Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen
- Thread starter excalibus
- Start date
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I voted no cause this poll if too general. If the OP would add PVE affects 5% or smthg related to OPEN then surely YES. So whoever wants to play in OPEN, gets 1000000% more risks compared to PVE, so s/he would get also 1000000% more benefits 
From my experience that should be applied. Cause currently it really affects negatively both sides.
For instance some totally unskilled players undermine the minor faction player group, hidden in solo mode, and I can't do a lot about it. I am sure people can verify the same experience for their minor faction player groups as well.
From my experience that should be applied. Cause currently it really affects negatively both sides.
For instance some totally unskilled players undermine the minor faction player group, hidden in solo mode, and I can't do a lot about it. I am sure people can verify the same experience for their minor faction player groups as well.
Last edited:
That's pretty much the only thing I want: for FD to add the missing features that they said would be in the game.
(Eg: In that video he says that the problem of 'griefing' (which he defines as someone in a powerful ship shooting everyone) would be solved by the game's security system)
Did DB or anyone from Frontier ever say what those different rules might be?
(I can't find anything... I've watched that video before, and he just echoes the Kickstarter FAQ entry where it just says "different rules")
All that means is that there are a rather large number of people who bought the game without first looking into what they were buying.
I'm one of those people, btw. In my excitement to see a new Elite game I threw £40 at the Kickstarter before reading the small-print.
I foolishly thought I was going to get "Elite 4: Online" - a game which would, purely because it was the fourth version of the series, encompass everything from Elite 3, 2, and 1; and add even more to it. I didn't get that game, but I'm not (too) bitter about it: the game I got is still enjoyable, just not what I envisaged.
I voted no cause this poll if too general. If the OP would add PVE affects 5% or smthg related to OPEN then surely YES. So whoever wants to play in OPEN, gets 1000000% more risks compared to PVE, so s/he would get also 1000000% more benefits
From my experience that should be applied. Cause currently it really affects negatively both sides.
For instance some totally unskilled players undermine the minor faction player group, hidden in solo mode, and I can't do a lot about it. I am sure people can verify the same experience for their minor faction player groups as well.
that is because the game is designed from the ground up and sold with the feature of every mode affecting the BGS... this thread is not about the BGS
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
thet said different rulesets ... they did not specify PVE OR PVP OR ANY OTHER... Just DIFFERENT... and we do not have that do we...
so again moot point...
To futher add to this... Frontier have tentatively mentioned that they want a dialog with regards to implementing a PVE mode for the game...
i refer you to zacs post in the linked thread
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=233916&page=7&p=3594774&viewfull=1#post3594774
my point is EZA, if you have to go to the lengths of trying to use the arguement that there is no written mention of PVE on the frontier website... etc... to try to backup an arguement for not including an Frontier Supported Open PVE mode for the game, when they have A) opened the dialog to discuss it and B) have never at any time ruled out such a mode of play... and in fact have promoted the 'play it your way' and the 'no right or wrong way to play' approach to the game then it just goes to show how desperate some people are to either choose to ignore the benefits of such a mode for helping consolidate the PVE players and possibly increase retention of players in the game or choose to push their own agenda ahead of what could well be a good overall change for the game...
Last edited:
i would put it to everyone that if the small minority of PVE players was 10% of the playerbase (estimated at between 1 million and 1.2 million actual players after accounting for up to 30% secondary and tertiary account purchases) then that would be between 100,000 and 120,000 players
if 'indications' of this poll (really I would not put a lot of reliance in them myself due to various factors with the forum polls) are anything to go buy, even if we halve the number of yes votes and added them to the no votes and extrapolated that, it would still be over 240,000 players that would want this mode... if we were to extrapolate the current poll figures of course it would be over half the player base...
Personally I would think, working towards retaining 240,000 players for future purchases of expansions and store sales is not something to be sneezed at in itself...
The current Open will not 'die' because of this mode being added. the current open will still have people playing traders, pirates, bounty hunters, explorers, combateers and powerplay in it...
if 'indications' of this poll (really I would not put a lot of reliance in them myself due to various factors with the forum polls) are anything to go buy, even if we halve the number of yes votes and added them to the no votes and extrapolated that, it would still be over 240,000 players that would want this mode... if we were to extrapolate the current poll figures of course it would be over half the player base...
Personally I would think, working towards retaining 240,000 players for future purchases of expansions and store sales is not something to be sneezed at in itself...
The current Open will not 'die' because of this mode being added. the current open will still have people playing traders, pirates, bounty hunters, explorers, combateers and powerplay in it...
I voted no cause this poll if too general. If the OP would add PVE affects 5% or smthg related to OPEN then surely YES. So whoever wants to play in OPEN, gets 1000000% more risks compared to PVE, so s/he would get also 1000000% more benefits
From my experience that should be applied. Cause currently it really affects negatively both sides.
For instance some totally unskilled players undermine the minor faction player group, hidden in solo mode, and I can't do a lot about it. I am sure people can verify the same experience for their minor faction player groups as well.
The most likely outcome of forcing more people into Open in order for them to have an even influence on the BGS is an increase in combat logging (both of the Allowed and Disallowed kind). That particular "problem" has already proven to be beyond FDev's capacity to police. At some point you're going to have to accept that players who don't want to be in your crosshairs are going to find ways to not be in your crosshairs.
The most likely outcome of offering better non-PvP options for those who want no part of PvP, but otherwise enjoy playing the game, is an increase in player satisfaction, and increase in total player population, and a decrease in the frequency of combat logging.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Exactly. Further, I think it will thrive. How would it be, being a Pirate in Open and knowing that if you interdict that trader you're closing in on, that he's someone who wants to pvp? Probably won't combat log, will he? Might even be able to put up a decent fight...
I voted no cause this poll if too general. If the OP would add PVE affects 5% or smthg related to OPEN then surely YES. So whoever wants to play in OPEN, gets 1000000% more risks compared to PVE, so s/he would get also 1000000% more benefits
From my experience that should be applied. Cause currently it really affects negatively both sides.
For instance some totally unskilled players undermine the minor faction player group, hidden in solo mode, and I can't do a lot about it. I am sure people can verify the same experience for their minor faction player groups as well.
And sadly there seems to be a lot of this mindset too... "I play in Open, Solo had hurt my powerplay, NO YOU CAN'T HAVE A GROUP TO PLAY WITH!". It does make a change from "your my content, come 'ere!" i guess.
FD won't or can't split the worlds (servers/P2Ps), so the PvErs must be punished!
So it could mean anything?
It could mean an 'ironman' or 'dead is dead' option for that group, for example.
Or an option where the only weapon available to use is the frag cannon.
Or an option where all ships show up as filled blocks on the scanner.
It doesn't automatically infer that there'll be a no-damage and/or no-collision option.
Before that post, which Zac was forced to make after the silly incursion into Mobius by SDC, the only time he's mentioned PvE on this forum is in relation to player groups and their preferred style of play (PvE or PvP).
I think that this post - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=226764&p=3583549&viewfull=1#post3583549 - by Sandro where he states "Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules." is more indicative of the desired direction of the game.
(I also think that "Lead Designer" trumps "Community Manager" in terms of game direction.)
The 'play it your way' and 'no right or wrong way to play' statements are within the confines of the framework of the game.
Otherwise, to take them to their logical extremes, there would no issue with "your way" being to use a money hack to give yourself unlimited credits. After all, if that's what you *want* and there's no wrong way to play, then why shouldn't you get it?
But, obviously, that would be a ridiculous request.
(I'm not saying that this (open pve) is a ridiculous request. I can see the obvious demand for it.)
I just don't think that it is aligned with Frontier's vision for the game, which I think is more important than what 'the community' want. There are so many other games which offer PvE servers or PvP flags. Elite's doing something different.
Why not enjoy that difference, rather than try and strongarm them into making Elite into every other game out there?
Another Sandro post (off-topic idea: let's make a Frontier Developments Top Trumps card deck! Sandro's 'vision' stat beats Zac's, but Zac's 'diplomacy' stat beats everyone's! ;-)) states:
"It also further stretches the difference between AI and players (which as a general principle I'd like to minimize), unless we had free re-buys from AI murders."
So if there was to be an Open PvE mode eventually, I would assume that the AI ships would be included in the same rules?
So, if the solution was a PvP flag toggle, I would expect to be able to deal no damage to AI traders or miners, because any sensible ship would have toggled that off before doing those activities.
Or, if the solution was to turn off weapon and collision damage, AI ships should also be included in that.
"Small percentage" is, according to the poll in this thread, 54.43% (and generally remains at this level). Which is a majority. Additionally, among the group who voted no, there were several people who changed their mind after reading the thread (just a few, but would add another couple of percent) and also large chunk of people who voted "no" voted so in favour of adjusting crime and punishment systems or finding other ways to make PVP "rare and meaningful".
Frontier might have not used PVE in their terminology, however, they did create a PVE mode. Secondly, they have been mentioning various game style, this also encompassing PVE.
Why do they have to listen? They don't have to. Their choice.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Yup... This self policing works like a charm, right?
This video shows the point of view of PVP gameplay and multiplayer gaming from the perspective of a person not very experienced when it comes to the subject...Because it sucks. Having a PvE mode will not make elite like every other game. It will make is usable.
This is a pretty stupid statement. The goal is to have a PvE environment, not just a player environment. In solo, not a single player can shoot me, or collide with me, does this mean the NPCs shouldn't be able to either? No, that would not be the Elite game.
Judging from the poll in this thread the percentage might not be that small, in fact if these results are any indication a small majority of the players actualy want a PvE option...
So who are you calling small?
OK, not small
Let me rephrase:Over half the people who bought the game didn't look at what they were purchasing beforehand.
-------
Please all have a read of this (very long) exchange between the senior designer of Diablo 2 and a vocal fan of the game who was unhappy with some game design decisions: http://www.diablowiki.net/Player_Kill#Max_Schaefer_Defends_PKing
I realise it's long, so let me pull some choice quotes out and paste them here inline:
"I disagree. Even the PKs in Diablo are engaging in a role-playing fantasy. I would hope that they aren't out killing people in real life.
Sure, some people will not welcome this aspect of the game, and would rather not have to deal with it. They can, with passworded games, single-player, and LAN games. I'll explain later why a PK switch would disallow real choices.
I'm fascinated by the sociological aspects of this game genre. In a sense, this is a less artificial environment than many real-life social constructs. People can really choose to be whoever they want to be in an on-line game. No matter how anti-social, no matter what "crimes" people commit, it's just a game, and when you're done, nothing is gained but memories, and nothing is lost but time."
"I take responsibility for the game-play results. The emotional reactions of the players are not my responsiblitly, however. People choose to play this game, and it is obviouly not necessary for survival. We have simply added the option of playing Diablo to people's lives. Nothing more."
"But yes, we do think we know what's best for our customers. We have to, we make games for a living! We're not putting out questionaires and making games based on the result. We're indulging in our own preferences and fantasies, and then making them public for those who choose to participate."
"Correct, the customer is not always right. We have no animosity towards anyone, but we feel we do know better than our customers how to make games. Perhaps it's arrogant, but how could we confidently enter three-year+ development cycles if we didn't think this way? Not that I'm comparing us to the masters, but did Picasso consult the public before painting? Was he a failure if the public didn't like his work? Obviously, what we do isn't near as important or historically significant as Picasso, but this is our creative expression, and as such it's a little self-indulgent."
"Here's the short version of why I think this doesn't work: We implement a PK switch, and the message is sent that the games that don't have PK turned off are specifically for PvP, and the others are PvM. PKers will all only invade the no-PK-switch games, rasing the percentage precipitiously, and upsetting the natural balance. People will think that if they want to play normally (fight monsters), they must use the PK switch. And their games will be just a tad more flat as a result.
We have a theory in the office that if we added the option of a button that made your character invincible, nearly everyone would push that button. They'd rampage accross the lands, killing everything with nary a worry. Then they'd get bored and put the game on the shelf, never to play again."
All of his statements can equally be applied to Elite.
Why are people trying to strongarm FDev into changing the modes? Something that has clearly been stated as non-negotiable!
This is the response to such an action..and the non-response that was posted.
At least now the powers that be have acknowledged that the lack of a true PvE mode is being looked at seriously.
The idea of a mixing of PvE and PvP was not something that was going to last...it never has in the past 30 years of gaming. Something happens, someone does something over the line of community standards. Generally in the 'we are going to blow up your game, and if you do not fix this, we will take our marbles and play in someone else's yard' method. In the meantime the game gets a rep for bad form and people stop buying it.
Ultima Online is one of the best historical case studies of what happens when PvE is embraced, rather than ignored. It kept the game alive, increased their sales drastically, and allowed for the game to thrive to current times.
You know what it was unable to do? Bring back the players that left because they hated the player interaction before the change.
This current situation, is bringing this issue to a head. In some respects, kudos to the 'invading group'. They will ultimately be rewarded with credit for bringing the PvE community together in more enjoyable ways than we currently have. I am uncertain if that is what they set out to do...but, ultimately, that is what they succeeded in doing.
As far as Frontier's vision...there is the public desire that David has put forth...a game with meaningful and rare PvP with a strong disincentive towards griefing...and the response that griefing sucks but is not against our rules. They cannot have it both ways.
I understand, as much as any, that there are important issues within the game that need to be addressed...and have been a fairly vocal supporter of many of those repairs that need to be addressed. However, this particular set of activities and publicly stated future goals, reaches beyond the desired repairs and threatens to damage the complete future of the game. If people leave now, out of anger, 'moral outrage', etc. historical cases have shown they will never return...regardless of how much better the game becomes. Without people...anything else that occurs within the game becomes meaningless.
Your goal might be to have a PvE environment.
Frontier's goal is to provide a game with "plausible and consistent" rules where the "difference between AI and players" is minimised.
Not according to the poll results as they currently stand.
Heheh - some people might feel that there should only be one online mode for everyone - but how many of those people start threads calling for a boycott?!
This remains to be seen. They've only stated that they listen to the community, not that they'll bend to their will...
For all any of us know, the post by Zac on your boycott thread was simply intended to calm people down a little bit, after which they'll continue on as planned...
EVE Online doesn't count?
Do they stop buying it? Really?
You might imagine that they stop buying it, but without any data to back that up, it's only your perception that other people behave in the way you do.
Ultima Online is the pretty much the only case study of what happens when PvE is embraced. It can hardly be said to be thriving to this day.
Just like EVE Online is the only case study of what happens when PvE and PvP are embraced in the same universe.
It could be also said that World of Warcraft's drastic loss of players can be a case study of what happens when PvE is embraced at the expense of PvP.
Oh, that explains why NPCs are griefing so much. But Frontier's goal should be my money.
As it is, we have a single player game with the detriments of being an online-multiplayer game. PvE mode could also encourage people to play with each other, rather than stick to groups, where there is little random element.
Oh I missed the best Max Schaefer quote!
Here you all are - read it and take it to heart:
"Diablo II and the expansion are the games that we at Blizzard want to play. That is our formula for success. Companies that design games based on focus groups, marketing opinions, and even fan input do not succeed. Although hearing the opinions of others are valuable to us, every design decision must pass the test of whether or not WE would want it in the game. In many cases, we've changed our minds after hearing compelling arguments. But we've decided that PKing is part of the Diablo universe. We are well aware that this does not please everyone. However, you are right: we are not apologetic about it. Not at all. Sure, we could implement a PK switch. It's a trivial coding task. But we wouldn't be being true to ourselves, and our goals as gamemakers."
(from http://www.diablowiki.net/Player_Kill#Max_Schaefer_Defends_PKing )
Here you all are - read it and take it to heart:
"Diablo II and the expansion are the games that we at Blizzard want to play. That is our formula for success. Companies that design games based on focus groups, marketing opinions, and even fan input do not succeed. Although hearing the opinions of others are valuable to us, every design decision must pass the test of whether or not WE would want it in the game. In many cases, we've changed our minds after hearing compelling arguments. But we've decided that PKing is part of the Diablo universe. We are well aware that this does not please everyone. However, you are right: we are not apologetic about it. Not at all. Sure, we could implement a PK switch. It's a trivial coding task. But we wouldn't be being true to ourselves, and our goals as gamemakers."
(from http://www.diablowiki.net/Player_Kill#Max_Schaefer_Defends_PKing )
As far as the boycott...this is no different than creating a public poll to vote on. If there was a way to do this without all the problems such things have...at least on these forums...that would be just as acceptable.
As far as your question to Eve goes, that's a nice ironic use of the example, since from the opening of these forums the cry has been 'If you want to play Eve go there..this isn't Eve.'
The devs of UO stated that the game was slated to close...that the opening of a PvE server saved the game...and that they could never bring back the original PVE players they lost.
As I said, this is a historical case study. Things MIGHT be different now...but, as a business person, I wouldn't want to risk my business on this possibility. Fdev can see the issue differently. It is their call at this point.
They have always said that this game would be a niche game. There expectations of NOT supporting the idea of PvE modes would limit the game to people that can accept this idea. Obviously, then, all the people that do not want Eve=E: D have a rethinking of what the game has become.
However, if that was the case..then I would expect more emphasis on real PvP...and not the current model of PvE trophy collection between groups...basically, something similar in structure to PvP arenas and Eve..rather than what we have currently. Time will tell...and their ultimate response to the community will be telling.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
So the removal of the public auction house and the subsequent retooling of the game of Diablo 3 was because they designed the game to be retooled from the beginning!
Basically, all companies in a market will continue to try to maintain or increase profits. Allowing a game to force people to leave, is unhealthy for both the game and the company involved.
LOL! Really great example there.
Last edited:
"Being safe from evil is, in my mind, an uneven tradeoff for the fact that you don't get to be heroes anymore, in that you can just opt out of fighting evil. It may be nobody wants to be heroes except when it doesn't count, when it isn't challenging, that people would rather fight 'pretend evil' than the real thing, but I don't personally believe that. I still think people are better than that."
-Ralph Koster, Ultima Online
-Ralph Koster, Ultima Online
Last edited: