Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Globusdiablo]

...It's less about wanting more players who can't fight to be in Open and more about not wanting the existing players to choose an easier mode to play in to accomplish everything you can in the mode that has the additional risk of pvp....

Much more solid reasoning. Thank you.

But personally I don't mind other players seeking an easier path. I'm not interested in easy targets. You argue that Group and Solo are easy modes, I say so what? Good riddens even. Who needs easy targets? Where's the challenge in that.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Have Frontier made any recent comment on making an Open PvE mode, or the viability of it?

 

[Robert Maynard]

And if that was working great, there wouldn't be an issue with CG's essentially being all but guaranteed to be successful unless they specifically create an opposing CG. A community goal without a way of opposing it is not a community goal. It's just FD throwing crumbs out to keep players busy between releases or looking to progress some plot along their own pre-defined story. Make every CG have an opposing CG and you can end that argument.

If Frontier wanted all CGs to be opposable then they would implement counter CGs to suit - that they don't tends to suggest that this is still the "mainly PvE game where PvP is optional" that it appeared to be from the outset.

You're assuming the way FD implemented these things is at all a good implementation. Powerplay puts players against other players but in an indirect way with a minor almost non-existent amount of optional direct opposition. Powerplay, even when in Open is 99.9999% PVE. The different things you do in powerplay do not benefit player vs player interaction at all. In fact, you're wasting your time attacking another powerplay player. You dont get more points for killing a player. You take longer doing it and you end up risking your own merits if you lose. Powerplay pvp is simply an opportunity-based interaction that is essentially all role-play.

That's how it currently is. The complaints on the PVP-side have been to make it more direct player vs player action rather than all PVE as it currently is.

If we're going to paint Open as PVP'ers playground and solo and private as the PVE'ers playgrounds, then I dont see anything wrong with PVP'ers asking for Open to incentivize PvP interaction.

I think that's what most PVE'ers are missing from the PVP'ers posts. PVP'ers want incentives associated with player vs player combat because it's harder. That doesn't involve removing anything from PVE'ers.

Either way, the stalemate in what the multiple incompatible gamer-types want with this game is the evidence to why there are universal laws like "jack of all trades but master of none". I wish FD would stop being scared to commit to something and just go all in one way or the other and build the game the best that it can be. It's nobody's perfect if it's everybody's average.

Whether it is a good implementation (or not) is subjective as it depends on the viewpoint of the individual forming the opinion. From the perspective of this being a PvE game with optional PvP, it's quite reasonable that these features have been implemented as they have.

If PvP were to be incentivised, how would Frontier ensure that a) PvE players were not affected by it and/or b) Open remained an attractive choice of game mode for all players.

There's no compelling need for Frontier to choose one over the other - and, if they did, I'd not bet too much on them favouring PvP (as they know that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP)....

 

[Jason S]

The saddest thing about this topic is FD obviously do not want open PvE or they would have done it by now. I mean it cannot be too hard to make damage taken zero if it originates from a commander or is it they would have difficulty handling where the damage originated from ? Sounds to be like a property on the weapon ammo objects or lazer ray objects and also the ships hull in case of ramming so surely it is easy to implment and if so if they were going to do it it would have been done by now.

Personally I would like open PvE.

 

[Julio Montega]

If Frontier wanted all CGs to be opposable then they would implement counter CGs to suit - that they don't tends to suggest that this is still the "mainly PvE game where PvP is optional" that it appeared to be from the outset.

But isn't counter PvE, to have an opposing CG finish before
the other, basically is an indirect form of PvP?

 

[Mengy]

Have Frontier made any recent comment on making an Open PvE mode, or the viability of it?

To the best of my knowledge they’ve not made any comment on a PvE mode, but they have stated that they are considering a karma system which might also be accompanied by some form of a C&P mechanic. Nothing definite though, despite the almost daily threads about the issue.

 

[Connor Caple]

I have nothing against PvP in general. I have a gaming history that includes a lot of it, going back to the original DOOM in 1993.

I object to 'griefers' and those who get their fun from making others miserable. I have fought them in many games and, in some scenarios, we out-griefed them until they stopped playing/moved away (EvE for instance).

This game has real potential, but not while griefers are there to gank people, or blow up newbies, or just camp CGs to kill people for fun.

That's why I'd rather see no PvP at all in Open - because it seemingly cannot be 'policed' adequately with current systems.

I'd happily PvP here too, if I wanted to, but I don't want to. I quit EvE (finally) after originally joining in time for the GNW many years ago where I learned to be a Space Guerilla. We had fun, but the game system just went CapShip heavy and I prefer small ship/large fleet combat. I get my PvP these days in BF1, RB6Siege and other games of that type.

I may, someday, PvP here when I see a system that I think is worth it. Powerplay could be that system, if it ever works. In the meantime, I'll keep Exploring, Trading and maybe even PvEing occasionally.

I don't want anyone else to 'play the game my way' - I want the game to be the game I was promised as a backer. Seriously, go read the KickStarter page sometime to see why the current PvP is 'not working as intended'.

So - feel my love - everyone except the griefers, anyway.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

An Open PvE mode should be paired with a mechanism in Open that promotes and gives direction and meaning to PvP. Ziljan posted a thread not too long ago about such thing. Whatever shape or form that would be would be better decided by PvPers. But I feel that starting PvPers should be able to fullfill a meaningful role in it and not be sent to the rebuy frequently during the festivities.

Of course this is going to be a balancing nightmare but done well it'll give every playingstyle what they want.

 

[Anopheles]

That's why I'd rather see no PvP at all in Open - because it seemingly cannot be 'policed' adequately with current systems.


I don't want anyone else to 'play the game my way' - I want the game to be the game I was promised as a backer. Seriously, go read the KickStarter page sometime to see why the current PvP is 'not working as intended'.

Left hand disagreeing with right hand here.

 

[Jason S]

The number of people that have left the game because a) it can be lonely out of open and b) in open if you go looking for company is like a rabbit looking for company of wolves.

 

[Anopheles]

The number of people that have left the game because a) it can be lonely out of open and b) in open if you go looking for company is like a rabbit looking for company of wolves.

Indeed and making an OPEN PVE mode will only make it lonelier.

 

[Connor Caple]

Left hand disagreeing with right hand here.

Nope. "Rather see" and "want" are not the same thing. Not trying to force anyone to play my way, unlike others, but if they prod then they have to expect a backlash. [heart]

 

[stevesideas]

Why not allocate a number of systems as "safe zones". Weapons cannot be used.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why not allocate a number of systems as "safe zones". Weapons cannot be used.

.... because NPCs still exist....

 

[Robert Maynard]

But isn't counter PvE, to have an opposing CG finish before
the other, basically is an indirect form of PvP?

Indeed. The whole of the single shared galaxy state (including Factions, Powerplay, trading, exploration, etc.) is indirect PvP - no player/player combat required - by design.

Interesting that Frontier don't offer counter CGs at all CGs - maybe the idea is just to see how high the CG will go rather than "will it be opposed".

 

[Anopheles]

Why not allocate a number of systems as "safe zones". Weapons cannot be used.

You'd wish they brought back the original game mechanic of Corporate System safe zones where if you fired in anger, the po po were on you and kept on you while you were in that system. Things have improved, but it needs to be better.

 

[Mengy]

Indeed and making an OPEN PVE mode will only make it lonelier.

It would only make Open PvP mode lonelier. The new Open PvE mode would be full of happy cheerful players. You only need to do a few CG’s in Mobius to see what I mean, it’s an interesting experience.

 

[Julio Montega]

Indeed. The whole of the single shared galaxy state (including Factions, Powerplay, trading, exploration, etc.) is indirect PvP - no player/player combat required - by design.

Interesting that Frontier don't offer counter CGs at all CGs - maybe the idea is just to see how high the CG will go rather than "will it be opposed".

A very binary design.
I think a lot of players do the CGs for the ability to meet up with people
and earn some premium rewards.
However, as there are rarely any opposite CGs player choice is cut severely.

Optimum would be to have every CG be able to be opposed,
so the "galactic community" can express their wishes by participating
in one, the other, or both

As it comes it behaves with your ratings the same way.
Explorer, trader, combat, cqc.
Where is the miner, smuggler, bounty collector and pirate rank?

 

[Darth Ender]

If PvP were to be incentivised, how would Frontier ensure that a) PvE players were not affected by it and/or b) Open remained an attractive choice of game mode for all players.

There's no compelling need for Frontier to choose one over the other - and, if they did, I'd not bet too much on them favouring PvP (as they know that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP)....

Except the market for PVE games is about to get a bit more crowded. Can Elite compete against star citizen? Considering the funds available and what's already completed, I really doubt it. Even the X games are coming out with another release with major updates and VR support. Then you have the other existing legacy PvE space combat/trader games out there to compete against.

Is it a smart decision for FD to go up against multiple titles in the same genre or to be more unique and not directly compete? That's their gamble with decisions regarding PVP and PVE. What's their competition on the mostly pvp front? EvE valkrie and Vendetta-online? Those odds seem a bit more favorable.


And as far as incentivation not effecting PVE players, how could it? If they're not in a mode that allows it or they're not in an area in Open that has it even remotely likely to occur, then it wont change the game at all for them.

I think the only thing incentives would have to worry about is cheating the system by players taking a fall on purpose. Dealing with cheaters of such a system is the only thing FD would really need to worry about. It's not like they would offer special weapons available only to PVP'ers and such. There are multiple ways to incentivise that dont require in-game items. Even a separate rank would be incentive for most.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Except the market for PVE games is about to get a bit more crowded. Can Elite compete against star citizen? Considering the funds available and what's already completed, I really doubt it. Even the X games are coming out with another release with major updates and VR support. Then you have the other existing legacy PvE space combat/trader games out there to compete against.

Is it a smart decision for FD to go up against multiple titles in the same genre or to be more unique and not directly compete? That's their gamble with decisions regarding PVP and PVE. What's their competition on the mostly pvp front? EvE valkrie and Vendetta-online? Those odds seem a bit more favorable.


And as far as incentivation not effecting PVE players, how could it? If they're not in a mode that allows it or they're not in an area in Open that has it even remotely likely to occur, then it wont change the game at all for them.

I think the only thing incentives would have to worry about is cheating the system by players taking a fall on purpose. Dealing with cheaters of such a system is the only thing FD would really need to worry about. It's not like they would offer special weapons available only to PVP'ers and such. There are multiple ways to incentivise that dont require in-game items. Even a separate rank would be incentive for most.

Eventually, maybe (although SC is meant to offer PvP opportunities in a tiny galaxy and the last X game didn't seem to do too well).

Changing focus to PvP is, I expect the dream of some of the PvP minority. However, simple arithmetic would suggest that if changes are made aimed at retaining one subset of the player-base, possibly losing some of the other, then the changes should favour PvE rather than PvP - as there are more PvE players to lose (according to Mark Allen's comment regarding the proportion of the population that engages in PvP).

If indiscriminate PvP were to be rewarded then PvE players would be affected in Open - and, it bears repeating, that Open belongs to all players, not just those who prefer PvP.