I am not sure I understand the purpose for your question. Neither of your options currently exist, Since there is no guarantee that all 100 who agree to the "rules" will follow them. If tools existed to prevent PvP attacks (Note: I didn't say griefing), then the smaller group would probably be preferred. The question I have is, where are these 100 players coming from, how would one find them? Go in the current open? Not a chance. Going into a PvE mode where I know I won't be shot as soon as I launch would be a much more attractive possibility.
Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen
- Thread starter excalibus
- Start date
I am not sure I understand the purpose for your question. Neither of your options currently exist, Since there is no guarantee that all 100 who agree to the "rules" will follow them. If tools existed to prevent PvP attacks (Note: I didn't say griefing), then the smaller group would probably be preferred. The question I have is, where are these 100 players coming from, how would one find them? Go in the current open? Not a chance. Going into a PvE mode where I know I won't be shot as soon as I launch would be a much more attractive possibility.
The implementation of the mode would be entirely up to Frontier, what has been put forward in my OP was just a couple of options, one option based on the current rules of Mobius enforced through game mechanics (allowing PVP in certain areas / zones) and the other option was a No Damage PVE only mode...
Others have chimed in with alternative approaches to mittigating PVP damage and griefing while still allowing for the current possibilities of taking damage from other players but with real consequences for the agressors and limited impact on the victim of such attacks...
How it is implemented, again would be entirely up to frontier... Personally I would love to see the 'PVP possible in CERTAIN ZONES' scenario (CZ's WZ'a Powerplay zones like crime sweeps etc) while mittigating the impact to victims outside of those zones and using a mechanic that ends up with those trying to force PVP on players outide of the PVP zones back into normal mixed open mode as per robert maynards suggestion of instance changing and pilots licence points system...
That would see me moving into such a multiplayer experience from the curren open mode as I do enjoy PVP when it is in context...
I also understand that there are players who, for their own equally valid reasons, do not / can not engage in any form of PVP but want to play in a multiplayer experience, so I would be just as happy for an Open PVE mode to be completely void of any PVP... I would in that case probably stay in the current open mode...
Note that a mode completely free of PVP will not remove a need for groups like mobius where PVP is allowed in the context of the group rules.
Actually, as has been pointed out numerous times in this and other threads on this topic, in the kickstarter they planned for multiple public groups with different rulesets, not precluding a Multiplayer PVE Only ruleset, so yes those that kickstarted definitely did know what they were getting into. PVP is not the only play style and not the only way to play the game...
In fact there is no 'right or wrong' way to play the game and people were sold (and still sold) a game that they can 'play it their way', 'blaze their own trail' and all that, so in that regards, those wanting a PVE only multiplayer experience are currently unable to play the game their way...
Do you have a counter arguement to make??? You are entitled to vote no, you are entitled to you opinion, but don't state your opinion as fact...
I'm too lazy to dig through the Kickstarter stuff, but taken from the steam page description under the heading "Massively Multiplayer" and again at the Elite Dangerous website,
"Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous' vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy."
The only other mention of a mode is "alone in solo."
Also, this under "Combat" at the Elite Dangerous website,
"Why buy cargo when you can pirate it from a fellow Commander? Why explore distant systems when the data can be stolen? The galaxy is filled with vulnerable pilots, but The Pilots Federation takes care of its own. Commanders who go rogue will accrue a bounty from The Pilots Federation, making them fair game for a would-be bounty hunter in Elite Dangerous' connected galaxy."
Last edited:
sorry I did not buy the game through steam so was not sold on what was written on the steam shop page... and the fact many other players also did not buy through steam would mean they saw similar advertising to what I saw...
And yes you can have all that you mention above, that is what the current Open Mixed Mode is for...
I cannot help it if you are too lazy to look through the kickstarter stuff... it has been posted earlier in this thread as well... so perhaps you only need to look back in the previous 87 pages?
As of right now you cannot stel exploration data and hopefully that will be a feature down the track as that was also mentioned in the kickstarter and so on...
And none of that precludes being able to play in a multiplayer PVE only mode where you can do all those things to NPC's either does it?
direct from the frontier store
actually is says I can fly alone, or I can fly with friends, it does not say I can fly with people who I am not friends with does it... if you want to be 'technical' about it... open should not exist just solo and group play right?
Now before people get their knickers in a knot, we are not asking for the current open mode to change, (beyond the already being discussed crimes and punishment system improvements FD are discussing with us players), we are not asking for a magic no damage button and have every one in the same mixed open mode either... A simple request for a seperate PVE Multiplayer environment that is what is being discussed here...
Yeah, the consent on/off thing sounds okay. So long as unflagged players can neither be injured by or injure flagged players, it'd be fine.
Profanity, friction? More people might be in open to be tempted and cajoled into pvp duels, but I doubt there'd be many takers for a 4-FDL vs adder fight. If it causes profanity.. who exactly is that on? It's not on the non-flagged player and it's not on the developer. That issue falls directly on the shoulders of the swearer.
Last edited:
Haha. I think you may be interpreting it in the way that you like. A debate with you us rather pointless then. But I was fully aware of what I was buying into with Elite.
I do not think that I am interpreting anything the 'way I like' to be honest... and to debate a point is to put across and 'argue for' our own interpretation of a point isn't it?
I was just pointing out that if you wish to use what is on the steam store page to make your point, that an equally valid point for 'removing open altogether' could be made based on what is written on the developers store page... Not that I would want them to remove the current open mode at all personally, we all know that would be detrimental to the game...
Again I understand where you are coming from and do respect your decision to vote no and why you did and your opinion on the matter, that is fine as we are all entitled to that.
My personal stake in this is not even for my own style of gameplay to be blunt, it's because
A) There seems to me to be enough evidence of a real need for this type of choice for all players and not just those that come to the forums or know about PVE private groups.
B) The current group system and the events involving group rules over the last year and a bit clearly demonstrate that currently having a PVE only mode is unobtainable through the private group system.
C) To bring the currently fragmented PVE community together
D) I do believe that this choice would help improve player retention and by doing that, be a long term benefit to the game as a whole.
There are already PVE servers in the form of private groups (such as Mobius) and solo. Private groups can also act as PvP-heavy servers.
PvP is not always griefing . Pirate CMDRs and CQC are non-griefing PvP combat.
Griefing is not always PvP. Buying a station out of a commodity, loitering in the mail slot, AFK on landing pads, continual private message comms, or continual interdictions are examples of griefing that are non-PVP.
FDev hasn't yet instituted internally consistent deterrents or punishments for open world, non-roleplay, PvP combat griefing.
These deterrents and punishments could be in the form of:
- denied landing permits in systems,
- higher and more lingering bounties
- more aggressive/capable/responsive
- bounties that apply within a system, minor power, and major power
- nav beacons that get locked out of player FSD drives
PvP is not always griefing . Pirate CMDRs and CQC are non-griefing PvP combat.
Griefing is not always PvP. Buying a station out of a commodity, loitering in the mail slot, AFK on landing pads, continual private message comms, or continual interdictions are examples of griefing that are non-PVP.
FDev hasn't yet instituted internally consistent deterrents or punishments for open world, non-roleplay, PvP combat griefing.
These deterrents and punishments could be in the form of:
- denied landing permits in systems,
- higher and more lingering bounties
- more aggressive/capable/responsive
- bounties that apply within a system, minor power, and major power
- nav beacons that get locked out of player FSD drives
Fisrtly, the current situation with groups is that they are not easily managable... there are no real group management tools in place... fact...
Secondly, there are players who 'for various valid reasons' do not wish to either engage in combat with other players nor wish the be made to have to combat other players simply because they wish to play the game, and there is nothing wrong with that style of play as there is no 'right way' to play the game...
Thirdly, the crimes and consequences needs looking at but not only for PVP players but for all modes of play IMHO... it is lacking in consequences across the board... and very much so for gankers / griefers in the current open...
No one is trying to take away from PVP players... all we want is a valid option for PVE only players who want to play in a multiplayer environment that does not require group administrators, finding a group and applying to join etc only to have PVP forced on them from players breaking the groups gentlemans agreed rules... Ergo a PVE Multiplayer OPEN mode is what is needed to solve the issue once and for all...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The same can indeed be said of Open - it's an open group with a potentially large population the vast majority of whom you will never interact with - that is presented on the launcher as a mode.
Humans don't make the rules in Open - the rules are coded into the game, i.e. fines, bounties, etc. - anything else is role-play of some form. The rules of an Open-PvE mode would be different than Open, of course. If a rule-set does not 100% satisfy players then they would choose to move to a different mode - three existing options are available. An Open-PvE might not rely on PvP flag, indeed I hope it doesn't as I see that as a guaranteed way for griefers to affect PvE players, but simply ignore any damage caused by players. Intent can only ever be guessed at - even if the other player communicates.
You can find several descriptions of the game, each saying a different thing, as well as various interviews with the developers and FD team statements to lean on. You have shown yourself that if one statement doesn't suit your needs, you can look for another one, firstly mentioning the kickstarter info, then retracting and finding another bit of marketing write-up to suit your needs.
This is still not changing the fact that players have the right to voice their opinion regarding the game they purchased and spend hours playing every day and week. The poll here shows that majority of the players would like to see an Open PVE being implemented. If you assume Frontier sold 1.5 mil copies of the game, then 817800 players would like to see ED with and Open PVE and 682200 do not see the need for that. Before you say "but 1.5 mil players didn't vote", the poll here is as accurate as any poll done before any political elections, so I'd risk a guess that it pretty well represents the views of the player base.
And of course, there is no obligation for Frontier to act on this poll in any way. It's their game, their clients and their choice.
I have not been attacked in open so far. Coming from Ultima like games, I'm voting no for two reasons.
n1, It feels unnecessary when we already have the options of playing solo and private. The game is marketed as an open world sandboxy mmo, flying in open with the risk looming over you is part of the experience. If it's too much you have solo and private. I hate to say the word carebear but seriously, don't go that way Frontier, please.
n2, With the instancing it's already hard enough finding random players in systems to interact with considering how many we are. Adding another "walled off" option is just gonna make things worse.
n1, It feels unnecessary when we already have the options of playing solo and private. The game is marketed as an open world sandboxy mmo, flying in open with the risk looming over you is part of the experience. If it's too much you have solo and private. I hate to say the word carebear but seriously, don't go that way Frontier, please.
n2, With the instancing it's already hard enough finding random players in systems to interact with considering how many we are. Adding another "walled off" option is just gonna make things worse.
you do understand the problem with private groups right now don't you? perhaps not... PG's for PVE players are growing to the point of being unmanageable with the current group toolset.
PG PVE players are currently spread across multiple groups which makes it even harder to see other players in the same areas of space as you...
By adding a PVE mode for the game on the login screen, a lot of players from those groups would likely move over to that mode of play and I would think that a number of solo PVE players may well be inclined to play in a PVE multiplayer mode as well as some I have spoken with said that they do not play in groups because groups cannot enforce NO PVP at this time...
What if, lore-wise, FSD interdiction and the "flight assist" non-Newtonian flight dynamics are connected? This could potentially be a way to satisfy hardcore science nerds like me, as well as a way to address the PvP vs PvE debate. Make "flight assist" arcady dog-fighting model contigent on being within the FSD "bubble" of nearby ships. If you can escape the bubble, Newtonian physics switches on and you can accelerate away from foes in a Newtonian manner, making your pursuer have a much harder time destroying you.
In other words, have two different flight models. The arcade type flight model used for PvP fights, and a Newtonian model that would really aid in exploring planetary surfaces. I want to be able to enter a real Newtonian orbit around large planets. You could still dog fight in the Newtonian flight model, but it would be a lot harder. On the other hand, if you want the dogfighting experience, you could turn on the space-warping effects that lead to flight assist and the dog-fighting type flight model. This would effectively increase the challenge of PvP players hunting PvE players, but not make it impossible. There could be a mini-game akin to interdiction involved in getting a target ship within your pseudo warp bubble. It's kind of like interdiction. Around stations and in resource extraction sites, these pseudo-warp bubbles are used as a tool to aid in navigation around such objects (anyone who has played Orbiter knows that docking to stations in a real Newtonian flight model can be difficult). So it's normal to use this bubble as a type of flight assist. But if you want to turn it off, and truly experience high velocities and Hohmann transfers and other orbital mechanics, you can.
In other words, have two different flight models. The arcade type flight model used for PvP fights, and a Newtonian model that would really aid in exploring planetary surfaces. I want to be able to enter a real Newtonian orbit around large planets. You could still dog fight in the Newtonian flight model, but it would be a lot harder. On the other hand, if you want the dogfighting experience, you could turn on the space-warping effects that lead to flight assist and the dog-fighting type flight model. This would effectively increase the challenge of PvP players hunting PvE players, but not make it impossible. There could be a mini-game akin to interdiction involved in getting a target ship within your pseudo warp bubble. It's kind of like interdiction. Around stations and in resource extraction sites, these pseudo-warp bubbles are used as a tool to aid in navigation around such objects (anyone who has played Orbiter knows that docking to stations in a real Newtonian flight model can be difficult). So it's normal to use this bubble as a type of flight assist. But if you want to turn it off, and truly experience high velocities and Hohmann transfers and other orbital mechanics, you can.
ummm I don't think that would be something for a PVE only mode ... and in reality... 2 totally different flight models I don't think would be so easy to implement... would be better of leaving that out I personally think...
How about this viewpoint:
Frontier have never officially used the word "PvE" in relation to the game.
(search google for: pve site:www.frontier.co.uk OR site:www.elitedangerous.com )
(go to https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/description and search the page for the text 'pve')
The only people talking about PvE are the players.
(search google for: pve site:frontier.co.uk OR site:elitedangerous.com )
Why should Frontier bend to the will of a small percentage of people and completely change their vision of the game?
If these people wanted a PvE game, then why didn't they buy a game that actually advertised PvE gameplay?
Why buy a game that makes no mention of PvE, and then later try and persuade the developers to add it?
An analogy: I enjoy flying the big transport planes in Planetside 2. I'm not shooting anyone, just flying about and looking around: playing versus the environment.
Would it be reasonable for me to keep lobbying the developers to add a mode to the game where I can just fly about without taking damage from other players?
Or would it be reasonable for me to be told to go and play FSX if I like flying so much?
Frontier have never officially used the word "PvE" in relation to the game.
(search google for: pve site:www.frontier.co.uk OR site:www.elitedangerous.com )
(go to https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/description and search the page for the text 'pve')
The only people talking about PvE are the players.
(search google for: pve site:frontier.co.uk OR site:elitedangerous.com )
Why should Frontier bend to the will of a small percentage of people and completely change their vision of the game?
If these people wanted a PvE game, then why didn't they buy a game that actually advertised PvE gameplay?
Why buy a game that makes no mention of PvE, and then later try and persuade the developers to add it?
An analogy: I enjoy flying the big transport planes in Planetside 2. I'm not shooting anyone, just flying about and looking around: playing versus the environment.
Would it be reasonable for me to keep lobbying the developers to add a mode to the game where I can just fly about without taking damage from other players?
Or would it be reasonable for me to be told to go and play FSX if I like flying so much?
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}