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

[Defector]

I rarely lose a ship to NPCs. I actually can't even remember the last time that happened. I've been playing since beta, and I can count on one hand the amount of times I've been destroyed by a player as well.

---

And although the people advocating a PVE mode on this thread may well just not like PVP, a PVE mode will be less challenging. I imagine a lot of players will use it to be more successful with less risk. People are risk adverse. If there was a mode where you were invincible to damage, and all your shots did 1000% damage, you'd have at least 20k people playing it. That doesn't mean we need a mode like that. I'm no developer, but I've noticed that a lot of the time, people don't actually need what they think they want. Frontier hopefully takes that into account.

---

And, really, a PVE mode terrifies me because it likely means the end of me playing Elite. As I've said, people are risk adverse, and if there's and official PVE mode, no one will play in open. And not because they don't like PVP, but because it will, in fact, be an easier mode. And that's just kind of depressing. I'm not even a PVPer. I just like the threat of PVP, and I like the options of gameplay that it provides. For instance, groups that escort traders or explorers. Also, bounty hunters.

---

Right now open is a nice mix of different players. I've met traders, miners, explorers, combat pilots, pirates, and murderers. Open is a mix of the wonderful and dangerous. It makes the galaxy feel lived in. If PVE were a thing, that would make open the "PVP mode" and that's all you'd have there. PVE mode would just be a sanitized version of Elite as NPCs don't offer a huge challenge. It woud be WOW with spaceships. And I didn't get into Elite to play that type of game. Again, I'm no PVPer. I don't seek it out, but I enjoy it when it finds me. I don't mind losing pixels. When I get destroyed, I shrug my shoulders and restart at the last station I docked at. What's so difficult about that.

---

Frontier will also have to consider PVE mode in the developement of the game. If you all get your PVE mode, then you'll be on the forums complaining people are scanning you to make you fail your safe Robigo smuggling runs. You can't be attacked by players or pirated by players. Ok, well, so now you can't be scanned by another player. Or K-warrant scanned to reveal your wanted status from all the NPC traders you've murdered. What would even be the point.

---

I'd rather see more interesting systems in open such as a reliable way to hunt criminals or increased penalites. But, really, everyone making a fuss about the PVP in open are delusional. It happens rarely enough to me to be a treat, but not enough to negatively impact my game.

---

In my opinion, a PVE mode would be the beginning of the end for Elite Dangerous.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We already have two modes where PvE can definitely and probably be played: Solo and Private Groups.

 

[Siobhan]

Being a fish in the barrel is NO FUN.

In terms of PvP, I am essentially useless.

You are however, apparently a Kerbal, the most dangerous (mostly to yourselves) species in the universe....
Even Thargoids fear Kerbals.

 

[DHMeyer]

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 problem is that mechanics currently favours PVP player when it comes to combat encounters with PVE players. Not really in terms of different skill set, but in terms of cost. Rebuy cost for freighters is much higher than the rebuy cost of the combat ships which can successfully take those freighters down. They can't really defend themselves from those much, much cheaper ships. The only thing players flying them can do is to put all power to systems and jump out, hopefully before the shields go down. With the possibility to fry themselves if FSD charging takes too long for whatever reason. Additionally, they carry cargo, frequently worth more than the attacker's ship. You loose a freighter in combat, you're quite a few millions shorter. You loose a combat ship (which won't happen during such encounters) and you have few hundred k credits less. For the same amount of credits PVP / combat minded player will be able to afford several recoveries. PVP player will have an insignificant bounty to pay, but that's it.
If the PVE player is an explorer, who spent days or weeks or months collecting data, far away from the stations where he can sell it and gets killed on their way back, that loss is not even about the credits, it's about loosing hours and hours of flying from planet to planet, scanning them and endless jumps to distant systems.

Most of the propositions in this thread do not really touch the issue of balancing PVP. PVP content and how meaningful and interesting it is for PVP players is for Frontier to think about and provide. They did quite a lot for PVP players, this including adding Arena for them, a special mode for PVP players only. At the same time PVE players had to take care about creating an environment and extra content for themselves. What Frontier is being asked for here is to make it easier for PVE players to create the content for themselves.

 

[DHMeyer]

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.

Except that PVP players can join PVE group and force players to play PVP game PVE players decided to avoid by joining the private group (as you advise them) and the only way to make them respect others' wishes is to ban PVP players from that group. After they were able to cause inconvenience. There is no way to put a "no sports outfits allowed" on the door and have the bouncer send them away from the door. That's what the Open PVE is needed for.

 

[jgm]

Except that PVP players can join PVE group and force players to play PVP game PVE players decided to avoid by joining the private group (as you advise them) and the only way to make them respect others' wishes is to ban PVP players from that group. After there were able to cause inconvenience. There is no way to put a "no sports outfits allowed" on the door and have the bouncer send them away from the door. That's what the Open PVE is needed for.

If you want your own group with your own rules then you make it and administrate it yourself rather than ask FD to make a new ruleset. "inconvenience" for a few players is hardly a good reason to ask FD to spend significant resources making up a second ruleset given that they're already behind on the work that they have stated they'll do this year.

 

[Faded Glory]

If you want your own group with your own rules then you make it and administrate it yourself rather than ask FD to make a new ruleset.

Unfortunately that didn't really work out for the Mobius group, hence the discussion...

"inconvenience" for a few players is hardly a good reason to ask FD to spend significant resources making up a second ruleset given that they're already behind on the work that they have stated they'll do this year.

Lots of threads and posts on the forum asking for lots of different things, most of them coming down to players feeling inconvenienced or unhappy with different aspects of the game. It's down to FD to decide whether any of the requests hold merit in their view, but nothing wrong with asking.

 

[Ervig]

I read this and other PvE threads and I really can't understand why people could reasonably object to a FD created PvE Group with a specific ruleset. There is absolutely NOTHING that this would take away from the people who have no intention of using it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I read this and other PvE threads and I really can't understand why people could reasonably object to a FD created PvE Group with a specific ruleset. There is absolutely NOTHING that this would take away from the people who have no intention of using it.

There appear to be expressions of concern from two groups of players:

1) Players who are concerned that there will be fewer targets;
2) Players who are not looking for targets but like to play in a mixed PvP/PvE Open mode and are concerned that a reduction in pure-PvE players playing in the Open will adversely affect the perceived make-up of Open.

Given the existence of two game modes where PvE players can play already, it would seem that there is unlikely to be an observable (by players) difference in the population of Open if an Open-PvE mode is created. If, on the other hand, there is an observable (by players) difference in the population then I would expect that Frontier would have already found the same from their analytics - and it would have proved the point that an Open-PvE mode was indeed required....

 

[jgm]

Unfortunately that didn't really work out for the Mobius group, hence the discussion...

It worked out fine. 20000 members playing for a year and how many PvP incidents happened?

 

[Siobhan]

It worked out fine. 20000 members playing for a year and how many PvP incidents happened?

Too many

 

[Faded Glory]

It worked out fine. 20000 members playing for a year and how many PvP incidents happened?

What Siobhan said... Besides, it's not the number of 'incidents', it's the fact that they can happen, and when they do, the reaction from FD is that no game rules were broken so...

It seems fairly clear from the discussions on the forums that a private group to cater for many thousands of players is not the best solution, hence the requests / suggestions for an Open PvE mode, which incidentally were being made long before the 'Mobius incident'.

 

[DHMeyer]

If you want your own group with your own rules then you make it and administrate it yourself rather than ask FD to make a new ruleset. "inconvenience" for a few players is hardly a good reason to ask FD to spend significant resources making up a second ruleset given that they're already behind on the work that they have stated they'll do this year.

I have my own group with my own rules. Now when we have this out of the way, it's up to Frontier what they spend their resources on. Really, their business. At the moment and with most activities I have in this game, when it comes to me they can switch their servers off completely and turn it into a singleplayer. Even less resources consuming.

"Inconvenience" doesn't apply to "few" players, as you seem to think, but quite likely (judging by the forum posts as well as based on the experience I had in other multiplayer games throughout the years) to a majority of players. Among the "no" votes in this poll, apart from several people who changed their mind, there are also people who voted "no" in favour of changing current Open into PVE with PVP limited in one or another way and stated so in their posts (you can find those posts if you wish). So you'd find out that people who would like Frontier to keep the status quo are in quite clear minority. Of course, this sort of poll is neither binding for Frontier, nor represents the player base in a way which would allow us to be certain when it comes to numbers, but it's a good enough indicator of what players are doing and what type of gameplay they choose to enjoy.
The sky is not falling, but the future of Elite depends on its ability to capture imagination and attention of the players. Currently it has an opinion of a game with rather shallow gameplay. Which I don't exactly agree with myself, but this already made more difficult for me to convince people to give it a shot. If additionally it develops an opinion of a game where you can loose hours or days of gameplay within 5 minutes due to Frontier's incompetence in creating a playable multiplayer environment and tackling PVP rules, this will limit its multiplayer future to people flying about in cheap PVP outfitted ships and having nothing to do. With the rest of the game population scattered throughout small private groups or staying in solo.
The game is still in the foundation phase and a lot will depend on Frontier getting this foundation right. And if majority of players do not find the gameplay they are looking for in this game, they will find it elsewhere. In any case, it's all in Frontier's hands anyway. They'll do whatever they think is right for the game.

 

[jgm]

What Siobhan said... Besides, it's not the number of 'incidents', it's the fact that they can happen, and when they do, the reaction from FD is that no game rules were broken so...

It seems fairly clear from the discussions on the forums that a private group to cater for many thousands of players is not the best solution, hence the requests / suggestions for an Open PvE mode, which incidentally were being made long before the 'Mobius incident'.

So, an intrusive and pervasive change to the codebase because something can happen even though by all accounts the incidence of it actually occurring is as close to 0 as makes no odds.

Time to leave this thread. Good luck with convincing FD that this is a higher priority than the rest of the stuff they need to work on to keep this game generating revenue.

 

[Defector]

There appear to be expressions of concern from two groups of players:

1) Players who are concerned that there will be fewer targets;
2) Players who are not looking for targets but like to play in a mixed PvP/PvE Open mode and are concerned that a reduction in pure-PvE players playing in the Open will adversely affect the perceived make-up of Open.

Given the existence of two game modes where PvE players can play already, it would seem that there is unlikely to be an observable (by players) difference in the population of Open if an Open-PvE mode is created. If, on the other hand, there is an observable (by players) difference in the population then I would expect that Frontier would have already found the same from their analytics - and it would have proved the point that an Open-PvE mode was indeed required....

For myself, and I would have to imagine anyone starting out, open is the main mode. Groups? I don't belong to any. Solo? Who wants to play by themselves.

If there were a pve mode, I suspect IT would become the main mode, and open would just be some wierd mode that nobody uses.

 

[Robert Maynard]

For myself, and I would have to imagine anyone starting out, open is the main mode. Groups? I don't belong to any. Solo? Who wants to play by themselves.

If there were a pve mode, I suspect IT would become the main mode, and open would just be some wierd mode that nobody uses.

If, as you suspect, Open-PvE became the main mode, that would suggest that more players wanted PvE than mixed PvE/PvP. If that was the case then why would there be a problem with players playing the game as they want to (rather than being coerced into playing in Open due to the attraction of an unlimited population tempered by the issues experienced by some associated with PvP).

 

[Deadspin]

The problem is that mechanics currently favours PVP player when it comes to combat encounters with PVE players. Not really in terms of different skill set, but in terms of cost. Rebuy cost for freighters is much higher than the rebuy cost of the combat shipswhich can successfully take those freighters down. They can't really defend themselves from those much, much cheaper ships. The only thing players flying them can do is to put all power to systems and jump out, hopefully before the shields go down. With the possibility to fry themselves if FSD charging takes too long for whatever reason. Additionally, they carry cargo, frequently worth more than the attacker's ship. You loose a freighter in combat, you're quite a few millions shorter. You loose a combat ship (which won't happen during such encounters) and you have few hundred k credits less. For the same amount of credits PVP / combat minded player will be able to afford several recoveries. PVP player will have an insignificant bounty to pay, but that's it.
If the PVE player is an explorer, who spent days or weeks or months collecting data, far away from the stations where he can sell it and gets killed on their way back, that loss is not even about the credits, it's about loosing hours and hours of flying from planet to planet, scanning them and endless jumps to distant systems.

Most of the propositions in this thread do not really touch the issue of balancing PVP. PVP content and how meaningful and interesting it is for PVP players is for Frontier to think about and provide. They did quite a lot for PVP players, this including adding Arena for them, a special mode for PVP players only. At the same time PVE players had to take care about creating an environment and extra content for themselves. What Frontier is being asked for here is to make it easier for PVE players to create the content for themselves.

No idea what kind of flying you're doing to be taken out by DBS' or Cobras but the rebuy for the ships I've seen most often used for PvP is usually between 3-8 million credits. Gimmick ships may be a couple hundred k but not the regular pvp loadouts.

On "Arena" or CQC. You guys keep using that like it's actually something PvP players really wanted. News flash, it wasn't. We (at least the people I play with/have fought with) don't really care for or about CQC. Arena combat is not what most PvP players enjoy. Disclaimer: I don't go around hunting down traders. 99% of my pvp has been against similarly equipped and funded players who were out looking for pvp or defending their systems. The joy of PvP is in the potential for loss, the competition. There is no loss, nothing taken away, no bragging rights, no nothing to be gained from CQC. That game mode literally provides nothing but a stop-gap for boredom during bouts of space madness out to the core of the galaxy. If I wanted mindless, boring, CoD style arena PVP I'd go play CQC in a heartbeat, but I don't. Each pvp encounter I have actually means something to me and I get quite a bit of joy out of testing myself against other pilots, even if I lose. I don't get an adrenaline spike in CQC, but I do get one when I'm moving in to interdict another combat ship and it's (expletive deleted) awesome.

 

[Defector]

If, as you suspect, Open-PvE became the main mode, that would suggest that more players wanted PvE than mixed PvE/PvP. If that was the case then why would there be a problem with players playing the game as they want to (rather than being coerced into playing in Open due to the attraction of an unlimited population tempered by the issues experienced by some associated with PvP).

You misunderstand. It's not that they don't want PVP.

When you're driving somewhere, do you choose the fastest route or the slowest route? You choose the fastest, of course. Open provides an additional challenge that PVE doesn't. Given the option between the two, you're going to choose the lesser challenge. Even if you enjoy PVP, you'd be foolish to choose open. Why would you make the game harder when there's an option to get the social aspect of the game AND make it easier. It's a case of people wanting something they don't really need.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You misunderstand. It's not that they don't want PVP.

When you're driving somewhere, do you choose the fastest route, or the slowest route? You choose the fastest, of course. Open provides an additional challenge that PVE doesn't. Given the option between the two, you're going to choose the lesser challenge. Even if you enjoy PVP, you'd be foolish to choose open. Why would you make the game harder when there's an option to get the social aspect of the game AND make it easier. It's a case of people wanting something they don't really need.

I don't think I do. Many players, from what has been said on these forums, do not want to engage in non-consensual PvP.

Not all players are using Private Groups and Solo (as opposed to their preferred mode of Open) to min/max as not every player wants to be subjected to non-consensual PvP, therefore does not play in Open.

While some may opine that there is no need for an Open-PvE mode, others do not share that opinion.

 

[Deadspin]

Lovely things.. these opinions. <3

I think you guys are going to get better PG controls before Frontier goes balls out and implements a full Open PvE mode.