Not "Dangerous" as some people think it needs to be. It's a game. People paid their money to have FUN! If your fun is PVP combat, then fine, please, enjoy yourself... but do so with other people who want to have fun in the same way, and leave the others alone.

The talk of "splitting open" if OpenPVE happens is kinda pointless if not having it forces everyone to Solo mode.

Please stop being sensible.

 

[SnowyNI]

Over half the player base STILL being ignored since 2015 to 3301!

 

[Bomba Luigi]

And the dream of an open dangerous galaxy dies as more cotton wool is added to make everything "safe".

Hmmm... strange, but I can't find anybody asking for changes to Open. I sure don't want it to be changed.

 

[Siobhan]

Please stop being sensible.

Sorry, won't happen again...

Well, not 'til I've had some wine anyway...

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
...I personally think it is much more about the wider questions this raises and in my mind its more powerful to look at things like highlighting and discussing how many players would love (and hate) to see an official supported pve mode, or as mobius would atest to, improved group management tools.

I'm all for a community movement and highlighting the wish and desires of a group of players, and frontier are definitely always listening.

I must say that this quote from Zac Antonaci is interesting.

Although I have always been of the opinion that an Open PvE mode would be a good thing, I've also often said that FD have given no indication that this is something that they want. Maybe that is changing now...

 

[Robert Maynard]

I must say that this quote from Zac Antonaci is interesting.

Although I have always been of the opinion that an Open PvE mode would be a good thing, I've also often said that FD have given no indication that this is something that they want. Maybe that is changing now...

Whether Frontier stop after implementing improved group management tools (and, hopefully, Private Group in-game rules) or go the whole hog and implement an Open-PvE mode - either would be an improvement over the status quo - where a single player could (without direct help from Frontier in the latest "episode") spend quite some considerable time scrolling through a list of c.20,000 unsorted players trying to find the one that is needing kicked from the group.