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

[NeilF]

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.

But you're missing the two issues causing this entire problem:-
1) The game (OPEN) does little/nothing to prevent the mindless destruction of a CMDR by another. A CMDR (& his wing) want to blow you up for the lolz? No problem!
2) Worse still, the game does little/nothing to actually offer constructive, organised, interesting PvP tasks, missions and mechanics.

In effect the game is totally out of whack with where surely it should be? If a player wants to partake in PvP then take up a role, task, mission or community goal that offers it. If a player does not want to partake in PvP, then don't.

At the moment it's incredibly hard to find any meaningful PvP, so is it surprising when players just going about their business (in OPEN) are being attacked simply for the other CMDR's entertainment, given little/no other means of engaging in PvP?

One can only imagine undertaking a mission to go and protect a convoy, and asking your wingmen (friends) along to help you, and knowing that with this particular mission (because you've specified you're interesting in PvP), you may not just be facing NPCs, but there is a mission out there for other CMDRs to come and attack the same convoy! And all combat and destruction in this mission/event is entirely "legal" with no fines etc etc to worry about!

Heck, even create a couple of dedicated combat zones in interesting locations (asteroid fields or around a CQC platform) and declare them anything goes for TV entertainment... And even help with rebuy costs in these zones...

In short, come down hard on mindless PvP destruction, and instead instead offer plenty of avenues for consensual PvP!

ps: I'd even let the game create the odd rare mission for a player (renowned pirate?) to go and murder a Pilots Federation member in a system X, Y or Z without any legal action being taken against them. So some "danger" can be instilled in the game, but far from random, it's controlled!



Look at Roybe's post a couple up (#1426). He seems to want to play in OPEN, but not suffer mindless ganking/bullying... And this is surely not much to ask for? How is mindless ganking in anyway constructive towards the gaming experience for anyone other than the person commiting it? Does that style of play deserve consideration at the expense of the majority of players who instead prefer a more constructive (& fair) experience?

 

[Roland2]

But you're missing the two issues causing this entire problem:-
1) The game (OPEN) does little/nothing to prevent the mindless destruction of a CMDR by another. A CMDR (& his wing) want to blow you up for the lolz? No problem!
2) Worse still, the game does little/nothing to actually offer constructive, organised, interesting PvP tasks, missions and mechanics.

In effect the game is totally out of whack with where surely it should be? If a player wants to partake in PvP then take up a role, task, mission or community goal that offers it. If a player does not want to partake in PvP, then don't.

At the moment it's incredibly hard to find any meaningful PvP, so is it surprising when players just going about their business (in OPEN) are being attacked simply for the other CMDR's entertainment, given little/no other means of engaging in PvP?

One can only imagine undertaking a mission to go and protect a convoy, and asking your wingmen (friends) along to help you, and knowing that with this particular mission (because you've specified you're interesting in PvP), you may not just be facing NPCs, but there is a mission out there for other CMDRs to come and attack the same convoy! And all combat and destruction in this mission/event is entirely "legal" with no fines etc etc to worry about!

Heck, even create a couple of dedicated combat zones in interesting locations (asteroid fields or around a CQC platform) and declare them anything goes for TV entertainment... And even help with rebuy costs in these zones...

In short, come down hard on mindless PvP destruction, and instead instead offer plenty of avenues for consensual PvP!

ps: I'd even let the game create the odd rare mission for a player (renowned pirate?) to go and murder a Pilots Federation member in a system X, Y or Z without any legal action being taken against them. So some "danger" can be instilled in the game, but far from random, it's controlled!

If "the game" was in fact just open, I might agree with you (though probably not). Elite Dangerous has PvP, it is not about PvP. Elite Dangerous is about PvE, that (in my opinion) unfortunately allows PvP.

No, I don't accept "I was bored so I shot someone" as a reasonable excuse.

I don't think Elite will ever have PvP missions, though as long as no unique rewards were attached, i wouldn't care.

As for PvP zones, they already exist at CZs. For the TV spot comment, that is what CQC is for.

If in your special zones, missions whatever (and CQC of course) was the only place PvP was allowed, like ESO and STO have set up, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, that is one of the recommendations for the Open-PvE mode people are requesting.

 

[NeilF]

I don't think Elite will ever have PvP missions, though as long as no unique rewards were attached, i wouldn't care.

I suspect you're right, so in the meantime a CMDR who wants to PvP has to struggle to find it... Invariably meaning other CMDRs in OPEN (not looking for PvP) are interdicted and attacked due to few other options/avenues!

But just because FD are unlikely to introduce missions etc that create PvP instances, pointing out the reason for a problem shouldn't be a bad thing. So I'll do it again. ED offers little/no constructive PvP mechanics... It should! Lots of it (for those interested)!

As for PvP zones, they already exist at CZs.

Go to a CZ... See any other CMDRs there? No...

In Alpha/Beta when there was just one (at Eranin) and it was a wonderful place as you could go there almost guaranteed of finding other CMDRs there for some PvP. However CZs are the last place you'd bother looking for other CMDRs now. Which of the X hundred of them would you go to?

For the TV spot comment, that is what CQC is for.

Try and take your FDL to CQC... See how you get on!

Now I'd much rather get a mission request to go and defend a platform in the core game... potentially along with other CMDRs, and if I've decided for the attackers to be be other CMDRs! Yes, it's like CQC I guess, in some ways, but in the core game!

If in your special zones, missions whatever (and CQC of course) was the only place PvP was allowed, like ESO and STO have set up, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, that is one of the recommendations for the Open-PvE mode people are requesting.

I would suggest almost all legal/permissible PvP should take place via orchestrated mechanics. Tasks, community goals, missions, a dedicated zone or two. Pretty much anywhere else would mean severe punishment. Enough to basically deter it...

In short, if you're not interested in PvP, and don't want to risk mindless destruction (via another CMDR), then you should be able to achieve this in OPEN.

Note: Piracy mechanics would need some attention! I'd suggest the whole profession would need beefing up and making more interesting though TBH. It shouldn't be an excuse for mindless CMDR destruction.

 

[Roland2]

I suspect you're right, so in the meantime a CMDR who wants to PvP has to struggle to find it... Invariably meaning other CMDRs in OPEN (not looking for PvP) are interdicted and attacked due to few other options/avenues!

But just because FD are unlikely to introduce missions etc that create PvP instances, pointing out the reason for a problem shouldn't be a bad thing. So I'll do it again. ED offers little/no constructive PvP mechanics... It should! Lots of it (for those interested)!


Go to a CZ... See any other CMDRs there? No...

In Alpha/Beta when there was just one (at Eranin) and it was a wonderful place as you could go there almost guaranteed of finding other CMDRs there for some PvP. However CZs are the last place you'd bother looking for other CMDRs now. Which of the X hundred of them would you go to?


Try and take your FDL to CQC... See how you get on!

Now I'd much rather get a mission request to go and defend a platform in the core game... potentially along with other CMDRs, and if I've decided for the attackers to be be other CMDRs! Yes, it's like CQC I guess, in some ways, but in the core game!


I would suggest almost all legal/permissible PvP should take place via orchestrated mechanics. Tasks, community goals, missions, a dedicated zone or two. Pretty much anywhere else would mean severe punishment. Enough to basically deter it...

In short, if you're not interested in PvP, and don't want to risk mindless destruction (via another CMDR), then you should be able to achieve this in OPEN.

Note: Piracy mechanics would need some attention! I'd suggest the whole profession would need beefing up and making more interesting though TBH. It shouldn't be an excuse for mindless CMDR destruction.

ED offers little/no constructive PvP mechanics... It should! Lots of it (for those interested)!

I disagree. Why waste time adding PvP mechanics in a PvE designed game. They already gave PvP players CQC.

Again, "FD didn't provide enough, so I'm just going to shoot someone" doesn't work for me. That's like saying, my neighborhood doesn't have a shooting range, so I'm just going to start shooting people passing by, hope you don't mind.

 

[Eldrazzi]

When I first started playing ED I (instinctively and naively) thought that Anarchy systems were the PVP areas and everything else was PVE. I remember finding myself in an Anarchy system with a delivery mission in a Type-6 under the assumption that I was about to die. The game didn't disappoint as I was very soon facing the insurance screen. It was only an hour or so later when a Commander in Lave proved that theory wrong. Still, I kinda think that's how it should be. Anarchy = PVP and everything else is PVE.

EDIT: Voted Yes

 

[NeilF]

I disagree. Why waste time adding PvP mechanics in a PvE designed game. They already gave PvP players CQC.

I'm bemused... Are you happy with the depth/variety of gameplay available in ED?

Would you not see the ability for example to be offered a mission to escort a convoy from A-->B in some fashion as interesting? With different ships in the convoy of different abillity/importance? And maybe inviting your friends along to join a Wing to then help you? CMDR A & B defend the civilian ship, while C and D are more offensive towards any attackers? And then the next logical step would be, if you find NPCs too dull, the choice to engage in such missions/tasks such that other CMDRs could be attacking the fleets?

And surely PP should be offering all manner of PvP mechanics to allow CMDRs to engage either other in interesting mechanics (more interesting dare I say it than delivering sheets of paper?).

Do you really see the current game as "interesting enough" as it is? Would you not embrace more varied and interesting missions and mechanics? ANd maybe you don't like the challenge of potentially also facing other CMDRs, which is fine... But many do...

Again, "FD didn't provide enough, so I'm just going to shoot someone" doesn't work for me. That's like saying, my neighborhood doesn't have a shooting range, so I'm just going to start shooting people passing by, hope you don't mind.

Don't understand your point THB. Cleary some players like PvP... Clearly ganking takes place... We can ignore these facts... Or suggest the game proactively addresses them...

 

[Roland2]

I'm bemused... Are you happy with the depth/variety of gameplay available in ED?

Would you not see the ability for example to be offered a mission to escort a convoy from A-->B in some fashion as interesting? With different ships in the convoy of different abillity/importance? And maybe inviting your friends along to join a Wing to then help you? CMDR A & B defend the civilian ship, while C and D are more offensive towards any attackers? And then the next logical step would be, if you find NPCs too dull, the choice to engage in such missions/tasks such that other CMDRs could be attacking the fleets?

And surely PP should be offering all manner of PvP mechanics to allow CMDRs to engage either other in interesting mechanics (more interesting dare I say it than delivering sheets of paper?).

Do you really see the current game as "interesting enough" as it is? Would you not embrace more varied and interesting missions and mechanics? ANd maybe you don't like the challenge of potentially also facing other CMDRs, which is fine... But many do...


Don't understand your point THB. Cleary some players like PvP... Clearly ganking takes place... We can ignore these facts... Or suggest the game proactively addresses them...

I'm bemused... Are you happy with the depth/variety of gameplay available in ED?

Yes, I am, with the exception of PvP existing, that, I'm not too happy about.

As for my point, I was addressing your apparent "reasoning" that griefing/ganking occur because FD doesn't provide enough PvP fun stuff to do.

Edit: Your recommendations have been to add PvP centric events,missions. etc... to "fix" griefing/ganking. My point is it wouldn't fix anything. Yes, it might make some PvPers happier, but that isn't the point of this thread, which is to make PvErs happier.

 

[NeilF]

Yes, I am, with the exception of PvP existing, that, I'm not too happy about.

As for my point, I was addressing your apparent "reasoning" that griefing/ganking occur because FD doesn't provide enough PvP fun stuff to do.

Edit: Your recommendations have been to add PvP centric events,missions. etc... to "fix" griefing/ganking. My point is it wouldn't fix anything. Yes, it might make some PvPers happier, but that isn't the point of this thread, which is to make PvErs happier.

My recommendations have been to heavily penalise non-game-endorse CMDR destruction (by another CMDR), and just as importantly, the game offering plenty of legitimate PvP avenues.

In short, if you want (consensual) PvP you should have no trouble at all finding it - unlike at the moment. And the game should try to heavily penalise non-game-endorse CMDR destruction (by another CMDR), to deter ganking etc.


At the moment we're at the polar opposite of both of these two suggestions... Mindless (ganking) destruction is not penalised. And if you're interesting in PvP, the game doesn't offer missions, tasks or indeed any mechanics to easily find it.

 

[Mohrgan]

My recommendations have been to heavily penalise non-game-endorse CMDR destruction (by another CMDR), and just as importantly, the game offering plenty of legitimate PvP avenues.

In short, if you want (consensual) PvP you should have no trouble at all finding it - unlike at the moment. And the game should try to heavily penalise non-game-endorse CMDR destruction (by another CMDR), to deter ganking etc.


At the moment we're at the polar opposite of both of these two suggestions... Mindless (ganking) destruction is not penalised. And if you're interesting in PvP, the game doesn't offer missions, tasks or indeed any mechanics to easily find it.

You don;t like to hear it but, if you want consensual PvP try CQC. You'll be matched up with players looking for action, and in comparable ships. That sounds perfect. As for adequate punishment, I think it will add flavor to the game but, it won't offer what the diehard PvE players are looking for. It may attract the players on the fence into open, but it won't fundamentally change the distribution of the population between the modes.

 

[DHMeyer]

My recommendations have been to heavily penalise non-game-endorse CMDR destruction (by another CMDR), and just as importantly, the game offering plenty of legitimate PvP avenues.

In short, if you want (consensual) PvP you should have no trouble at all finding it - unlike at the moment. And the game should try to heavily penalise non-game-endorse CMDR destruction (by another CMDR), to deter ganking etc.


At the moment we're at the polar opposite of both of these two suggestions... Mindless (ganking) destruction is not penalised. And if you're interesting in PvP, the game doesn't offer missions, tasks or indeed any mechanics to easily find it.

But this thread is not about providing content for PVP players. As it is FD has done more for PVP players (Open and Arena) than it has done for PVE players in terms of multiplayer environment (no properly working way to enjoy multiplayer PVE environment). So the OP is asking for a working PVE, multiplayer environment, preferably in form of Open PVE mode where PVE ruleset is enforced through ingame mechanics.
Whether FD should improve PVP and ways of doing so are surely a subject for a separate thread. Your ideas might be interesting, but they are not exactly relevant when it comes to the question of Open PVE mode.

 

[NeilF]

You don;t like to hear it but, if you want consensual PvP try CQC. You'll be matched up with players looking for action, and in comparable ships. That sounds perfect.

True, but it's shallow...

My Python really doesn't get on very well in CQC... and also on a broader note of more interesting things to do (PvP or PvE) the convoy escort/attack missions and platform attack/defense missions should be in the core game, not CQC... If I want to escort a convoy and myself and my Wing use different craft to do this, even just playing against NPC attackers, this should clearly be in the core game.

Ultimately if the game is not going to endorse and promote PvP mechanics, then it may as well shut up shop on that front... Indeed the place holder piracy mechanics basically are a waste of time for their suggested purpose, with the trader -> pirate -> bounty hunter food chain not really working because the game is so poor at orchestating the necessary mechanics to make it work. Either FD inject mroe robust and interesting mechanics to introduce more interesting things to do, ideally with the option of PvP slants, or it'll just stay some PvE game with a PvP nod that almost just casuse more issues and benefits...

 

[NeilF]

But this thread is not about providing content for PVP players. As it is FD has done more for PVP players (Open and Arena) than it has done for PVE players in terms of multiplayer environment (no properly working way to enjoy multiplayer PVE environment). So the OP is asking for a working PVE, multiplayer environment, preferably in form of Open PVE mode where PVE ruleset is enforced through ingame mechanics.
Whether FD should improve PVP and ways of doing so are surely a subject for a separate thread. Your ideas might be interesting, but they are not exactly relevant when it comes to the question of Open PVE mode.

I agree, but I would suggest the reason people are interesting in PvE is because they are not interesting in PvP, specifically unwanted aggression from other CMDRs... In OPEN, crime and punishment does little/nothing to deter this sort of behaviour, and because the game does nothing to facilitate/offer any consensual PvP mechanics, many CMDRs have little choice but to fly around and probably just interdict anyone/everyone they encounter in the hope of an interesting PvP encounter...

While I can see offering a proper/dedicated PvE environment is appealling, I cannot help think the better goal is to offer a better balanced OPEN environment where players can generally keep away from PvP if it doesn't interesting them...

So I hope you can see why I think it's entirely relevant. I see PvE environment as ultimately an admission of poor mechanics, that will only damage the ideal solution of a well balanced (& more interesting) OPEN environment.

 

[foxpur]

I agree, but I would suggest the reason people are interesting in PvE is because they are not interesting in PvP, specifically unwanted aggression from other CMDRs... In OPEN, crime and punishment does little/nothing to deter this sort of behaviour, and because the game does nothing to facilitate/offer any consensual PvP mechanics, many CMDRs have little choice but to fly around and probably just interdict anyone/everyone they encounter in the hope of an interesting PvP encounter...

While I can see offering a proper/dedicated PvE environment is appealling, I cannot help think the better goal is to offer a better balanced OPEN environment where players can generally keep away from PvP if it doesn't interesting them...

So I hope you can see why I think it's entirely relevant. I see PvE environment as ultimately an admission of poor mechanics, that will only damage the ideal solution of a well balanced (& more interesting) OPEN environment.

I would play a PvP universe IF griefing were not a issue.... and before you say "But it never happens" I spent several hours calming a girl from the horrible way she was treated until I explained things like Mobius. It happened to me too. So, it DOES happen and that sums up why I don't play in that kind of play style here. Then it just becomes causing people fear and pain because you can, and I get enough of that in Real Life.

 

[Roland2]

I agree, but I would suggest the reason people are interesting in PvE is because they are not interesting in PvP, specifically unwanted aggression from other CMDRs... In OPEN, crime and punishment does little/nothing to deter this sort of behaviour, and because the game does nothing to facilitate/offer any consensual PvP mechanics, many CMDRs have little choice but to fly around and probably just interdict anyone/everyone they encounter in the hope of an interesting PvP encounter...

While I can see offering a proper/dedicated PvE environment is appealling, I cannot help think the better goal is to offer a better balanced OPEN environment where players can generally keep away from PvP if it doesn't interesting them...

So I hope you can see why I think it's entirely relevant. I see PvE environment as ultimately an admission of poor mechanics, that will only damage the ideal solution of a well balanced (& more interesting) OPEN environment.

many CMDRs have little choice

This is bull. People always have a choice. It's not FDs fault people are people.

I see PvE environment as ultimately an admission of poor mechanics,

Poor PvP mechanics maybe, but this thread isn't about PvP mechanics. There is no amount of PvP mechanics that will turn a PvP mode into a PvE mode.
You are not going to convince me that "fixing" PvP will make the current open a PvE mode.

 

[SnowyNI]

I'm bemused... Are you happy with the depth/variety of gameplay available in ED?

Would you not see the ability for example to be offered a mission to escort a convoy from A-->B in some fashion as interesting? With different ships in the convoy of different abillity/importance? And maybe inviting your friends along to join a Wing to then help you? CMDR A & B defend the civilian ship, while C and D are more offensive towards any attackers? And then the next logical step would be, if you find NPCs too dull, the choice to engage in such missions/tasks such that other CMDRs could be attacking the fleets?

And surely PP should be offering all manner of PvP mechanics to allow CMDRs to engage either other in interesting mechanics (more interesting dare I say it than delivering sheets of paper?).

Do you really see the current game as "interesting enough" as it is? Would you not embrace more varied and interesting missions and mechanics?

The problem is "PvP missions like the one your on about sound good on paper, but it's a cert that it would be abused (4 friends guarding a fleet of traders, 12 ganker jump in... blood bath), add to that the fact that a lot hate pvp and want no part of it (myself included)".

Now, before you shout about me being a big girls blouse, I used to play EvE when it 1st came out (until all the backstabbing rubbish started - gankfest and betrayal 24/7), I also played Dark Age of Camelot (my 1st mmo in 2003/4) where I was a stealth class and ran about in a group of 4 with guildies, while full groups of 8 or more zoomed about the place zerging all in their path, and tbh I loved it.
Why not now and the difference? A few reasons, but mainly the fact that it takes weeks on end to get the cash/ship you want just to loose everything in one go... no thanks! I once drunkenly hit boost and wiped out my fully kitted Python and was very near the uninstall button! Also there is no goal, in DAoC it was about keeping/taking areas on the map (and relics - massive zergs of hundreds storming keeps with siege gear.. it was epic).

Remove the loss and I may go open. But it doesn't appeal to me any more (pve wow raiding became more fun than pvp - or at least it distracted me). In fact, removing the loss may even kill off ganking (but I doubt it), if the evil swines get no jollies from the player laughing at them over loosing nothing but a few minutes of wasted time!

 

[JohnnyDangerous]

No. it would be incredibly odd to allow a player to attack a wanted NPC, but not a wanted player - there's no logic to it unless you're going to spin some pilots federation lore yarn into it that PF members don't attack each other.

Sounds like the problem you're trying to solve is that new players get attacked by vastly superior players in starter areas?

Why not just beef up system security in a few select systems to near telepathic levels such that anytime a player interdicts another ship (player or NPC) and wing of 4xvulture, 4xAnaconda appears in the instance seconds later.

That should stop newbie bullying and isn't unrealistic.
It's way too easy to commit crime in supposedly civilized space - it's about time the system security levels were upped to match their names - anarchy should be a free for all, rich or high pop systems should have a lot more police presence.

That is a well thought out plan. What keeps real people from shooting up a store? Penalties. The threat of arrest, or death. There's no reason not to fly around with a 19mil credit bounty on your head. You still get 95% casualty insurance, get harassed by maybe one lone wolf security viper, and can land anywhere you want with minimal concern. Original ELITE had a low pirate presence in Democratic and Corporate systems, higher in Anarchy, yet this version is almost safer in anarchies because the grivers don't congregate there.

The above mentioned police package should be prowling around any high tech system, pulling players out of SC not randomly, but based on their wanted status. And with a big bounty, like say 100K, your insurance company should drop you so if you lose that A-spec pirate Clippper, you're out a few million creds. Incentives!

 

[Henri]

yeah actual high sec - low sec en null sec

 

[dxm55]

Input again:
Yes to OpenPVE, but as a separate universe/BGS from Open.

PVP and PVE players can't coexist in the same space.
Or allow me to rephrase.... Pure-PVE players cannot get along with PVP or even PVE/P players.
- PVP players will infringe on the Pure-PVE players' games when they attack them. This forces these PVE players to play a game other than what they want.
- And P-PVE players who play the undermining game on a PVE/P player's faction or interests force the PVP player to play a pure PVE game in return, which they might not be inclined to.

The 2 playstyles simply cannot co-exist without a lot of friction.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Input again:
Yes to OpenPVE, but as a separate universe/BGS from Open.

PVP and PVE players can't coexist in the same space.
Or allow me to rephrase.... Pure-PVE players cannot get along with PVP or even PVE/P players.
- PVP players will infringe on the Pure-PVE players' games when they attack them. This forces these PVE players to play a game other than what they want.
- And P-PVE players who play the undermining game on a PVE/P player's faction or interests force the PVP player to play a pure PVE game in return, which they might not be inclined to.

The 2 playstyles simply cannot co-exist without a lot of friction.

Frontier have designed the game around the core concept of the single shared galaxy state that every player experiences and affects.

Creating an Open-PvE mode would be no different from what we already have, in terms of the ability of players to play the game with others who share the same play-style, with Solo and Private Groups.

There seems to be some conflation of the desire of some players for a separate galaxy state for their preferred game mode with players desire for an Open-PvE mode.

.... and how many separate galaxy states would be needed - there are three platforms already that share the same one and players on PC/Mac cannot play with players on Xbox One - in time there will be more platforms, at least some of which will probably not be able to play with some or all of the existing platforms.

 

[dxm55]

Frontier have designed the game around the core concept of the single shared galaxy state that every player experiences and affects.

Creating an Open-PvE mode would be no different from what we already have, in terms of the ability of players to play the game with others who share the same play-style, with Solo and Private Groups.

There seems to be some conflation of the desire of some players for a separate galaxy state for their preferred game mode with players desire for an Open-PvE mode.

.... and how many separate galaxy states would be needed - there are three platforms already that share the same one and players on PC/Mac cannot play with players on Xbox One - in time there will be more platforms, at least some of which will probably not be able to play with some or all of the existing platforms.

I'm aware of the different platforms (besides the game modes), and also the costs it would take to have additional BGS'es.
It's not so much a conflation but an acknowledgement of the obvious; and what many have observed.
That is; the different types of players (and their mode/playstyles and motivations) will always have friction when playing in the same universe.