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

Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Start Screnn

  • Yes

    Votes: 638 55.4%
  • No

    Votes: 514 44.6%

  • Total voters
    1,152
  • Poll closed .
It's re-inforcing the split, rather than working out the reason for it, and ideally actively dealing with it.

Some people only want to play the game, not the players. There is no "working out the reason" - for a lot of PvE players they just can't be bothered with PvP, only want cooperative PC experiences. It's not a skill thing, necessarily, it's just a different perspective and attitude to the game - you don't seem to ever have understood that side of it.

I'd still suggest in an absolute ideal world, we'd only have OPEN, and the game would allow players to play the game deciding how much exposure they want to PvP by their own choices of missions, tasks and actions.

This "ideal world" of yours would mean that PvE players would still have to avoid vast swathes of the galaxy if they didn't fancy PvP encounters - so, basically, only ideal for PvP players... again.
 
There's a number of issues all revolving around OPEN/SOLO and PvP/PvE... Difficult to discuss one without crossing over into the broader aspect of them IMHO. Indeed, I'd suggest its possibly dangerous to discuss only one side of the matter without considering the the other(s).



It's re-inforcing the split, rather than working out the reason for it, and ideally actively dealing with it.

ie: The very idea that some players duck into SOLO (PvE) purely for a competitive advantage (& not just for personal gains but more signifantly for community outcomes in PP and CGs).

I understand that talking about such matters isn't specific to a PvE mode etc, but as it has such a huge bearing on such matters I think it's important to understand and discuss these other matter when talking about PvE modes, and how they would fit into these existing "problem"...


I'd still suggest in an absolute ideal world, we'd only have OPEN, and the game would allow players to play the game deciding how much exposure they want to PvP by their own choices of missions, tasks and actions.

But as that is unlikely to happen, I'd still like OPEN to get as close to that as possible, while SOLO is then simply openly accepted as a different animal and community based results (eg: PP outcomes and CG outcomes) are split quite openly between OPEN and non-OPEN.

The whole reason for having different modes was for the perceived griefing caused by PvP. So, if fixing the cause of segregation is your goal, you should be proposing the removal of PvP (ie: PvE mode), then there would be no reason to "duck" into solo.
 
Apologies if i misunderstood your post. ;)

However:

You make it sound so shady! Some people duck into solo. Many players never duck into open. How are they being rewarded by playing in solo? Aren't we told all the time that we are missing out by not playing in Open? The fun and thrill of player encounters!

Surely we need to understand why some people prefer PvE (SOLO) if we're basing suggested new mechanics in that direction?
1) Don't trust other CMDRs in OPEN?
2) Prefer the "easier" experience against just the game/NPCs.
3) Want the "easier" experience against just the game due to results.​

1) This is a sad reflection on the current mechancis IMHO. I'd like to see this addressed to players not keen on PvP can still play in OPEN, enjoying what it has to offer (loads of friendly CMDRs), with the risk of being mindlessly attacked controlled more.

2) Some players are more casual, and don't want to pit themselves against other players. This is fine... See (1) though.

3) This is more of an issue. If we accept ED is going to continue to offer community/Powerplay tasks, and in years to come we will probably see for example Powerplay allowing group of players to pit themselves more and more against each other. Simply ignoring the fact the game rewards CMDRs to duck under the radar into SOLO to actually be even more effective, seems a poor move. Hence my suggest to at least actively acknowledge it by accruing such results with OPEN and non-OPEN totals so playing in OPEN has clear value. (At the moment it's almost the opposite).



The whole reason for having different modes was for the perceived griefing caused by PvP. So, if fixing the cause of segregation is your goal, you should be proposing the removal of PvP (ie: PvE mode), then there would be no reason to "duck" into solo.
That seems an odd approach? If griefing was better handled so it was less prevalent then surely OPEN would be a more appealling place for all?

Let me ask you, if you destroy another CMDR outside a game promoted mechanic, why shouldn't the game come down on you like a ton of bricks? Why should the game promote/endorse the mindless destruction of one Pilots Federation Member by another (as currently)? If this could instead only take place in within sanctioned mechanics, then if you want to keep clear of PvP, you simply ensure you do not expose yourself to those particular mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Surely we need to understand why some people prefer PvE (SOLO) if we're basing suggested new mechanics in that direction?
1) Don't trust other CMDRs in OPEN?
2) Prefer the "easier" experience against just the game/NPCs.
3) Want the "easier" experience against just the game due to results.​

1. Uncompetitive, but social.

You can realign your other ones under that.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The whole reason for having different modes was for the perceived griefing caused by PvP. So, if fixing the cause of segregation is your goal, you should be proposing the removal of PvP (ie: PvE mode), then there would be no reason to "duck" into solo.

The three game modes, shared single galaxy state and mode mobility have formed part of the published game design information since the outset - over three years ago (FAQ here) - not as a result of forum lobbying.
 
This "ideal world" of yours would mean that PvE players would still have to avoid vast swathes of the galaxy if they didn't fancy PvP encounters - so, basically, only ideal for PvP players... again.

Why argue against a non-argument?

I've already said OPEN only is my prefered solution, BUT fully accept we would have to keep SOLO?

My suggestion is to instead reduce the reasons why people might be turned away from OPEN, so OPEN becomes more appealling. But, if after all that, you still don't like the idea of OPEN, jump into SOLO.

What could you possibly dislike about that?
 
Last edited:
1. Uncompetitive, but social.

You can realign your other ones under that.

Right. it really is as simple as this. I'm not competitive, and I don't find the idea of optimising my ship modules to be competetive in PVP very fun. It's something I might do in the Arena mode, at best. But I DO enjoy playing the game with my friends, and random people who I can do co-op things with. I find that very satisfying.

I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand, or why they assume that I want to play the game in 'easy' mode (even if I did, who cares? But that's another conversation). I just like co-op play and don't ever want that disrupted by people who assume I'm up for a fight!
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Surely we need to understand why some people prefer PvE (SOLO) if we're basing suggested new mechanics in that direction?
1) Don't trust other CMDRs in OPEN?
2) Prefer the "easier" experience against just the game/NPCs.
3) Want the "easier" experience against just the game due to results.​

1) This is a sad reflection on the current mechancis IMHO. I'd like to see this addressed to players not keen on PvP can still play in OPEN, enjoying what it has to offer (loads of friendly CMDRs), with the risk of being mindlessly attacked controlled more.

2) Some players are more casual, and don't want to pit themselves against other players. This is fine... See (1) though.

3) This is more of an issue. If we accept ED is going to continue to offer community/Powerplay tasks, and in years to come we will probably see for example Powerplay allowing group of players to pit themselves more and more against each other. Simply ignoring the fact the game rewards CMDRs to duck under the radar into SOLO to actually be even more effective, seems a poor move. Hence my suggest to at least actively acknowledge it by accruing such results with OPEN and non-OPEN totals so playing in OPEN has clear value. (At the moment it's almost the opposite).




That seems an odd approach? If griefing was better handled so it was less prevalent then surely OPEN would be a more appealling place for all?

Let me ask you, if you destroy another CMDR outside a game promoted mechanic, why shouldn't the game come down on you like a ton of bricks? Why should the game promote/endorse the mindless destruction of one Pilots Federation Member by another (as currently)? If this could instead only take place in within sanctioned mechanics, then if you want to keep clear of PvP, you simply ensure you do not expose yourself to those particular mechanics.

If Open is to be "fixed" (and Sandro's recent posts regarding consequences for illegal PKing and also a bonus for Powerplay in Open might be considered to suggest that Open has a population issue), of course Frontier need to understand why players choose not to play in Open.

The listed reasons might be the case for some, however they do not include simpler reasons such as "don't want to play with other players"; "only want to play with friends"; "internet connection cannot support Open play" - the first two of which are listed as ways to play the game in the Kickstarter description:

Fight, trade, hunt your way across a giant galaxy of billions of star systems, starting with a basic starship and a few credits. You can make money from trading goods between the many star systems, by destroying pirate ships (and collecting bounty), or even by attacking traders and collecting their cargo (which in turn will get a bounty on your head!). There will be missions too, and exploration. Most people will do some combination of these things. Upgrade your ship and specialise in one activity - have a trader with a huge cargo bay, or use the space for weapons and maneuverability.

Real Freedom - Go where you like, be what you like - pirate, bounty hunter, trader, assassin, or some mix of all of these.

Trade - Buy low, cross dangerous space lanes, evade or destroy pirates en route, then sell high, if you make the journey!

Fight - Take on the pirates or be one yourself

Progress - Get your pilot rating all the way from "Harmless" to "Elite"

Explore - Head out to the far reaches of space and discover amazing sights

And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...
 
Separating the BGS between the game modes is very unlikely to happen, in my opinion - as each and every player experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy state was a fundamental design feature upon which the game has been delivered.

I've not suggested splitting/separating the BGS. I've simply suggested where there are community outcomes, the totals are accrued by OPEN and non-OPEN.

Until then, thing like Powerplay are destined for a farcicle existence with huge swathes of CMDRs actually be rewarded to go into SOLO, to make their contributions to their Power all the more valuable/time effective. Why play in OPEN when an hour in the game is more rewarding for your Power in SOLO? Seems a sad state of affairs!?

If however, these community totals/results were measured by at least a 50/50 OPEN and non-OPEN split, at least it's would be a step back to accountability and OPEN having more worth.

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

If Open is to be "fixed" (and Sandro's recent posts regarding consequences for illegal PKing and also a bonus for Powerplay in Open might be considered to suggest that Open has a population issue), of course Frontier need to understand why players choose not to play in Open.

The listed reasons might be the case for some, however they do not include simpler reasons such as "don't want to play with other players"; "only want to play with friends"; "internet connection cannot support Open play" - the first two of which are listed as ways to play the game in the Kickstarter description:

Which is abolutely fine... SOLO it is then.

But it seems sad if people are heading to SOLO because of reasons that can be addressed, or simply shouldn't exist in a balanced (logical) game.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I've not suggested splitting/separating the BGS. I've simply suggested where there are community outcomes, the totals are accrued by OPEN and non-OPEN.

Until then, thing like Powerplay are destined for a farcicle existence with huge swathes of CMDRs actually be rewarded to go into SOLO, to make their contributions to their Power all the more valuable/time effective. Why play in OPEN when an hour in the came is more rewarding for your Power in SOLO? Seems a sad state of affairs!?

If however, these community totals/results were measured by at least a 50/50 OPEN and non-OPEN split, at least it's would be a step back to accountability and OPEN having more worth.

Sandro seems to be sounding the community out regarding a way to enhance the contributions to Powerplay made by Open players.

To apportion a 50% share of contributions to Powerplay to Open and Solo/Private Group (SPG?) respectively leads to a situation where the actions of a minority of players (possibly a tiny minority, who knows) are given a 50% weighting in the outcome. At least Sandro's proposal takes into account the relative populations of Open and SPG.
 
My suggestion is to instead reduce the reasons why people might be turned away from OPEN, so OPEN becomes more appealling. But, if after all that, you still don't like the idea of OPEN, jump into SOLO.

What could you possibly dislike about that?

You simply don't get it. There are a lot of people who want to play with others, but not against them. It's really that simple and Open and Solo don't deliver.
 
You simply don't get it. There are a lot of people who want to play with others, but not against them. It's really that simple and Open and Solo don't deliver.

"You simply don't get it." - Charming...

OK... consider your own point... Now, why can't these individuals do that in OPEN? Consider you answer(s), and consider how many of those might be addressable... Consider how some of them should be addessed (eg: mindless ganking)!

I understand many people only want a more PvE approach to the game. Count me as one of them. BUT, simply raising a Berlin wall through the game may not be the best solution possibly. Maybe allowing the game to offer you the best of both worlds might be a nice place to aim for.

Ultimately if a dedicated PvE mode/mechanic is a valid outcome, fine. But simply going there because of current design issues/imbalances seems a sad move to me.

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

Sandro seems to be sounding the community out regarding a way to enhance the contributions to Powerplay made by Open players.

To apportion a 50% share of contributions to Powerplay to Open and Solo/Private Group (SPG?) respectively leads to a situation where the actions of a minority of players (possibly a tiny minority, who knows) are given a 50% weighting in the outcome. At least Sandro's proposal takes into account the relative populations of Open and SPG.
Cool... If there's a better solution, bring it on!

But as long as it ultimately addresses the more important issue that the game actively rewards players to leave OPEN and go into SOLO to improve results...
 
Last edited:
The three game modes, shared single galaxy state and mode mobility have formed part of the published game design information since the outset - over three years ago (FAQ here) - not as a result of forum lobbying.

I was referring to this quote from Sandro for the "why", not the "when":
Hello all!

Time to dive in to this thread with our current thoughts:

Scamming:

In game - well, there will be certainly be the ability to scam.

We have the concept that a commodity/equipment canister does not necessarily contain what it says it contains. So there will be methods to disguise a canister's content.

On the flip side of the coin, we have ways of seeing what a canister contains (and this equipment/these methods will be available to use in player trades), so there is a potential arms race between lies and truth.

Why are we doing this? A couple of unrelated reasons, actually.

Firstly, we are not interested in making player trading the central pillar to trading game play. The various markets fulfil that role. So we don't need to protect player trading. The Elite universe is full of smugglers, pirates and general ne'er do wells.

Secondly, I think the ability to lie/cheat *using game rules* is reasonable and opens up more gameplay options. If you get traded a canister of "grain" that turns out to be "human organs" you can be sure of a number of things:

  • The player that traded it had to go to some effort using game rules to set up the scam
  • That player altered their reputation when they made the trade
  • If you spent the time/resources, you could have detected the scam before the trade completed
  • If you detect the scam we may be able to directly generate missions/events from the process
Now some folk may understandably still balk at this, but my response has to be that I think it makes the game better (mainly by giving us lots of mission/event potential from NPCs as well as players).

So in this case, we will hopefully be aiming for a very "light touch" because in theory we see nothing wrong with players role playing "bad guys".

Griefing:

So, we've said we don't mind bad guys. In fact, we go further; we have bad guy gameplay options (piracy, smuggling etc.) By default, this includes psychopathic behaviour - randomly attacking other player "because you can".

We're currently looking at two different angles of defence: an in-game law system and private groups.

The in-game law system should be pretty robust. It allows plausible but strong responses from NPC factions to criminal activities (using authority ships, structures and factional bounties), as well as player-driven bounties (via the Pilot's Federation) and player bounty hunting mechanisms (e.g. broadcasting "sightings" of know villains to help player bounty hunters track them).

All of this should mean that that if you're being naughty you are generating additional challenges for yourself which will undoubtedly make the game harder in some ways (this applies equally whether you are attacking players or NPCs).

It won't guarantee safety, even though it guarantees additional challenges to the bad guys. Which I think is about right; we don't want to make being the bad guy impossible.

The second factor is our grouping mechanisms.

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

  • We have players that want a range of different experiences
  • All of those experiences are valid
  • Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive
So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group. In this case, the player will be forced to escape conventionally first (via hyperspace, docking or something similar).

In this instance, the aggressor still gets some benefit - they "defeated" their prey, and we can hopefully build on this in terms of rewarding them in various ways: via reputation, which can lead to missions and events, via player bragging rights (perhaps only players that remain in the "all group" can feature in various global news feed articles) and potentially via limited physical rewards.

If players are going to live in private groups, well, that suggests that if we had a single environment they would be playing offline or not at all, so they aren't part of the equation.

Players that dip into the "all group" after farming "private groups"; there are a few things to say about this.

  • They are unlikely to have as good player-vs-player skills as those who live in the "all" group day in day out.
  • NPCs can and will offer appropriate risks (in fact, it would not be a lie to suggest that we *could* make NPC ships significantly nastier than any human ships in the majority of situations. Not that we will, mind. But we could), so to get a tooled up advantage such players will have been facing a appropriate threat level (basically private groups should not be considered "easy mode").
  • Everyone has access to their own private group(s)

It's not perfect, but it's my best shot at the moment.

Anyway, taking these two strands into account, again, the result will again be hopefully a "very light touch".

Other:
Offensive behaviour during communication, whether in game or on the forums is always unacceptable. We will have some form of reporting/investigation service to service this. We will also allow players to "ignore" communications so that they don't have to listen/read stuff that doesn't interest them (on a related note - I'm very dead set against session-wide or bigger chat channels. In my opinion they ruin ambience and are uneccessary for Elite: Dangerous).

I can't actually think of out-of-game scams that could be possible at the moment.

Finally:
On a personal note. I also find (even mildly) derogatory terms and statements unpleasant and unhelpful. They don't advance arguments and they are used to intentionally insult people/groups. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but it's not fine to insult (just as it's not fine face to face).

I also think that more civil (if not understanding) we can be (in game and on the forums) the more likely we are to grow the community which will be to the benefit of us all.
 
"You simply don't get it." - Charming...

Not charming. Fact. because:

OK... consider your own point... Now, why can't these individuals do that in OPEN? Consider you answer(s), and consider how many of those might be addressable... Consider how some of them should be addessed (eg: mindless ganking)!

You still dont get that some people dont want ho have anoter player attack them. REGARDLESS of consequences. But same players want to have a cooperative Multiplayer experience.
As such not even Mobius delivers. Even there is a SMALL chance of some Dimwit ignoring the group rules and try to attack you.

I understand many people only want a more PvE approach to the game. Count me as one of them. BUT, simply raising a Berlin wall through the game may not be the best solution possibly. Maybe allowing the game to offer you the best of both worlds might be a nice place to aim for.

The berlin wall IS the only solution to the ones that dont want any PewPew against other commanders EVER.
 
"You simply don't get it." - Charming...

OK... consider your own point... Now, why can't these individuals do that in OPEN? Consider you answer(s), and consider how many of those might be addressable... Consider how some of them should be addessed (eg: mindless ganking)!

I understand many people only want a more PvE approach to the game. Count me as one of them. BUT, simply raising a Berlin wall through the game may not be the best solution possibly. Maybe allowing the game to offer you the best of both worlds might be a nice place to aim for.

Ultimately if a dedicated PvE mode/mechanics is a valid outcome, fine. But simply going there because of current design issues/imbalances seems a sad move to me.

I'm sorry Neil but the only way to address that imbalance is probably either a flag system or a dedicated PVE mode. You simply cannot expect people to flock to open when systems such as Sol, Achenar, the Lave cluster, and many many more are no go areas. You can't expect people to flock to open when all CG's are off limits in open if you want a PVE experience. The possible alternatives, magic 'no damage guns', increased fines/bounties to players with billions of credits, even revoking docking rights in certain systems, areas or factions are not going to discourage or diminish the appetite of the PK'er.

It is quite simply not fair to cut a portion of the player base off from attending CG's, from visiting the systems rich in Elite lore or the key trading hubs, those that want a purely or mostly PVE experience paid as much for the game, (in most cases, sometimes more via KS, sometimes less via sales etc), as the PK/PVP'ers did. Making some of the more interesting, more rewarding parts of the galaxy 'off limits' is cutting off a portion of these players game if they are forced into open with some of the players that reside there.

Many of the PK'ers and some of the PVP crowd seem to expect players to nerf their game experience just to avoid them, effectively saying 'don't partake in some of the more interesting aspects of the game in open if you want to live', that is not a sustainable open environment. An environment that was so polluted, an environment that was so damaged and broken by some, and then they then have the audacity to scream for changes because 'it is broken', 'not enough targets', 'where is everyone' etc etc.

The only fix would be a PVE mode or the less desirable, (in my opinion), flag system, anything else is going to be putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg.
 
"You simply don't get it." - Charming...

OK... consider your own point... Now, why can't these individuals do that in OPEN? Consider you answer(s), and consider how many of those might be addressable... Consider how some of them should be addessed (eg: mindless ganking)!

I understand many people only want a more PvE approach to the game. Count me as one of them. BUT, simply raising a Berlin wall through the game may not be the best solution possibly. Maybe allowing the game to offer you the best of both worlds might be a nice place to aim for.

Ultimately if a dedicated PvE mode/mechanic is a valid outcome, fine. But simply going there because of current design issues/imbalances seems a sad move to me.

I meant no offence with you not getting it thing, sorry. I just kind of got the impression you think there are issues (eg mindless ganking) that can be "fixed" to make PvE people want to play in Open. Speaking for myself, I am simply not interested in fighting real people in ED, at all, ever - but I would really like to encounter them a lot more than I do. Unless you can guarantee no PvP in Open (i.e. with a flag, which is an even worse solution, IMHO, than an Open PvE mode) then there is no solution that delivers that. Yes, there's Mobius but it's borked too - in that it had to be split and it's voluntary, meaning idiots can go in with the intent of spoiling it anyway.
 
To me the case for PvE mode is so clear, so obvious, and so apparently popular that the only reason that Frontier aren't considering it at the moment can only be because they're worried that the experience will be much less broken compared to how PvP is, and they still have ambitions for this to be a PvP game. They're worried that providing this other mode will kill off PvP.

Well, I don't think that's good enough. They've made a sandbox with various options about how to play, and it's clear that PvE only is a highly desired game mode. The reason for this isn't JUST because PvP is broken. There are plenty of people that want this mode regardless of what happens to PVP, ever. They can keep trying to band aid it and maybe that'd bring some players back to it. But either way, it seems well past time provide official support for the play mode that so many players already enjoy unofficially.
 
Not charming. Fact. because:



You still dont get that some people dont want ho have anoter player attack them. REGARDLESS of consequences. But same players want to have a cooperative Multiplayer experience.
As such not even Mobius delivers. Even there is a SMALL chance of some Dimwit ignoring the group rules and try to attack you.



The berlin wall IS the only solution to the ones that dont want any PewPew against other commanders EVER.

My, you do speak with some authority don't you... No other solution has merit... You speak for countless others...

Impressive stuff...
 
Back
Top Bottom