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

[excalibus]

It isn't 'only' about meeting other players. I mean it isn't Elite: Dating simulator. There are other things, many other things you can do without other players.

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



That's not my point. My point is that colour-blind and not colour-blind don't have to be split up. Simply put the colour-blind in your game and keep playing. No need to create a whole new group of colour-blind players to keep it 'fair'. Life isn't fair and so isn't Elite. There will always be a case where a 100m cr ship shoots with its 13m cr Plasma gun on a 1m cr T6. So just get along.

If open PvE was only for disabled people then call it like that so it reflects the purpose of the mode. And only allow players to enter who have a disability and not the ones who want to keep their progress and don't want to die. I am all for supporting players with disabilities but I am all against supporting players who simply don't want to lose and seem to be too lazy to put a little more effort for a couple of insurance bills in the game.

at what point will it 'click' with you that people wanting to play PVE does not entirely mean they are all disabled, does not mean they are lazy or want to 'not die' or want to 'protect their progress'

I have died over 20 times, a couple of times to commanders, a couple of times my own stupidity, the majority of the time are to NPC's... does that mean that suddenly if I joined an OPEN PVE mode I would not die??? No one is asking for that, in fact i would bet some decent money that there would be more PVE players want the AI improved to be even more challenging than those that don't... but hey that is just my opinion...

 

[excalibus]

Charming.



Fine, put it in year 8. Right now there are so many other fundamental items that should be addressed, rather than multiple rulesets which will have a massive impact to ongoing development.



And that makes Open the equivalent of a "PvP" area, either explicitly on the load screen or implicitly by not being "PvE". Most new players will back away from the "PvP" option and end up in PvE world without knowing the details.



Players can be very creative around finding ways to circumvent rules, and the more complex the rules the easier it is to find loopholes.

How about a player hogging a large pad when another player wants to dock because they have a time-sensitive mission? That's causing them harm.
How about a player kill-stealing from another player?
How about a player blocking access to a station through low-speed collisions, or a group of them blocking a player from leaving a station exit the same way until their timer runs out and the station kills them?
How about a player pushing you in to the side of the docking system?
How about a player sitting behind another player and boosting in to them, increasing their speed past the limit and causing the station to kill them?
How about a player who cargo scans you when you're carrying illegal goods?
How about a player who shoots your limpets, or steals your mining fragments?
How about a player who pushes your SRV over a cliff?

This is just a few that spring to mind as I'm typing. The points is that FD have already spent years working through these situations, often slowly, to come to some kind of resolution. PvE will require a re-evaluation of all of these, along with code changes to implement them, and it would be complex and messy.



Kickstarter was a long time ago; time to give up quoting it. Otherwise I want my god-like powers.

these 'things currently exist in any mode...

here is a tip for you, have a read of one of the proposals earlier in this thread, which effectively stops griefers repeatedly ramming ships, ships firing on other ships repeatedly and even 'killing them' is possible, all at a cost...

some people (not all) would not like any PVP to be possible in such a mode... others would rather game mechanisms that respond in such a way to make PVP rather a lot more costly for the perpertrator and harder for them to achieve a 'kill' on another commander and also allowing the commander killed to not have to pay the rebuy insurance on their ship while kicking the offender out of PVE mode for a period of time (that period being floated being weeks or months)

the 'issues' you mention above are just unsociable people performing them IMHO, no big deal, they can be dealt with through a pilots licence system that when your points expire, you are unable to log into the PVE mode for a period of time... And as has been mentioned, player destruction by another player would see the player initiating the 'destruction' being banned from the mode for a period of time...

of course however it would be implemented would be up to frontier... Perhaps the 2.4? mystery update is going to be a mode for the PVE Community YAY hehe who knows... again I would not like to spectulate on how long it would take to implement, but really, I don't think it would be that difficult as most of it is matchmaking instancing anyway...

Heck they could MAKE NO CHANGES... They could implement a PVE mode using a TOS, which when you log into that mode you agree to and in that circumstance, if you kill or whatever another commander and get reported and hey have video footage of it and FD confirm through telemetry etc then you might find yourself banned from that mode of play as it would be breach of their explicit rules for example not some private groups rules... now that would add some load onto FD support for sure, but would not require any significant implementation changes to the code base, just a new TOS

 

[excalibus]

Oh, if it was the riffing on how to kick players who misbehave back into open; or rather enacting eviction based on a set of rules, with respect to PVE, then yes. I've seen a few.

They do take the notion that matchmaking and instances can actually operate in a way where they can seamlessly punt people out of a PVE type scenario based on identifying if the shooting in question was, or wasn't acceptable. Given it (matchmaking) struggles to seamlessly add people into a wing as it is, let alone the same instance, it might need quite a bit more work yet, before that's something 'smart' enough to not just randomly turf people out.

Automation is a sexy thing when it works. It's just the getting to the "it works" stage is often ridiculously more complicated than it should be.

funnily enough I click on open and I am instanced with other commanders in open, I click on solo and I am instanced with myself, I click on private groups, I am instanced with others in the same group only...

The instancing mechanic works at that level, so with regards to being 're-instanced, yes there would probably need to be some work done for a seamless reinstancing, currently to reinstance our commanders we have to log out to the main menu and 'mode switch'... another way would be to in effect log the person out with a transaction error and when they try to log back into the pve mode they were kicked from, they are then informed of the 'delay' and how long is left before they can re-enter that mode... and possibly the reason why...

 

[Deadspin]

It doesn't take a college education to be able to tell the difference between modes called "Open", "Solo" and "Private Group".
Anyone can start a private group. Very few people I know bought this game to play it alone.
In a little over a year I've only encountered a single player who had yet to use Solo/PG and it was because he thought they were separate saves and didn't want to have to start over.

The problem with 99% of the anti-pvp mechanics proposed in this thread is that they are incredibly ill balanced towards the pve player, which alienates the pvp player, which FDev won't do. Good luck getting them to implement the shadow ban style policies. It's not likely to happen. An "Open PvE" mode is in the same boat. Pipe dream.

 

[excalibus]

Charming.

Cheers, does not negate the point that my opinion of your arguements stand, and it is just my opinion of course...

And that makes Open the equivalent of a "PvP" area, either explicitly on the load screen or implicitly by not being "PvE". Most new players will back away from the "PvP" option and end up in PvE world without knowing the details.
Kickstarter was a long time ago; time to give up quoting it. Otherwise I want my god-like powers.

Why would most players back away from the current open mixed play mode? I find this quite unlikely and it is an overstated point IMHO... For this to happen it would mean you would be saying most players don't like PVP... I find that arguement funny that people wanting PVP using that as a reason for not implementing a PVE only mode...

Personally I think it will more than likely unite the current PVE players who are spread across SOLO, multiple private groups and some still in the current open mode but I doubt it would be a 'death nell' of the current mixed mode open or that we would see a drastic influx (over the current MOBIUS intake of about 500 players a week) of players moving from the current open mode of play...

PVP players need to ask themselves something quite seriously, what can 'we' do as a player type / player group to ensure enough PVE players will want to interact with us in the current open mode?
Seriously, people trying to 'force' other players to be their content all the time will end up in tears for both sides and the tears of the PVP players should they not start to reel in the 'griefers' or not review how they interact with non combat type ships will be especially salty if the current open mode does become deviod of PVE players...

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

It doesn't take a college education to be able to tell the difference between modes called "Open", "Solo" and "Private Group".
Anyone can start a private group. Very few people I know bought this game to play it alone.
In a little over a year I've only encountered a single player who had yet to use Solo/PG and it was because he thought they were separate saves and didn't want to have to start over.

The problem with 99% of the anti-pvp mechanics proposed in this thread is that they are incredibly ill balanced towards the pve player, which alienates the pvp player, which FDev won't do. Good luck getting them to implement the shadow ban style policies. It's not likely to happen. An "Open PvE" mode is in the same boat. Pipe dream.

the whole point of a PVE only mode is so there is no PVP... It is not about replacing the current open mode, but an additional mode...

 

[Robert Maynard]

The problem with 99% of the anti-pvp mechanics proposed in this thread is that they are incredibly ill balanced towards the pve player, which alienates the pvp player, which FDev won't do. Good luck getting them to implement the shadow ban style policies. It's not likely to happen. An "Open PvE" mode is in the same boat. Pipe dream.

What objective difference in Open would there be with the implementation of an additional game mode that is specifically designed to deter / annul PvP?

The idea that PvP would suddenly be alienated is an odd one - given that one game mode exists already that guarantees no PvP and another exists that significantly reduces* the likely occurrence of PvP.

*: subject to care in selecting Private Group members and the "honour" based rule-set of that Private Group.

 

[dxm55]

I believe that will come after we get avatar creation. Will sure be a number of players making blue haired waifu.

Ironic thing is that most of them will be male.....

 

[Siobhan]

What objective difference in Open would there be with the implementation of an additional game mode that is specifically designed to deter / annul PvP?

The idea that PvP would suddenly be alienated is an odd one - given that one game mode exists already that guarantees no PvP and another exists that significantly reduces* the likely occurrence of PvP.

*: subject to care in selecting Private Group members and the "honour" based rule-set of that Private Group.

He's just afraid that his pool of "fish-in-a-barrel" victims will dry up as people realise they don't have to play his way. Pay him no mind.

 

[jgm]

these 'things currently exist in any mode...

...but are accepted in the current ruleset as being part of the game. In a PvE world these could be considered to be one player impacting another and so would require changes.

here is a tip for you, have a read of one of the proposals earlier in this thread, which effectively stops griefers repeatedly ramming ships, ships firing on other ships repeatedly and even 'killing them' is possible, all at a cost...

Thank you for the condescension, but I have read them. What you appear to be missing is that none of the things you list cover the actions I listed. These are the edge cases that I'm talking about: the ways that one player can indirectly harm another player without needing to shoot or ram them as defined within the current rules.

the 'issues' you mention above are just unsociable people performing them IMHO, no big deal, they can be dealt with through a pilots licence system that when your points expire, you are unable to log into the PVE mode for a period of time... And as has been mentioned, player destruction by another player would see the player initiating the 'destruction' being banned from the mode for a period of time...

And as I've tried to explain repeatedly it isn't nearly as simple as that. None of the solutions presented in this thread would wholly stop one player from being able to impact on another player to their detriment. A true PvE environment is more than flipping a few switches or adding some simplistic rules, and would take away significant resources from other areas that would benefit the entire community.

 

[excalibus]

...but are accepted in the current ruleset as being part of the game. In a PvE world these could be considered to be one player impacting another and so would require changes.



Thank you for the condescension, but I have read them. What you appear to be missing is that none of the things you list cover the actions I listed. These are the edge cases that I'm talking about: the ways that one player can indirectly harm another player without needing to shoot or ram them as defined within the current rules.



And as I've tried to explain repeatedly it isn't nearly as simple as that. None of the solutions presented in this thread would wholly stop one player from being able to impact on another player to their detriment. A true PvE environment is more than flipping a few switches or adding some simplistic rules, and would take away significant resources from other areas that would benefit the entire community.

condecending comes easy some days... sorry if you felt that it was intended that way, I was just being flippant personally... yes of course edge cases will exist... they always do, and depending on the impact of the edge cases, they get worked on / dealt with...

I don't think I ever laid any claim to such a mode being as easy as flipping a couple of toggle switches, it would be nice if it was as simple as that, as for however it is implemented, that would be entirely up to frontier...

The initial proposal was for putting such a mode available on the login screen for all players to be able to access... The implementation of the mode would be of course frontiers choice, one thing we can agree on is that it would need to be well designed however they choose to do it and we can agree that it will take development resources to implement, no doubt about that at all, what I do find somewhat bemusing is people who claim it will take away development resources... It does not need to be that way, I would rather FD take a whole year working on a robust PVE mode that works within their vision and codebase than rush out some hack job in the next 3 months... And it is not something that needs to be assigned any higher priority than what frontier give it... I do not think many are demanding such a mode be available ASAP...

I personally think Sandro will implement changes to the crime and punishment system with regards to PVP in an attempt to counter the newbie killing and ganking that has been going on, and they will wait and see what impact that has, before further considering weather or not to implement a PVE mode, but one thing is very certain in my mind, they will end up deciding to implement such a mode at some point due to not only player demand for it, and groups eventually maxing their memberships etc. but also to retain players...

if they allow the status quo to go on unchecked, I do believe it will cost them in the long term...

 

[kofeyh]

funnily enough I click on open and I am instanced with other commanders in open, I click on solo and I am instanced with myself, I click on private groups, I am instanced with others in the same group only...

The instancing mechanic works at that level, so with regards to being 're-instanced, yes there would probably need to be some work done for a seamless reinstancing, currently to reinstance our commanders we have to log out to the main menu and 'mode switch'... another way would be to in effect log the person out with a transaction error and when they try to log back into the pve mode they were kicked from, they are then informed of the 'delay' and how long is left before they can re-enter that mode... and possibly the reason why...

well, that's nice. right now I don't really experience any of that. why? connection is a little more latent than normal - the entire system, frankly, craps itself. Open for me right now is pretty much solo. I wish I was kidding.

So, again, unless this becomes a robust feature of the game, commanders may find they are arbitrarily evicted. Anyway, I feel like this is just going around the same circles, so - good day commander.

 

[jgm]

what I do find somewhat bemusing is people who claim it will take away development resources... It does not need to be that way

Okay please explain how it doesn't need to be this way, because in all my time I've never seen a change to the way that a product works come without cost.

if they allow the status quo to go on unchecked, I do believe it will cost them in the long term...

True, but then again you can say exactly that about any of the features that are missing, partially implemented or in need of redesign. The question is not will it cost them, the question is will it cost them more than the other things they have on their list.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It doesn't take a college education to be able to tell the difference between modes called "Open", "Solo" and "Private Group".
Anyone can start a private group. Very few people I know bought this game to play it alone.
In a little over a year I've only encountered a single player who had yet to use Solo/PG and it was because he thought they were separate saves and didn't want to have to start over.

The problem with 99% of the anti-pvp mechanics proposed in this thread is that they are incredibly ill balanced towards the pve player, which alienates the pvp player, which FDev won't do. Good luck getting them to implement the shadow ban style policies. It's not likely to happen. An "Open PvE" mode is in the same boat. Pipe dream.

How does the ability of PvE players choosing to play in a specially designed PvE mode differ from the ability to play in a private group?

However, i actually see a benefit for the PvPers. You see, we do hear quite a bit about people interdicted combat logging. Obviously people who do not want PvP. If there is an official PvE mode straight off the main menu, some of those might actually be clever and use that rather than Open. Thereby causing less frustration for PvPers. Of course, there are those who do PvP and combat log when things don't go their way, but that's a problem that needs a different solution.

 

[excalibus]

well, that's nice. right now I don't really experience any of that. why? connection is a little more latent than normal - the entire system, frankly, craps itself. Open for me right now is pretty much solo. I wish I was kidding.

So, again, unless this becomes a robust feature of the game, commanders may find they are arbitrarily evicted. Anyway, I feel like this is just going around the same circles, so - good day commander.

i have never had that 'issue' personally with the game, the worst I have had was some rubber banding when a lot of commanders are in the same instance...

I must confess I have only used the wing mechanism a couple of times on the beta server (for 1.4) and not used it in the live game as such... and at that time it worked okay but I know there are issues with people not getting instanced together even though they are winging up with other players - as per the reports on the forums at least from time to time

and I would agree that they need to fix a number of different aspects of the game, I would imagine the instancing issues could well be location related too... one thing that was mentioned in the AWS video that frontier featured ED's network infrastructure is that we players (the client) are instanced based on the closest 'internet address' server not closest 'geographical address' server.

that can see some strange potential result occuring for people being instanced on servers half way around the world due to the IP address their ISP assigns them which might well be close in IP to a server but not geographically close... so on that issue, you might want to raise a ticket with FD support (if you have not already done so of course), and perhaps they can direct your instancing to a different server? only they will know if they can do that of course and it would depend on if you have a fixed static IP or a dynamic one

 

[DHMeyer]

(...)

Exactly. There is a way of rebuilding 5mil insurance in a very short time (especially if you can afford something like Type 9, although then the insurance is higher and cargo value can easily be 10mil as well in case you loose it). Which doesn't make it the right and only thing to do. Plus, when you loose that kind of money once, it's "stuff happens". When you loose it repeatedly, it becomes "forget that" and a log out. When you loose it repeatedly and it's not really your fault and you get repeatedly blown into bits for no apparent reason, it may as well become "uninstall".

It's absolutely valid for a player to go out there and do things they enjoy for the enjoyment. Grind is an optional element of the game, not a must. Personally I don't mind doing the trading grind, I find it strangely relaxing to fly between few stations, engines humming, silence of the void around. But nobody should have to do anything in the game in order to recover from losses suffered in order to become a bit of content to some psychopath.

 

[Cmdr Bazil Yat]

What don't the vocal PvPers in this thread get about this statement:

Being a fish in the barrel is NO FUN.

In terms of PvP, I am essentially useless. But on the other hand, in Open mode, I've made friends. Maybe 10% of my interactions in open have been with hostile players. About half of these hostile interactions have been what I call 'good'; in one instance, the pirate interdicted me, made their demands, and I told them to go to hell. I died for it.

This I am fine with. But when someone interdicts me purely because - in their own words - I'm an easy kill, with none of the actual interaction that makes the Elite verse awesome... that's what's slowly driving me from open play. I would play almost exclusively in Open PvE but I'd still go to Completely Open if I wanted the risk of a fight.

I'm not a gorram NPC. Don't treat me like one.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What don't the vocal PvPers in this thread get about this statement:

Being a fish in the barrel is NO FUN.

Exactly.

If, in Open play, only one of the two players in an interaction is having fun then the one who is not having fun may well be less likely to select Open play the next time they start the game.

All players should at least try to learn interdiction escape tactics however - submit, boost, dodge, high-wake (explained better by others) - they are good for avoiding unwanted NPC interdictors too.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

For me, the *only* reason for me [I overread that "not first] to play solo is to fly with friends and meet other living players. .

Go on and tell me again that I'm playing it wrong...

Cheerz

Mark H

Considering you are playing solo to meet other players you are indeed playing the wrong way But you can tell I read the wrong way

Jokes aside. I didn't say PvP was the right way to play and I also stated that ED isn't 'only' about multiplayer. While I personally would probably not play ED if it was singleplayer only I can tell that multiplayer isn't everything.

You don't wanz PvP? Okey, don't play open then. Open allows PvP and there are options to avoid it (even in open itself). You want PvE? Solo is exactly for you! You want both? A private group may suit your needs. Mobius is open PvE and it doesn't need another mode to further split up the player base (instancing is terrible enough) as we already have private groups with a custom ruleset.
See, FD suupports PvE AND PvP players. PvE players have solo/private which PvP players don't like and PvP players have open which PvE players don't like.

Also: cool thing that there should be no right way to play but that doesn't mean we have to create unneccessary additional modes to fit the playstyles of minorities or even individuals.
I'd like to have an Open PvP mode where NPCs don't spawn. I am sick of sidewinders intereicting my Corvette.

 

[Faded Glory]

That's not my point. My point is that colour-blind and not colour-blind don't have to be split up. Simply put the colour-blind in your game and keep playing. No need to create a whole new group of colour-blind players to keep it 'fair'. Life isn't fair and so isn't Elite. There will always be a case where a 100m cr ship shoots with its 13m cr Plasma gun on a 1m cr T6. So just get along.

If open PvE was only for disabled people then call it like that so it reflects the purpose of the mode. And only allow players to enter who have a disability and not the ones who want to keep their progress and don't want to die. I am all for supporting players with disabilities but I am all against supporting players who simply don't want to lose and seem to be too lazy to put a little more effort for a couple of insurance bills in the game.

My point was that no-one would (or should) be forced into playing in a mode that they don't wish to or are not interested in. I see our views differ...

Life may indeed not be fair, but Elite is just a game, and nobody has to play it, and if that happens then it'll be unfair on those who enjoy it because FD will not be able to keep developing it, so making it enjoyable (fair or otherwise) would probably be a good thing.

Assuming that players who might prefer a PvE mode are lazy or disabled is a pretty huge leap... It's simply a preference, and in most cases I doubt it has anything to do with winning or losing. As others have stated, players lose ships to the environment (including NPCs) all the time, I imagine in fact a great deal more often than ships are lost to other players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Also: cool thing that there should be no right way to play but that doesn't mean we have to create unneccessary additional modes to fit the playstyles of minorities or even individuals.

Frontier know how their players play the game. I sincerely doubt that pure-PvP players form even a large minority, much less a majority, in this game.

It would be Frontier who create any additional modes, if they wish.