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

[excalibus]

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.

I understand what you are saying... and I know sandro's view on the way forward....

That view forward can be accommodated without a need for a zero player damage mode... in fact I would be more than happy with a PVE mode where player damage still occurs, but comes with harsh ramifications for players who deal that damage as that is the point, to make it so the ramifications for the mode negate the desire for PVP....

Roberts suggestion on the instancing aspect is a good example of that, you go to interdict a player out of SC, no problem you are removed from the PVE instance and put back into the current Open Mode with a suspension (timeout) before you can rejoin the PVE mode, but the PVE 'victim' you were interdicting sees an interdiciton 'win' or even just sees an interdiction stop (I have seen that when NPC's tried to interdict me too close to a planet before where they drop out and i keep cruising on)

As for in a zone, such as a rez etc, sure you can have friendly fire damage still effecting the player, with the bounty mechanics, and that would go towards the 'pilots licence' points, security responses could be higher for example, well except for haz rez but then bounty hunters could 'pop into them' and be enough of a response that they force the player firing on other player(s) to flee or be destroyed, as soon as they either flee or get destroyed they are re-instanced into the current open mode with a 'somwhate longer' timout... Same for if they run out of licence points, on their next jump or should they dock at the station, when they go to access the station services they can be 'reinstanced'... Ramming could be taken the same way with both pilots involved in the 'ram' losing some points... the whole grief ramming issue affects both all modes except solo as it stands right now and so needs to be addressed across all modes for sure...

All this can be done in such a way as to retain 'immersion' and let's face it most PVP players would not go into a PVE mode to try to PVP if they know it is going to end up with them possibly ultimately banned from that mode altogether...

Griefers will try, they do now anwyay so that is again something that is already happening in other modes (open and groups)... The griefer / griefing issue is a seperate issue that affects all players and is something frontier need to deal with in a manner that makes it clear what is and what is not acceptable... weather that is through enhanced game mechanics or other methods is up to them...

Of course things can be taken to extremes, as we both know... AI can be improved and that would mean they would close the gap between player vs player and player vs AI experiences and I believe that a lot of PVE players would be hoping they improve the AI, yes I know there is no way I can back that up with stats but it is a feeling I do have as a mostly PVE open player myself and others have said they would be encouraged by better AI...

The point with regards to the groups with different rulesets. those rulesets can be anything... Personally I would love to see a check box ruleset system in place, where you can select PVE and PVP and a myriad of 'options' on what type of PVP, Where it can occur, etc that is enforced through game mechanics, wether those mechanics are handled through instancing, through damage control, through NPC responses, through the 'licensing' system or some other system none of us have thought of, and give groups an option to be public or private, with public groups being listed in a scroll box and a group description generated based on the rulesets the group was created with, so when you select 'groups' you would have a choice of private or public with private groups being searchable if you know part of the name like we have now and public groups being 'listed'...

For that to occur there would be a fair bit of redesign work on how groups are currently configured and for public groups there would or rather should be a mechanism in place that requires multiple commanders to become 'admins' for the group creation to occur, so public groups would need to go through a lobby system where they get added to the group list either by frontier manually or through an automated system once enough commanders have been allocated as admins to the group.

The other issue mentioned recently is that private groups have a hard cap which according to frontier cannot be altered or it will break the BGS and the system as a whole... They did not say what that cap was, and if it is lower than the current open mode of play (a number of people are suggesting it's 64K) where open play does not have that limitation then really, creating a PVE mode private group is only a stop gap measure... and an FD supported PVE mode should be implemented instead because otherwise we will be having these same issues and discussions down the track

 

[Roland2]

I voted no...

I think instead the game should offer a Crime and Punishment system such that a CMDR can play the game in a more "secure" fashion if they wish, knowing an attack from another CMDR is unlikely. Only if they undertake more risky routes, or missions/tasks which promote PvP should they then find themselves at odd with other CMDRs...


Ultimately I'd like to see SOLO/GROUP players able to play in OPEN, fairly sure in the knowledge that they will not encounter PvP unless they choose the areas/tasks/missions that "offer" it... It wouldn't be a 100% guarantee, but close enough!

"close enough" in your opinion, certainly not in mine. "fairly sure" is not a PvE mode. As I have said before, punishing a murderer doesn't help the dead people at all.

 

[Wavey]

The other issue mentioned recently is that private groups have a hard cap which according to frontier cannot be altered or it will break the BGS and the system as a whole... They did not say what that cap was, and if it is lower than the current open mode of play (a number of people are suggesting it's 64K) where open play does not have that limitation then really, creating a PVE mode private group is only a stop gap measure... and an FD supported PVE mode should be implemented instead because otherwise we will be having these same issues and discussions down the track

Mobius is capped now at 20k ,seems thats the max that a PG can support without problems

 

[Cmdr Cunomaglus]

I voted no...

I think instead the game should offer a Crime and Punishment system such that a CMDR can play the game in a more "secure" fashion if they wish, knowing an attack from another CMDR is unlikely. Only if they undertake more risky routes, or missions/tasks which promote PvP should they then find themselves at odd with other CMDRs...


Ultimately I'd like to see SOLO/GROUP players able to play in OPEN, fairly sure in the knowledge that they will not encounter PvP unless they choose the areas/tasks/missions that "offer" it... It wouldn't be a 100% guarantee, but close enough!

As a purely PvE (mostly in Solo, occasionally in PG) player, I want to see improved crime and punishment - applicable to NPCs as well as players - too, but no matter how impressive, responsive or severe the punishment gets, "probably PvE as long as you don't do anything interesting" isn't going to be in any way attractive to a PvEer. While your (and my, and many others) desire for improved crime and punishment is a potential solution to a problem, it's more or less irrelevant to this particular problem.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

in fact I would be more than happy with a PVE mode where player damage still occurs, but comes with harsh ramifications for players who deal that damage as that is the point, to make it so the ramifications for the mode negate the desire for PVP....

yep this is how i would like to see it done personally (as above).......

possibly add a set amount of time where a player can forgive and not press charges as it were friendly fire

That would be my prefered choice

however failing that then 2nd up choice for me would be a justice field type thing where hitting a player makes you take the damge

and then in last place for me it would be FF off.. i personally would not like that really - tho if it was the only way then i would take it over not having a pve mode

 

[excalibus]

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.

I have not played diablo online myself... but have played and indeed own 1 and 2 of the game, I enjoyed it immensely, playing offline... I am going to respond to the quotes you have mentioned... but to be honest I am short on time for the next few nights so won't get to look at the actual article you linked to until (my) saturday afternoon...

I think you will find that a lot of the PVE players for ED are not asking for a PVP / PVE button where we all play in the same mode (I know some are), I do agree some would want a mode where PVE only means no damage from players, but I do honestly think most would be more than happy with a damage mittigation mode, such as proposed by Robert Maynard earlier in this thread, so it would not be player invulnerablility at all... but would be with ramifications to keep the genuine PVP players out and will result in PKers ending up being banned from the mode altogether in time...

As one commander put it in another thread, and as others have expressed similar reasons over the last year and a half (and this is something serious to consider for PVP players objecting to a Multiplayer PVE only mode) some players CANNOT psycholigically seperate the 'commander character' from being a real person, and the player has had enough real life trauma due to 'various' real life events that killing or being killed by another real human being causes some serious ongoing problems for them, at the moment a lot of 'those' players are forced to play in SOLO while some do play in private groups with few people they trust because they want to see other commanders but not engage in combat against them. This sort of mode would allow for those players and others who for other variety of reasons do NOT want to be engaged in PVP or engage in PVP themselves a way to play the game the way they want to play....

Think on this for a moment... We can all be selfish, self serving and self centred, it's human nature to be that way, humanity is also defined by its empathy, which is enables us the ability to see beyond ourselves and see the various needs of the community around us and embrace ways to improve that community as a whole without leaving anyone behind...

I have stated numerous times, and will do so again for any 'new readers / posters' I play in OPEN, I have played MOSTLY OPEN since I brought the game in Beta 1, I enjoy PVE and some PVP and have really enjoy seeing other commanders in my area of space and meeting them etc... I enjoy being pirated, and I enjoy community goals and I have only gone into solo once for a community goal and that was delivering 3 weeks worth of exploration data to Rong Lui (I hope I got his name right lol)... This request for an OPEN Multiplayer PVE mode on the login screen is not about my style of play, I would most likely stay in the current open mode of play, it is for the many existing players who have been forced into Private Group or who have had to play SOLO because PG's cannot guarantee no PVP, it is for the players yet to come into the game, to give them a choice if they wish to play in a PVE Multiplayer environment.

Respect o7

 

[DHMeyer]

The issues you raised can be fixed on Open by fixing security. If a hostile player/NPC attacks a player (noob or not) in a secure system, an NPC security police immediately responds and quickly disables the hostile ship's weapons, as well as take normal damage. The hostile player cannot retaliate, and ramming should be easy to avoid.

Fixing in Open also means there is no need for another mode. Solo and Private Groups are sufficient for every other need.

I sort of have another suggestion to make and I think we should make a poll of it and an official suggestion for Frontier as well. And that would be: remove Open, just leave Solo, Private groups and Arena. Since the Arena is sufficient for every PVPer's need, there is no need for another mode that would allow PVP. And since Solo and Private Groups are sufficient for every other need, that makes Open completely obsolete and a waste of Frontier's resources.

 

[excalibus]

How is this different from an A rated NPC in a powerful ship also being able to destroy a weak ship quickly?

I've had PA-spewing NPC Anacondas destroy my Fed Assault Ship in seconds with lucky module hits.

Like Sandro said: "ship destruction is part of the intended risk of flying a ship in Elite: Dangerous"

PVE players have no problem with being killed or killing NPC's... some have real problems when it comes to the same situation with another human being...

 

[DHMeyer]

(...)I voted for yes a few days ago but changed my mind. Leave the modes as they are, just make it nearly impossible to attack someone in mid/high security with exceptions for PP, conflict zones, compromised nav beacons and hazardous RES. (...)

The question is if enforcing such changes in the current Open is a good idea. I mean there is no way to please everybody, but my guess is that PVP oriented players will complain that it makes PVP near impossible. I think that leaving Open with full PVP across the galaxy makes sense as there are players who enjoy that gaming environment and creating some Open / Public Group with limited PVP also makes sense.

 

[excalibus]

Mobius is capped now at 20k ,seems thats the max that a PG can support without problems

The problem (as I read it) that Mobius had was with regards to the user list being so long it was causing server time outs - correct me if I am wrong anybody...

During those discussions FDev chimed in explaining that the HARD CAP had not been reached, but confirmed there was a hard cap and that Mobius still had a ways to go before they would reach the hard cap.
The also stated in the same discussion that the hard cap could not be raised as raising it would break the BGS and indeed break the other modes of play...

They did not say what that hard cap number is


and my apologies to everyone for the wall of texts today :/

 

[DHMeyer]

(...)

Stop being reasonable! I run out of +Reps to give you...

 

[excalibus]

yep this is how i would like to see it done personally.......

possibly add a set amount of time where a player can forgive and not press charges as it were friendly fire

That would be my prefered choice

2nd up choice for me would be a justice field type thing where hitting a player makes you take the damge

and then in last place for me it would be FF off.. i personally would not like that really - tho if it was the only way then i would take it over not having a pve mode

Mike I do like your idea of the 'justice field' approach but I am not sure how 'others' would view it... as it would seem at odds with the current situation of bounty and then response from authority in the other modes...

What I would think would be an extremely heightened police response to what we currently have, where say it is just a short burst .. glancing shot... and NO player destroyed... then the existing authority would then engage the pilot, or if none a couple of authority or bounty hunter ships would drop in after 10 - 20 seconds to engage the pilot

if the damage was more than the equivalent of a short burst (say 10% total defensive strength) then the authority ships in the area would immediately break off their current target to engage the pilot AND a wing of 4 or more authority ships of appropriate combat strenght compared the the offending pilot would drop in within a few seconds and engage the offending pilot... either way points would be deducted from the offending pilots licence.. the more shots fired, the more points deducted...

if the offending player killed the other player, then the killed player would suffer no rebuy insurance cost, but would lose cargo / bounties / missions and whatever else they had apart from materials... the offender would be either killed by the npc's or forced to hyperspace jump / supercruise jump and at that time would be reinstanced back into the open play mode with a timeout...


Repeat offenders would get progressively longer timeouts and eventually banned from the mode altogether...

 

[Faded Glory]

The question is if enforcing such changes in the current Open is a good idea. I mean there is no way to please everybody, but my guess is that PVP oriented players will complain that it makes PVP near impossible. I think that leaving Open with full PVP across the galaxy makes sense as there are players who enjoy that gaming environment and creating some Open / Public Group with limited PVP also makes sense.

Indeed, punishing allowed game play severely will not improve the game, the key point being that it is a game, supposed to be fun, why would people play if what they do, often what the game encourages them to do, gives them a severe punishment.

Making player ships a special case (we can destroy NPCs all day long, but touch a clean player and it's time out) might get around this issue, but as you say, it has the potential to kill of consensual PvP too, presumably not what FD want.

A good and believable law and order system in the game would be a positive thing, but I am not convinced it's going to be the thing that solves unwanted PK'ing.

 

[excalibus]

the changes would be for a PVE mode not the current open mode...

 

[Faded Glory]

the changes would be for a PVE mode not the current open mode...

Assuming that you replied to me...

Are you suggesting that they create a mode with a different law and order system, different rulesets, rather than try and simply deal with the 'problem' by using mechanics, for example simply making player on player damage not register, or register on the attacker not the attacked?

 

[DHMeyer]

the changes would be for a PVE mode not the current open mode...

Well yeah, that's why I voted "yes". As there are arguments of people voting "no" that changes have to be made to the current Open instead. Which in my understanding is not the point of this discussion. I'm totally happy with Frontier improving gameplay in Open (and creating systems which work across the modes equally well and add to the game experience), but I don't think turning current Open into a no PVP area is the best idea. I voted yes in favour of additional, Open PVE mode in general, and in detail for one where PVP is still possible under certain conditions. However, if that was Open PVE with no PVP whatsoever, under any circumstances, I'm totally happy with that as well since if I wanted PVP I could just switch to Open PVP mode at any time.

 

[excalibus]

not so much a totally different law and order system but using a combination of changes in 'game mechanics' to instance players back into the current mixed open mode should they engage in PVP, along with a change to the law and order system that would work towards punishing repeated friendly fire and repeated ramming of players... while also negating some of the losses SHOULD a player get killed due to friendly fire mechanic and an enhanced police response to the friendly fire situation in an PVE only mode sense


my reply was actually with regards to the quoted DHMeyer post... it come across as if he thought the proposed system would be for the current open mode...

 

[DHMeyer]

Assuming that you replied to me...

Are you suggesting that they create a mode with a different law and order system, different rulesets, rather than try and simply deal with the 'problem' by using mechanics, for example simply making player on player damage not register, or register on the attacker not the attacked?

Rather different instancing rules. Just the way in Solo now people do not get to see other players whatsoever, in Open PVE they wouldn't get to see players non flagged as PVE only. And of course, some sort of no damage system or rapid harsh response system would have to follow. But it doesn't necessarily mean adding a system to one mode and not to others. It simply wouldn't be triggered in Solo or current Open, unless somehow I get to see another player, with PVP flag on, whilst playing Solo (clearly not possible) or play current Open with PVE flag on (which again, would not be possible).

 

[Roybe]

Well yeah, that's why I voted "yes". As there are arguments of people voting "no" that changes have to be made to the current Open instead. Which in my understanding is not the point of this discussion. I'm totally happy with Frontier improving gameplay in Open (and creating systems which work across the modes equally well and add to the game experience), but I don't think turning current Open into a no PVP area is the best idea. I voted yes in favour of additional, Open PVE mode in general, and in detail for one where PVP is still possible under certain conditions. However, if that was Open PVE with no PVP whatsoever, under any circumstances, I'm totally happy with that as well since if I wanted PVP I could just switch to Open PVP mode at any time.

No one is advocating for a 'no PvP' game. Just an opportunity to play where PVE players have the ability to not be shot at by other players, but still have the feeling of playing in an environment where they can meet others (i.e. an MMO experience)...as that is how they wish to play the game.

Currently this capability only can occur in Solo mode....which removes the 'MMO experience' from the game.

 

[DHMeyer]

No one is advocating for a 'no PvP' game. Just an opportunity to play where PVE players have the ability to not be shot at by other players, but still have the feeling of playing in an environment where they can meet others (i.e. an MMO experience)...as that is how they wish to play the game.

Currently this capability only can occur in Solo mode....which removes the 'MMO experience' from the game.

Yes, I know. And I'm totally for the Open PVE.