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

[[VR]tailgunner30uk]

I'm working on formalising my Open-PvE "rulebook" proposal....

Can I offer a suggestion.

When An offence occurs, The screen shows Infraction in the notification area rather than Wanted. When the player next docks. If they feel that the infraction was unwarranted, they can go to the contacts screen and lodge an appeal with the "Pilots Federation". Obviously this would actually be directed at the support team. However, at that point an adjudication can be made from the network logs of the involved players, with even the possibility of statements taken? If the infraction is deemed to be unintentional and inadvertent the infraction can be removed or reduced. If the appeal fails the penalty can be adjusted if needs be depending on the severity of the incident. Keeping it in the game. The notification of judgement can even be displayed in the comms and notification areas.

Just a thought.

 

[Rampant]

Your arithmetic is in error. The poll shows clearly. Crystal clear, in fact, that there is no "vocal minority". That is a phrase you constructed out of your own bias. Next...

 

[excalibus]

Can I offer a suggestion.

When An offence occurs, The screen shows Infraction in the notification area rather than Wanted. When the player next docks. If they feel that the infraction was unwarranted, they can go to the contacts screen and lodge an appeal with the "Pilots Federation". Obviously this would actually be directed at the support team. However, at that point an adjudication can be made from the network logs of the involved players, with even the possibility of statements taken? If the infraction is deemed to be unintentional and inadvertent the infraction can be removed or reduced. If the appeal fails the penalty can be adjusted if needs be depending on the severity of the incident. Keeping it in the game. The notification of judgement can even be displayed in the comms and notification areas.

Just a thought.

if the infraction would cause a bounty and wanted status normally, that should still occur, I have no problem with 'infractions' being also logged in the local chat area, that could apply to the current open mode too ...

 

[Jason S]

In a true pve mode it should be impossible to do damage from one player to another player directly.

This should include ramming, players ramming each other would not damage each other, the ships would be like two bricks hitting each other but would not get damaged.

 

[excalibus]

In a true pve mode it should be impossible to do damage from one player to another player directly.

This should include ramming, players ramming each other would not damage each other, the ships would be like two bricks hitting each other but would not get damaged.

it could be handled that way sure, but then we have the 'cries' of invulnrability mode etc... roberts proposal does not stop players taking 'damage' but mittigates the damage a player can do on another and also can be used to enforce a no PVP policy without radically altering the 'immersion' that for some removing all damage would do...

 

[Falcon_D]

Hello,

I voted yes.
But I'm actually more for a group PvE only option.
You are right in saying that a number of popular MMOs provide a PvE only environment. If it was not for the fact that ED supported Solo mode I would not have even bought it. It was only a bit later that I found out about Mobius having started playing in Solo and Open.

Have fun, fly safe. o7

 

[Duedy]

I really believe that if they had 2 versions of open one as currently stands and a PvE only they will increase FD's player base in both options. I for one would have never given Elite a second look if the review said PvP open is your only option. I do and have played PvP only games Planetside 2 and Battlefield for example and I find them uninteresting very quickly I have tried CQC and wasn't for me. I like to mine and trade and maybe bounty hunt some NPCs at leisure and I want to be able to stop and admire the view without someone blowing me up while i take screenshots. This is the way I like to play for my entertainment.

Sure you might like to do other things and that's fine as long as its done with like minded players. PvP'ers main complaint is they can't stop solo and private groups from influencing their BGS. Well the only time I have seen influences is around CG systems and the systems around it when you have 3-4k players all buying the same commodity and thus the price drops. But that would be FD's fault for putting the CG there. maybe you should be focusing on getting CG's removed.

 

[Roland2]

it could be handled that way sure, but then we have the 'cries' of invulnrability mode etc... roberts proposal does not stop players taking 'damage' but mittigates the damage a player can do on another and also can be used to enforce a no PVP policy without radically altering the 'immersion' that for some removing all damage would do...

I don't disagree, but who is going to do the crying? The PvE player that wants a PvE mode, or the PvP player who doesn't?

Players who are against a PvE mode are going to cry no matter what form it takes. Also, as has been said many times, no one would be forced to play in an Open-PvE mode if it breaks there "immersion".

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

In a true pve mode it should be impossible to do damage from one player to another player directly.

This should include ramming, players ramming each other would not damage each other, the ships would be like two bricks hitting each other but would not get damaged.

i do not have an answer for ramming.... but, i would hate for Friendly Fire (and ideally collision damage) to be removed because part of the game is imo esp in a furbal, tactically policing how you fly and shoot.

as i said, not an easy fix for ramming but friendly fire i would consider a justice field (red dwarf) scenario where if you hit a player YOU take the damage you cause. its still "silly magic" but technically a player should not see it very often as we are not meant to be shooting each other, and it will still mean we have to think about where we are shooting.

 

[DHMeyer]

it could be handled that way sure, but then we have the 'cries' of invulnrability mode etc... roberts proposal does not stop players taking 'damage' but mittigates the damage a player can do on another and also can be used to enforce a no PVP policy without radically altering the 'immersion' that for some removing all damage would do...

The main problem with points systems or crime & punishment systems is that whilst adding to the immersion, they also create potential loopholes and opportunities to abuse them and as such require constant fixes, rethinking, tuning and so on. And at the same time they won't be seen as a good solution by many PVE players.
People who play in private PVE groups or solo essentially made a choice of creating a cutthroat galaxy that is less cutthroat than Open. They effectively made their gameplay less immersive and realistic and so are willing to suspend their disbelief in order to play this way. I'm under impression that people who play in Mobius are not interested in any hostile / combat interactions with other players at all or only in a situation when both sides agreed to fight each other in order to make PVP rare and meaningful.

In general current crime and punishment system seems to be fairly realistic. For sure it is a bit too soft on criminals (player and NPC alike) who really should be becoming outlaws, with no option to dock in the systems of the faction they committed crimes against. I also think FD could strengthen the security in those systems that are supposed to be more secure and I'm happy with any reasonable changes to the system of bounties and tweaking it. But I don't see how they can make sure PVP is rare and meaningful without some form of built in invulnerability. And then again, it's not something they have to change in the current Open mode (issues here are a completely different kettle of fish) but it would be good if they allowed PVE players some more choice.
They have introduced CQC for the PVP players and that's a nice gesture towards this sort of gameplay. If it's PVP combat somebody wants, there is a place now where they can find opponents and have fun. This still didn't stop some players from going after an easy prey. Because there will always be players interested in disrupting game time for others by hitting some easy targets as opposed of looking for challenging PVP opponents in an immersive PVP context. They are not interested in PVP, they are interested in harassing other players. Presence of such a group of players in the universe is much more unrealistic and immersion breaking than an invulnerability mode to which participants agreed by playing in Open PVE.

 

[smiths121]

Whilst I like the effort being put in to try and balance immersion and choice with an Open PvE mode, if implemented it should probably be players cannot damage players.

I am not sure what other people's opinions are, but I would expect the griefers (those that just want to cause grief to others) to hang out in Open PvE if it was possible to damage another player, not Open PvP (where by definition the players are up for interactions). If you set up rules, the griefers will find interesting ways to use them to grief. We can see they would have a preference for open pve from the morbius incident. We can see they take time to work out an exploit with the ramming + docking computer thread of a couple days ago. Open PvE is the magnet for griefers not Open PvP.


I also have concerns about splitting the modes for longevity of the BGS. If open is split "direction" for Open PvE and Open PvP can and I feel will diverge. This will ultimately lead to 2 seperate BGS.

Simon

Simon

 

[excalibus]

Whilst I like the effort being put in to try and balance immersion and choice with an Open PvE mode, if implemented it should probably be players cannot damage players.

I am not sure what other people's opinions are, but I would expect the griefers (those that just want to cause grief to others) to hang out in Open PvE if it was possible to damage another player, not Open PvP (where by definition the players are up for interactions). If you set up rules, the griefers will find interesting ways to use them to grief. We can see they would have a preference for open pve from the morbius incident. We can see they take time to work out an exploit with the ramming + docking computer thread of a couple days ago. Open PvE is the magnet for griefers not Open PvP.


I also have concerns about splitting the modes for longevity of the BGS. If open is split "direction" for Open PvE and Open PvP can and I feel will diverge. This will ultimately lead to 2 seperate BGS.

Simon

Simon

one of the main problems with the no damage model is that pvp'rs will argue that it is unfair because pve'rs won't need to check their fire on other commanders in CZ's, RES, NAV's etc... because they will not get a bounty for friendly fire etc...

That can be answered with a model that still responds to the 'act' but does pass on the damage... at leaast giving FF pvp'rs a bounty for assault...

The ship collision thing, that is a different problem to work through because ship collision models work against all aspects of the environment and they really need to work that way...

otherwise we could end up with say 2 griefer T9's requesting docking at the same time, flying towards the slot and just sitting there slowly moving forward and backwards across the slot or just inside the enterance and ships coming or going might not be able to get through... for example, where if that happens right now, a stronger hulled ship can force them out of the way through inflicting hull damage...

 

[WR3ND]

This is a tough one for me to decide on, but I eventually went with "no," as I do believe that it is at least somewhat the intent of the game designers for there to specifically be the risk of attacks by other players.

I fully acknowledged that other players might want a PVE only version of the game where they could still enjoy playing it with others and that there's nothing wrong with that.

My vote pivoted on the word "should." We aren't the designers of this game, so it isn't for us to say what it should be, just to make suggestions about what we'd like it to be.

 

[LameoveR]

what a nonsense.

 

[DHMeyer]

one of the main problems with the no damage model is that pvp'rs will argue that it is unfair because pve'rs won't need to check their fire on other commanders in CZ's, RES, NAV's etc... because they will not get a bounty for friendly fire etc...

That can be answered with a model that still responds to the 'act' but does pass on the damage... at leaast giving FF pvp'rs a bounty for assault...

The ship collision thing, that is a different problem to work through because ship collision models work against all aspects of the environment and they really need to work that way...

otherwise we could end up with say 2 griefer T9's requesting docking at the same time, flying towards the slot and just sitting there slowly moving forward and backwards across the slot or just inside the enterance and ships coming or going might not be able to get through... for example, where if that happens right now, a stronger hulled ship can force them out of the way through inflicting hull damage...

If the CZ, RES, NAV etc are meant to be PVP zones, then players can and will deal damage to other players (and NPCs). This should also include their wingmen.

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

This is a tough one for me to decide on, but I eventually went with "no," as I do believe that it is at least somewhat the intent of the game designers for there to specifically be the risk of attacks by other players.

I fully acknowledged that other players might want a PVE only version of the game where they could still enjoy playing it with others and that there's nothing wrong with that.

My vote pivoted on the word "should." We aren't the designers of this game, so it isn't for us to say what it should be, just to make suggestions about what we'd like it to be.

But the whole poll is just a suggestion. There is no way to say if FD decides to take it under consideration or act on it in any way. It's still for them to decide if they support the idea or not.

So you voted "no" but at the same time you say players should be able to enjoy PVE environment and there is nothing wrong with that. I have to say I'm a bit confused right now as to why you have voted "no" then...

 

[excalibus]

If the CZ, RES, NAV etc are meant to be PVP zones, then players can and will deal damage to other players (and NPCs). This should also include their wingmen.

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



But the whole poll is just a suggestion. There is no way to say if FD decides to take it under consideration or act on it in any way. It's still for them to decide if they support the idea or not.

So you voted "no" but at the same time you say players should be able to enjoy PVE environment and there is nothing wrong with that. I have to say I'm a bit confused right now as to why you have voted "no" then...

sorrry my mistype.... I meant PVE'rs not PVP'rs getting a FF bounty but no damage being passed on... this would be for a PVE only mode of course where no PVP should occur

 

[WR3ND]

..

But the whole poll is just a suggestion. There is no way to say if FD decides to take it under consideration or act on it in any way. It's still for them to decide if they support the idea or not.

So you voted "no" but at the same time you say players should be able to enjoy PVE environment and there is nothing wrong with that. I have to say I'm a bit confused right now as to why you have voted "no" then...

I didn't say they should be able to, I said I understand why they would want to and think they have valid reasons for wanting it. You see, just because (some) people want something, it doesn't mean they should have it.

 

[Rampant]

[h=1]Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen[/h]No, this just seems more pushing away the PVP when Frontier claims on their ED website (much to the chagrin of single player game lovers) "Epic Multiplayer." The website also mentions "cutthroat galaxy".

While I personally disagree that 4 people in a wing is Epic Multiplayer or thousands of players in isolated player instances can be considered 'Multiplayer', Braben asserts ED is Epic Multiplayer. If you can't handle losing a ship to a CMDR (as opposed to a mean NPC) go solo. I don't PVP unless I'm saving my skin, but we don't need additional PVE modes in an Epic Multiplayer game. imo.

When you say "we don't need additional PVE modes in an Epic Multiplayer game", what you actually meant to say was "I don't need additional PVE modes in an Epic Multiplayer game."

According to the poll attached to this thread, at least half of all players who could be bothered to respond would prefer the choice. So it would appear that "we" do want an official PvE mode added to the log in screen.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

When you say "we don't need additional PVE modes in an Epic Multiplayer game", what you actually meant to say was "I don't need additional PVE modes in an Epic Multiplayer game."

According to the poll attached to this thread, at least half of all players who could be bothered to respond would prefer the choice. So it would appear that "we" do want an official PvE mode added to the log in screen.

Cheerz

Mark H

indeed, his comment is about as accurate as me saying WE dont need a competitive MP mode at all outside of CQC and the game would be much better having multiplayer like payday 2.

however, just because *I* would be plenty happy with that, (and indeed i believe what i have put above is exactly how elite IV was originally anticipated going on articles i read - possibly over a decade ago now - I am not nuts enough to suggest that is what "we" the collective gamers want

 

[excalibus]

if poeople did not want a Multiplayer PVE environment, there would not be so much discussion on that aspect of gameplay and PVPers would not be declaring the 'death' of open if such a mode was made available on the main login screen...


The point is... even if only 10% of the total player base wanted a PVE only mode, that is still around 110 - 120 thousand players... Too big for the current private group mechanics to handle