Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which other solution permits players to meet random others with a guarantee to not encounter any PvP?
Last edited:
Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen
- Thread starter excalibus
- Start date
Which other solution permits players to meet random others with a guarantee to not encounter any PvP?
I think you're right... And as I've said before, I'm a predominantly PvE player.
That said, I'd still prefer to see the glaring issues in OPEN addressed, before a PvE mode/instance is made a defacto-standard.
Agreed... And I wouldn't suggest that should be the case.
But as I've said, I'd like to see OPEN made more, you decide what you encounter if only so players have more of a choice if they want to engage in PvP in OPEN or not.. And, most importantly, SOLO prevented from being made a defacto standard retreat for those trying to achieve a goal/task because the game rewards you for going there.
As I've said, none...
But it doesn't mean it is the only solution for "all the causes"... and it doesn't mean it will only improve the game and not risk introducing even more isssues. There's bigger more important fish to fry first (IMHO)... Then see if, and most importantly HOW, a PvE environment/mechanic might be employed (if still required). Indeed a more elegant solution may even manifest itself by going down that other path first...
I'd suggest people saying a dedicated PvE environment/mechanic is the first and only solution is dangerous IMHO. Better to address the known issues with OPEN (& SOLO) first... Then see if/how a PvE environment/mechanic might best be employed.
Last edited:
None of the above. And this is your problem here that you don't even get close to comprehend the reasons wy people play in Solo. More so, the very first sentence of your post suggests you actually see people playing in Solo as somehow impaired, as if they were some poor souls which need to be converted to a correct and enlightened path of the Open. That having multiplayer experience, good or bad, is the bee's knees. It's not. There are thousands of multiplayer games out there, there have been for years, there's nothing new here.
Well, it's not at all like this. Many players simply are not interested in multiplayer aspect of the game that much or at all. Many people do not want to be a part of any power play (not as in the game feature), squabbles over some virtual turf. Many people do have a life outside of Elite and are entirely happy to start the game for a couple of hours, chill and then go back to their everyday life. Some of them will be happy to meet the same other people on the other side of the screen, some will be happy to have some interaction with other players, but what people who play in Solo or Private Groups have in common is that they simply want a place to relax, not a place to wage wars over and also not a place where they are being pestered by people they would never be interested in interacting with in the first place.
Personally, I don't really see what is there for me to "trust" other players with. Virtual credits? How much you need? If I have that much, you can have it, but it's just some 1s and 0s. I gave away around 30mil yesterday and don't feel in any way impoverished because of that. Virtual ship to shoot at? If I could, I'd happily have all of mine flying around as targets for people to shoot at and destroy for as long as I don't have to be participate in this, because, quite frankly, I have other things to do. If I want to spend time with other players, I will spend time with other players. But for most of the time I don't really care about what other players are doing in the game. Whatever makes you happy, really.
In the last three months I have never encountered a single player in Open (and I don't care), the only times when I see other people is when I want to see them and arrange to meet them in game. And when I do that, it's not to take over any of the bits of the galaxy, because I don't thing waging virtual wars is worth my time. I bought the game to fly a virtual ship in a virtual galaxy and have some fun, not to undermine something as superficial as someone's need to feel important in a computer game. Granted, I seldom venture into Open, there is nothing I would be interested in in that mode. I'm simply not overly interested in what people do in Open and I'm not fussed about the way they decided to entertain themselves.
Easier experience? In what way? Unless I decide to specifically go to the areas which tend to attract players, I'm likely to meet one player per few thousand or more NPC ships. And even if they attack me and blow up my ship, the only way it differs from being blown up by an NPC is that a player may choose to pester me with their presence and demand my attention. Why would I give my attention and time to a person I absolutely don't care about in the first place, whom I never met and am never going to meet IRL?
What sort of easier experience against the game? You gain some virtual credits, fly some virtual ship in a virtual galaxy and at the end of the day you switch it off and carry on with your life. It's not some sort of a rat race, it's not something that is going to make or destroy your life. There's no reason to give it more importance in your life than it actually has.
It's interesting that 516 people voted "no" to the idea of adding a PVE mode. I wonder if that's 516 people saying "no, you should not be allowed a PVE mode because that means there will be fewer targets for me" or 516 people saying "no, there should not be a PVE mode because existing open should be PVE" or "no, because that's not fair, it's easier for you to do X than it is for me to do X, then".
All the poll really says to me is that a number of people think that an option that would potentially increase people's enjoyment of the game as a whole should not exist, which I find frankly bizarre.
All the poll really says to me is that a number of people think that an option that would potentially increase people's enjoyment of the game as a whole should not exist, which I find frankly bizarre.
For me, it was none of the above.
I'd just prefer the devs to spend their time on other things, like a better crime and punishment system.
What we have is 4 tiers, in fact, all of which are perfectly legitimate preferences.
1) People who don't want any multiplayer at all.
2) People who want multiplayer, but only with friends.
3) People who want multiplayer, but not competitive multiplayer.
4) People who want multiplayer, including competitive multiplayer.
There's overlap between these, of course (like sometimes I want to only play with friends, sometimes with strangers), but those are 4 styles of play that are all valid.
None of these preferences necessarily have anything to do with the level of 'challenge' each offers, even if it is generally the case that surviving in open is trickier.
Until people (including Frontier!) acknowledge that all these preferences are equally valid then there can be no reasonable discussion.
1) People who don't want any multiplayer at all.
2) People who want multiplayer, but only with friends.
3) People who want multiplayer, but not competitive multiplayer.
4) People who want multiplayer, including competitive multiplayer.
There's overlap between these, of course (like sometimes I want to only play with friends, sometimes with strangers), but those are 4 styles of play that are all valid.
None of these preferences necessarily have anything to do with the level of 'challenge' each offers, even if it is generally the case that surviving in open is trickier.
Until people (including Frontier!) acknowledge that all these preferences are equally valid then there can be no reasonable discussion.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Asking players who want to play in a PvE mode how much PvP will be acceptable (non-zero risk) is like asking a vegan how they want their steak cooked.
I would contend that Open needs "fixing" regardless - whether the development priority should be several incremental changes to Open in the hope that players are drawn back to it or whether an Open-PvE mode is prioritised is for Frontier to decide, of course.
But the things you suggest seem to be aiming at making Open the main, most privileged mode (and you said so yourself) and cut on the experience of people playing other mode, so they come to play in Open. Why?
Yes, there are many bits of the game that need improvements, but these are things that affect all of the modes equally. Things need to be "made more" throughout the game, that's for sure, but changing the core of the good experience doesn't make much sense to me.
I do hope Frontier will work on these issues and make the Elite experience continuously better with time, but I don't think encouraging people, or "force" them to play in Open is actually going to work. FD could have chosen to make Elite multiplayer only back when they decided to start the crowdfunding campaign, but they haven't done that for some reason. Instead, they have created a pretty unique mix of various modes and in my opinion, they should stick to that. To giving people choices of how they want to play the game they purchased.
You missed the option "no, because Open is PvE outside of highly populated (playerwise) areas".
Imagine a food shortage in a country, there will be competition to ferry goods there and sell them for a high profit.
In E: D those competitors can be other traders attracting pirates, bountyhunters hunting pirates for their living and the few terrorists wanting to keep the food shortage up.
If someone estimates to go unscathed when competition is high, he should reevaluate his options.
Last edited:
Such an environment [more activity in various areas] could be (and, to an extent, already is) offered in pve, there's no reasoning there that says why there shouldn't be a pve option.
It's 516 people saying, "No, you can't play the way you want to play". And Frontier is very quiet but I think I hear them saying "No, you can't play the way you want to play and we're giving bonuses to the people you don't want to play with"... but that might just be the voices I hear sometimes and I don't know what's going on and nothing makes sense to me any more
I find it odd you quote the beginning of my post, cutting off the careful clarifications of all the three points, and then poo poo "my headings" using lines of thinking I actually even listed as a valid reason to play in a SOLO mode. *confused*
I fully inderstand some people simply want a guaranteed PvE environment. But my suggestion is, before we steam ahead and implement new modes or mechanics, let's address some of the issues existing in OPEN/SOLO which are dictating where people are playing, as this:-
a) May change their minds, and thus have some bearing on any PVe mode/mechanic.
b) These changes/improvements may in themselves offer some means of offering/introducing said PvE mode/mechanic (possibly in a better fashion).
As for the "easier experience" discussion - as I stated in my posts - this is regarding community related tasks (who cares about personal progression really). eg: There's a reason for example why Sando is talking about offering a multiplier in OPEN PP related tasks. It's because many players are ducking into SOLO to be "more effective." The game is actually rewarding them going into SOLO in a community related task, which seems odd IMHO.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Nope... I wish to see OPEN become an environment where as many CMDRs can play in experiencing hopefully as much/little PvP as they wish to expose themselves to. If ultimately even that is too much, SOLO is then available to them.
OPEN should be FD's best attempt at producing a ncie environment to play in... If players then don't like the PvP experience this gives, then SOLO is a fall back position for those that simply prefer absolutely no exposure to it at all. Which is fine.
Last edited:
Sorry if I misunderstood you then. And we seem to agree on ED being in need of improvements across the available modes, so that's a good start.
That would just create another magical barrier, you cannot hinder movements,
when they are not present and exposed to violent answers.
You would have in a trade CG as example, just traders ferrying goods in for Faction A or as counter Faction B.
Where is the sense in that?
Where is the immersion, blockades, robbery, hired guns?
Where does that allready happen? -> Powerplay preparation.
Is this generally enjoyable? -> Not for me.
Last edited:
Oookay. I find contributing to a CG to be fairly entertaining without a blockade, but if there were a need for a blockade, it could be blockaded by NPCs. There's no reason for people to take on that task. If people want to take on that task, then open mode would still exist. They can do so, and people who want to experience a blockade made by humans can still experience it, in open (pvp).
We lack the NPC blockade, but apart from that you describe a "private group" and open in general.
To my understanding, reducing the means to interact with players is robbing the galaxy of diversity,
but that is a personal opinion.
Of course there are solo players, and players who go on a spin with their friends only,
yet open....
In the end one of the playstyles takes the stick,
and i rather think that is piracy.
No matter how enthusiastic someone is to be interdicted by a pirate,
dance a bit and drop some booty in the end,
after several insurance screens that is gonna change a lot.
Or he simply checks in with friends and takes the joy-ride,
leaving piracy as a means of player interaction to die out.
Last edited:
Not at all, because nothing actively prevents pvp in either open or private groups. Any prevention is after the fact, which is essentially all but useless.
So you are suggesting PvP-Flagging for open/groups in order to prevent PvP at all?
Is that really the road it is taking?
This still completely fails to satisfy people who DO want a full multiplayer experience that is PvE only, as far as I can tell. 'Hopefully as little PvP as they wish' is still... just based on wishful thinking. The point about dedicated PvE players is that they never want non-consensual PvP. Not ever. Not once. Not 'hopefully.' As soon as you start arguing for changes that would hopefully minimise these things for that sort of player, effectively you're treating their playstyle as second-rate.
People pay it lip service and make suggestions which would improve things generally, but they're not willing to make the final logical step which is - just provide support for this officially. Either it's a valid preference or it isn't. I say it is, and that being the case, official support is the only plausibly right thing to do. Either that or greatly expand the private groups functionality in order to be able to take more players, and enforce certain rules. Everything else is a half-measure.
Not that I don't agree that many of the proposed changes would make Open better - I think that's a given, but to my mind that's quite another discussion.
That was the original question asked by this thread, yes. A PVE only mode, which would inhibit any pvp action, outside of conflict zones.
I would expect that it would be in addition to any existing modes.