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

[Scoopy Doopy]

I don't understand all this.

If you want to just do your own thing, you have solo (it's great, I like it). If you want to meet up with loads of people and wave at them you can join a group with the chance of you actually being shot by a PvP player incredibly remote. If you are OK with the PvP thing go in open. I don't see why there needs to be another, somewhat unrealistc mode.

However, as everyone likes to have this argument, it seems to me the problem is people picking on targets that don't stand a chance so how about, when you are in super cruise and you scan someone, you only get to see their wanted status and who (if anybody) they are aligned with. You don't get to see if they are in a wing, their combat rating or the ship they are in. Seems to me that at the very least, those that like going around shooting random commanders would end up seeing the re-buy screen much more than they do now.

 

[Cula-Ta]

I don't understand all this.

If you want to just do your own thing, you have solo (it's great, I like it). If you want to meet up with loads of people and wave at them you can join a group with the chance of you actually being shot by a PvP player incredibly remote. If you are OK with the PvP thing go in open. I don't see why there needs to be another, somewhat unrealistc mode.

However, as everyone likes to have this argument, it seems to me the problem is people picking on targets that don't stand a chance so how about, when you are in super cruise and you scan someone, you only get to see their wanted status and who (if anybody) they are aligned with. You don't get to see if they are in a wing, their combat rating or the ship they are in. Seems to me that at the very least, those that like going around shooting random commanders would end up seeing the re-buy screen much more than they do now.

If you want to just do your own thing, you have solo (it's great, I like it) - Correct
If you want to meet up with loads of people and wave at them you can join a group with the chance of you actually being shot by a PvP player incredibly remote - Incorrect. A PvE group is Player v environment, there should be no chance of being attacked by another pilot
If you are OK with the PvP thing go in open - Correct, what's more, stay there. Don't go to a PvE group in order to cause trouble.

That is what this is all about. It aint rocket science.

 

[DHMeyer]

I don't understand all this.

If you want to just do your own thing, you have solo (it's great, I like it). If you want to meet up with loads of people and wave at them you can join a group with the chance of you actually being shot by a PvP player incredibly remote. If you are OK with the PvP thing go in open. I don't see why there needs to be another, somewhat unrealistc mode.

However, as everyone likes to have this argument, it seems to me the problem is people picking on targets that don't stand a chance so how about, when you are in super cruise and you scan someone, you only get to see their wanted status and who (if anybody) they are aligned with. You don't get to see if they are in a wing, their combat rating or the ship they are in. Seems to me that at the very least, those that like going around shooting random commanders would end up seeing the re-buy screen much more than they do now.

And here we go again... Yes, there is Solo for PVE only and no other players at all. And yes, there are private groups for multiplayer. Currently some of them not working properly due to technical issues occurring when they have a large number of members, lack of proper group management tools and requiring volunteers to run them for Frontier.

 

[DHMeyer]

No magic invulnerability shield. However no financial penalties for the target of a PvP destruction in the PvE group.

It's not a magic invulnerability shield, it's a transponder unit that allows the weapon systems to identify that you're about to shoot at a non-hostile target. Automatically disabled in certain areas. Or when you ram into another player. In terms of game lore, you could say that inhabited and safe areas have systems in place designed to track the traffic, whilst some locations (such as anarchy systems, combat zones, extraction sites etc.) do not have such systems as their status may change over time.
Heck could be even made a module requiring a purchase and it would be assumed that NPCs are the ones who chose not to buy the transponder. Some players might also choose not to have a transponder and this detail would show in the ship scan details.
Both players agree on combat? Switch the transponders off and voila, you get PVP instance at that point.


I do like the rulesets mentioned and it would be cool to see that sort of stuff, but I'd still vote for simpler and quicker fix that requires less work from the devs. They could always work on adding depth to the mechanics after the basic solutions are implemented. Just my opinion.

 

[Wicz]

I was expecting something simpler like:

1) Auto-kick players who try to interdict other players - SNIP..

This sounds great!

Have a virtual +1!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Dear Mr Maynard,

I sincerely hope those ideas of yours are not only yours - that you had a chat with the Devs or something, because...

No Dev involvement in these - just trying to think around a solution that would not require "no player-on-player damage".

 

[Noob]

No Dev involvement in these - just trying to think around a solution that would not require "no player-on-player damage".

Then all the kudos, and a bit too bad... I was hoping this was more official.

But hey, we are moving there.

 

[capt_sparks]

Players at Open will have slight disadvantage compared to players on Open PvE. If such an Open PvE is implemented, some bonus must be added to players playing in Open, as well as in Solo. Or just have some nerf on Open PvE. Otherwise, Open will be deserted for sure, it will dry up as Open PvE accumulates more players.


That means introducing Open PvE (which I think will take a lot of FD effort if they really try implement one) would just provide another set of pain on balancing modes, which I don't think they can afford. The FD's most likely action (from a software developers' point of view) is to take whichever that requires the fewest of changes (and hence lesser gotchas), provides a much better impact and doesn't introduce a lot of complexity. That means fixing Open security and not introducing yet another mode. Same goes with adding management tools for Private Groups, it takes a lot of effort for FD.

Just 2 cents from an armchair captain.

 

[Roybe]

Players at Open will have slight disadvantage compared to players on Open PvE. If such an Open PvE is implemented, some bonus must be added to players playing in Open, as well as in Solo. Or just have some nerf on Open PvE. Otherwise, Open will be deserted for sure, it will dry up as Open PvE accumulates more players.


That means introducing Open PvE (which I think will take a lot of FD effort if they really try implement one) would just provide another set of pain on balancing modes, which I don't think they can afford. The FD's most likely action (from a software developers' point of view) is to take whichever that requires the fewest of changes (and hence lesser gotchas), provides a much better impact and doesn't introduce a lot of complexity. That means fixing Open security and not introducing yet another mode. Same goes with adding management tools for Private Groups, it takes a lot of effort for FD.

Just 2 cents from an armchair captain.

Why? It would be no different than players that are playing in PvE currently, either in larger groups, or smaller groups.

Nothing will change on this front.

 

[Space Dandy]

Why? It would be no different than players that are playing in PvE currently, either in larger groups, or smaller groups.

Nothing will change on this front.

It's just an excuse to block this or if it does go through to try and wiggle out some bonus as they are afraid there are more pve players than pvp players and feel some incentive is needed so they don't end up alone.

 

[capt_sparks]

It's just an excuse to block this or if it does go through to try and wiggle out some bonus as they are afraid there are more pve players than pvp players and feel some incentive is needed so they don't end up alone.

"They" are afraid? I for one will go to Open PvE if one such is introduced. Open players will just migrate. The "they" you are referring to must be FD. Yes, FD is afraid of adding a new mode, and rightly so.

 

[foebits]

WOw really?
Open is already pve with limited pvp.
Jese guys use your heads. If you don't like pvp then you ave 2 options:
-don't play in heavily populated, known griefer locations
-or, make a group.

It shouldn't fall on the devs to warp the game to every little whiner's wants just because they can't spend a nanosecond figuring out how to remove the problem, and it needs to happen less and less.

 

[JuicerPrime]

That means introducing Open PvE (which I think will take a lot of FD effort if they really try implement one) would just provide another set of pain on balancing modes, which I don't think they can afford.

Balancing modes? There's no difference between them, even now. All each mode dictates is how much interaction you have with other CMDR's, and what kind of interaction it is. They're not running different rulesets or applying buffs/nerfs, just whether or not you can talk to other human beings and (in the proposed new mode) not have to worry about them blowing you up for the lulz.

EDIT: nvm, ninja'd by Roybe.

 

[Space Dandy]

"They" are afraid? I for one will go to Open PvE if one such is introduced. Open players will just migrate. The "they" you are referring to must be FD. Yes, FD is afraid of adding a new mode, and rightly so.

When I say "they" I mean the pvper/pkers etc that are against a open pve.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

WOw really?
Open is already pve with limited pvp.
Jese guys use your heads. If you don't like pvp then you ave 2 options:
-don't play in heavily populated, known griefer locations
-or, make a group.

It shouldn't fall on the devs to warp the game to every little whiner's wants just because they can't spend a nanosecond figuring out how to remove the problem, and it needs to happen less and less.

Its not very limited and the consequences are kind of sad.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=233932 this here in the OP needs to happen.

 

[excalibus]

Players at Open will have slight disadvantage compared to players on Open PvE. If such an Open PvE is implemented, some bonus must be added to players playing in Open, as well as in Solo. Or just have some nerf on Open PvE. Otherwise, Open will be deserted for sure, it will dry up as Open PvE accumulates more players.


That means introducing Open PvE (which I think will take a lot of FD effort if they really try implement one) would just provide another set of pain on balancing modes, which I don't think they can afford. The FD's most likely action (from a software developers' point of view) is to take whichever that requires the fewest of changes (and hence lesser gotchas), provides a much better impact and doesn't introduce a lot of complexity. That means fixing Open security and not introducing yet another mode. Same goes with adding management tools for Private Groups, it takes a lot of effort for FD.

Just 2 cents from an armchair captain.

There is no need for 'incentives' to play any mode... and you saying that open will be deserted for sure is unfounded fear talking, as I have mentioned above, no one truely knows what sort of impact on open it will have... There are many that play open because they like the risk, and there are many that play in PG or solo because they want PVE only...

A multiplayer PVE Only environment is not giving some special 'benefits' to players, it's just a mode where PVP is either completely not possible, or as robert has suggested, is attemptable but will see the 'offenders' breaking the no PVP rule kicked out of that mode of play with automatic suspensions and repeat offenders possibly banned at an account level, so those players would be reinstanced in open mode.

I disagree on the amount of effort it would require to implement...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

WOw really?
Open is already pve with limited pvp.
Jese guys use your heads. If you don't like pvp then you ave 2 options:
-don't play in heavily populated, known griefer locations
-or, make a group.

It shouldn't fall on the devs to warp the game to every little whiner's wants just because they can't spend a nanosecond figuring out how to remove the problem, and it needs to happen less and less.

and what about those players that want a PVE only Multiplayer experience without the possibility of PVP?? What mode do they go to??? So if I don't want PVP at all, but I want to fly with other commanders, and participate in community events, you are telling me I cannot do that?

 

[capt_sparks]

and what about those players that want a PVE only Multiplayer experience without the possibility of PVP?? What mode do they go to??? So if I don't want PVP at all, but I want to fly with other commanders, and participate in community events, you are telling me I cannot do that?

Players who don't want PvP can stay on high security areas of the galaxy. Right now those secure areas are not that adequately secure and I believe FD will fix this.

CG security will depend on the CG's context. One can come up with a CG that needs to be done on anarchy areas of space.

Overall there is no need for a Open PvE mode. Players are free to venture on systems with varying security levels depending on their moods and wants.

 

[Midnight Sun]

Players who don't want PvP can stay on high security areas of the galaxy. Right now those secure areas are not that adequately secure and I believe FD will fix this.

So you want it like Eve then, where you can be blown up anywhere for lolz or money, high sec or not. How about if people want to play Eve they should go play Eve.

 

[capt_sparks]

So you want it like Eve then, where you can be blown up anywhere for lolz or money, high sec or not. How about if people want to play Eve they should go play Eve.

Here is the solution that I propose. You won't be blown up for lulz in a secure system.

Spoiler

If a hostile NPC/player attacks another player on a high security system, security service ships will spawn and attack the aggressor. These service ships will have weapon disablers only. That means the aggressor will take just a normal damage, but his weapons will quickly malfunction. The victim should survive and can escape, thanks to the security service. If the victim tries to be aggressive on the aggressor, the security service ships will act on the victim as well and disable his weapons.


Now, with weapons disabled, what if the aggressor rams instead? Well good luck to the aggressor ramming, the victim should have big chance on fleeing unscathed unless he deliberately wants to be rammed. Existing rules on any ship destruction can still apply.


To recap, the only required modification to the existing Open play will just be "spawning weapon-disabler security ships in the vicinity of attack in a secure system". That's all. It's easy to implement, not much any new rules introduced, not much complexity, no exploits to take advantage. Griefing becomes next to impossible.

 

[Midnight Sun]

Here is the solution that I propose....

Ok that should work except, for immersion related reasons the security ships won't insta-magically appear. Given a sufficiently large troll-force, the hapless victim could still be blown up. When Eve started there was this idea that high sec was safe, until bored players made it their mission to do what they liked wherever they liked. The devs upped the response capability until hostile actions in safe space were costly and suicidal and it made no difference, eventually they gave up trying to prevent it and just said, "nowhere is safe".

Given that game's experience I do not believe there is an immersion-compatible way of making high sec completely safe. Therefore we come to game modes where the option of safety can be hard coded. Those who want immersion could play normal open, and those whose suspension of disbelief can withstand the harmlessness of another player's guns could play open-pve. It's the only way to make everyone happy.

 

[capt_sparks]

Ok that should work except, for immersion related reasons the security ships won't insta-magically appear. Given a sufficiently large troll-force, the hapless victim could still be blown up. When Eve started there was this idea that high sec was safe, until bored players made it their mission to do what they liked wherever they liked. The devs upped the response capability until hostile actions in safe space were costly and suicidal and it made no difference, eventually they gave up trying to prevent it and just said, "nowhere is safe".

Given that game's experience I do not believe there is an immersion-compatible way of making high sec completely safe. Therefore we come to game modes where the option of safety can be hard coded. Those who want immersion could play normal open, and those whose suspension of disbelief can withstand the harmlessness of another player's guns could play open-pve. It's the only way to make everyone happy.

Once I tried attacking one of the security service ships roving a coriolis station. Suddenly new ships spawned (insta-magically appeared) and attacked me quite heavily and I barely got away. What I can gather with this experience is that spawning security service ships is already occuring on E: D and I think this can be used on a griefing encounter as well, this time using weapon disablers. This should apply not just on stations but system-wide.


With weapon disablers, the aggressor/s can't do any damage other than ramming. No amount of suicidal tendency can make them affect further damage to victims, and the victim should have 99% chance of surviving unless he is stationary or deliberately wants to be rammed.