Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter

[Zambrick]

Given that every player bought the game with the ability to play in any of the three modes, forcing "Open only" might just cause some players to leave in disgust.



Sounds like a method of providing more targets for the PvP minority.



Solo (without Wings) is not necessarily easier than Open.



You are entitled to your opinion, of course - just as Frontier are - and Frontier set the game design, in relation to player freedom of choice on which mode to play in while, at the same time, affecting and experiencing the single shared galaxy state, over four years ago and released the game with these features intact over two years ago.

As Frontier have acknowledged the oft speculated, i.e. Frontier are well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP, I doubt that the game will be significantly modified to cater to a minority whose behaviours can cause the majority to lose enjoyment in the game.

What I would really wish is that they would just get on with it. Flip the switch so to speak.

For the time being just make PVP flagged in open. If they can ever get a good fair and just Crime and Punishment system into place, then maybe turn it back on. In the meantime they have lost many potential long term players and investors into ED. There are people who still refuse to buy Horizons because the original game isnt yet balanced correctly.

Perhaps if they just did this sooner rather than later, then they may attract a new crowd of players and another source of revenue. I know 5 people who could come back instantly if they flagged PVP until a proper system is put in place. Thats just me. I am sure there are others who have the same story and would let their disenfanchised friends know that the game has been made more bearable.

CQC was the answer for the PVP crowd. It has leader boards and ranking. It has everything they need to feel better about themselves. Instead they gave kids giant magnifying glasses and set them loose upon the game.

Not to mention the fact that the amount of people who have quit or wont purchase the game because of said griefing community is in excess of the griefing community itself. A very small group of players is causing a net loss in player base and revenue. It doesnt seem smart to me.

CQC covers the PVP aspect and Flagged Open would cover an legal concern that griefing community might attempt to bring forth. Make it a flagged system and get it over with. The core game is never and will never be balanced between players because it is too complex.

 

[frostypaw]

A rather sad aspect of this whole situation is that the PvP brigade aren't even interested in playing the game. The point of it as a creation is lost due to a drastic lack of imagination and maturity. PvE is about exploring and enjoying the universe created whereas PvP can't see past shooting another player, it's sad and really you need to either morph your game play into something that the universe was intended, ie play the game not the mechanic, or go find something that better caters to your mentality.

the number of "end game" cmdrs whinging about nothing to do who don't even know what a UA is came as a bit of a sad shock.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Perhaps if they just did this sooner rather than later, then they may attract a new crowd of players and another source of revenue. I know 5 people who could come back instantly if they flagged PVP until a proper system is put in place. Thats just me. I am sure there are others who have the same story and would let their disenfanchised friends know that the game has been made more bearable.

I don't know, as a PvP player I often feel more disenfranchised than PvE players in general (there are exceptions of course).

CQC was the answer for the PVP crowd. It has leader boards and ranking. It has everything they need to feel better about themselves. Instead they gave kids giant magnifying glasses and set them loose upon the game.

...

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...hment-Proposals-for-CQC?p=4361733#post4361733

Read that then come back. To summarize the main point...

Limited ship choice.

Limited outfit choice.

No Engineer effects.

No meaningful context other than shooting ships.

Gimbals everywhere, chaff so limited.

Powerup chasing simulator.

Where do I even end...

Not to mention the fact that the amount of people who have quit or wont purchase the game because of said griefing community is in excess of the griefing community itself. A very small group of players is causing a net loss in player base and revenue. It doesnt seem smart to me.

Because targeting griefers means the equivalent to targeting PvP in general, good logic right there.

CQC covers the PVP aspect

Yea no... do you even play CQC to draw that conclusion?

and Flagged Open would cover an legal concern that griefing community might attempt to bring forth. Make it a flagged system and get it over with.

Limited flagging I do support, complete flagging is immersion breaking.

There's no "griefing community" as far as I'm aware, only "griefers."

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-an-Analysis-on-Professions-and-Modes-of-Play

Read before coming back tyvm.

The core game is never and will never be balanced between players because it is too complex.

Tell that to other modern MMO with Open World PvP or just PvP, for some magical reason they're balancing okay for the majority of them.

- - - Updated - - -

A rather sad aspect of this whole situation is that the PvP brigade aren't even interested in playing the game. The point of it as a creation is lost due to a drastic lack of imagination and maturity. PvE is about exploring and enjoying the universe created whereas PvP can't see past shooting another player, it's sad and really you need to either morph your game play into something that the universe was intended, ie play the game not the mechanic, or go find something that better caters to your mentality.

Well that just made me laugh.

 

[Morbad]

PvE is about exploring and enjoying the universe created whereas PvP can't see past shooting another player, it's sad and really you need to either morph your game play into something that the universe was intended, ie play the game not the mechanic, or go find something that better caters to your mentality.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that there is any such dichotomy between PvP and PvE.

I play Elite: Dangerous to experience and explore the game's universe and all aspects thereof. PvP is inseparable from an immersive experience and it the inability to apply violence when the situation calls for it is at least as jarring to verisimilitude as the lack of seamless instance transitions. The difference here is that the latter is a mostly unavoidable technical limitation, while the former, were it to be an enforceable thing, would be purely arbitrary. I'm not fond of arbitrary limitations that don't serve to better illustrate the setting.

 

[jasonbarron]

A rather sad aspect of this whole situation is that the PvP brigade aren't even interested in playing the game. The point of it as a creation is lost due to a drastic lack of imagination and maturity. PvE is about exploring and enjoying the universe created whereas PvP can't see past shooting another player, it's sad and really you need to either morph your game play into something that the universe was intended, ie play the game not the mechanic, or go find something that better caters to your mentality.

You've put forward some pretty nasty opinions, but the one I highlighted caught my interest the most. You've characterized the OP and his "ilk" as being bad guys and gankers with no interest in the game. I haven't read anywhere where that's been endorsed in this thread. How do you know the OP is a griefer or ganker? Second, how do you know the OP and his ilk have no interest in playing the rest of the game as you've opined? An interest in PvP, and an acknowledgment of being able to PvP playing a bad guy is a valid playstyle isn't the same as being a bad guy, so would you please clarify where you're specific nastiness is coming from?

Additionally, you don't realize that you can't engage in PvP at any level without having a fundamental grip on all the disciplines in Elite? How do you think these guys are funding themselves, or getting their ships uber modded, for example?

 

[GluttonyFang]

You've put forward some pretty nasty opinions, but the one I highlighted caught my interest the most. You've characterized the OP and his "ilk" as being bad guys and gankers with no interest in the game. I haven't read anywhere where that's been endorsed in this thread. How do you know the OP is a griefer or ganker? Second, how do you know the OP and his ilk have no interest in playing the rest of the game as you've opined? An interest in PvP, and an acknowledgment of being able to PvP playing a bad guy isn't the same as being a bad guy, so would you please clarify where you're specific nastiness is coming from?

See, if some of these PvE guys would be kindly less butthurt about nasty opinions going their ways, we might have less perceived moderator bias...

Ops, did I just promote "us/them" mentality?

"Us/them" mentality is bad, very very naughty.

*Chuckles in the background*

 

[hookandsling]

it's not worth being in open unless you run a pvp build.

Yes it is.

You could say 'it's not worth it for me being in Open unless you run a pvp build'.
But that isn't what you want to say is it?

Sigh... I'm MassiveD on this. FDev are smarter that the myopic fundamentalists on both sides.
So for the last time:

- Open is not chock full of gankers. Player pinch-points are more dangerous but duh.
- You can learn some basic evasion techniques / loadouts and escape most trouble.
- Since Beta I've flown in Open and have never killed another commander or run a 'pvp build'.
- I've been killed perhaps 10 times and learned something each time.
- Being properly pirated or other RP interaction is FUN and EXCITING for some people. Fact.
- Yes C&P needs improvement. It's being looked at - we've even been told a 'Karma' system but they want to get it right.

If you don't personally like the possibility of hostile players there are modes for you.
But don't speak for others who don't pvp, play in Open and get along just fine.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Personally FD should push everyone into Open Ironman mode /runs

 

[hookandsling]

Personally FD should push everyone into Open Ironman mode /runs

Lol repped /runs

As a thought experiment it's interesting to speculate where the game would be now if there was only one mode from the start.
PvE would have had to have been protected and the c&p thing would have had to have been solved somehow, or it wouldn't have survived.

As I say - just a thought experiment. As it stands I absolutely would not want anyone to be forced to play any way they didn't want to... put the flaming torches down please.. [haha]

 

[Nemayn]

Lol repped /runs

As a thought experiment it's interesting to speculate where the game would be now if there was only one mode from the start.
PvE would have had to have been protected and the c&p thing would have had to have been solved somehow, or it wouldn't have survived.

As I say - just a thought experiment. As it stands I absolutely would not want anyone to be forced to play any way they didn't want to... put the flaming torches down please.. [haha]

Without multi mode it is possible the game may never have been made in the first place, I suspect many old time elite players see this as a single player game and wouldn't have backed it with no solo mode. I also suspect a single pvp enabled mode would have deterred many kick starters.

Have they ever published stats on the split between solo/private/open?

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvP is inseparable from an immersive experience and it the inability to apply violence when the situation calls for it is at least as jarring to verisimilitude as the lack of seamless instance transitions. The difference here is that the latter is a mostly unavoidable technical limitation, while the former, were it to be an enforceable thing, would be purely arbitrary. I'm not fond of arbitrary limitations that don't serve to better illustrate the setting.

PvP is entirely separable from an immersive experience - it depends entirely on one's opinion regarding whether PvP adds to the experience (and one's choice of game mode, of course).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Have they ever published stats on the split between solo/private/open?

Frontier don't make their in-game analytics public.

They have, however, recently confirmed that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP (regardless of game mode).

 

[MassiveD]

Frontier don't make their in-game analytics public.

They have, however, recently confirmed that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP (regardless of game mode).

Where have they confirmed that?

Also you do realize that PvP doesn't mean Call of Duty Shoot Everything in sight, right?

 

[Nemayn]

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that there is any such dichotomy between PvP and PvE.

I play Elite: Dangerous to experience and explore the game's universe and all aspects thereof. PvP is inseparable from an immersive experience and it the inability to apply violence when the situation calls for it is at least as jarring to verisimilitude as the lack of seamless instance transitions. The difference here is that the latter is a mostly unavoidable technical limitation, while the former, were it to be an enforceable thing, would be purely arbitrary. I'm not fond of arbitrary limitations that don't serve to better illustrate the setting.

Hmmm will disagree with you here, while I am a pure pvp player in eve online I fly here in Mobius just because I do not find pvp here in the least immersive. PVP in Eve has a point which is territory control. PVP here has absolutely no reason at all to happen. Before you say piracy, sorry thats a pretty poor immersive reason, someone flying a fully engineered ship will make more money trading than pirating so its a thin attempt at justifying pvp

 

[Robert Maynard]

Where have they confirmed that?

Also you do realize that PvP doesn't mean Call of Duty Shoot Everything in sight, right?

Here:

On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .

Yes, I do - however some players seem to think that this game will offer that experience.

 

[MassiveD]

Hmmm will disagree with you here, while I am a pure pvp player in eve online I fly here in Mobius just because I do not find pvp here in the least immersive. PVP in Eve has a point which is territory control. PVP here has absolutely no reason at all to happen. Before you say piracy, sorry thats a pretty poor immersive reason, someone flying a fully engineered ship will make more money trading than pirating so its a thin attempt at justifying pvp

We'll heres your problems, that's why developers need to introduce more reasons to PVP, like special missions that pay well for the person carrying the mission cargo, and for the person who needs to acquire that cargo via PVP methods - kill / disable.

It's a very basic and unimaginative example, but I'm very certain that developers can sit down and come up with many good ways, alongside with good crime & punishment system

 

[Robert Maynard]

We'll heres your problems, that's why developers need to introduce more reasons to PVP, like special missions that pay well for the person carrying the mission cargo, and for the person who needs to acquire that cargo via PVP methods - kill / disable.

It's a very basic and unimaginative example, but I'm very certain that developers can sit down and come up with many good ways, alongside with good crime & punishment system

The tricky bit would be to achieve this without adversely affecting the PvE player-base who want to play among players rather than against them.

 

[Nemayn]

We'll heres your problems, that's why developers need to introduce more reasons to PVP, like special missions that pay well for the person carrying the mission cargo, and for the person who needs to acquire that cargo via PVP methods - kill / disable.

It's a very basic and unimaginative example, but I'm very certain that developers can sit down and come up with many good ways, alongside with good crime & punishment system

If there was an immersive reason here to pvp then I might well do so and the idea of missions wouldnt be it. If my cmdr is risk a multi milliion rebuy by combat the risk reward would have to reflect that and if they set the mission payouts high enough for that then people would be taking to much money every time the mission was unopposed. I suspect anything less than territory control would remain pointless to me at least

 

[MassiveD]

Here:



Yes, I do - however some players seem to think that this game will offer that experience.

We'll theres the problem, Mark Allen himself admits of having PvE bias, and I don't think that people with bias to particular game mode or style should be the arbiters over the experience for everyone.

Or else, soon we will have a moderator / developer who plays only mining, and the game should be renamed to Mining Dangerous, and every single other proffession should be removed, because he has no interest in them.

No person that I talked to ever, said that they want ED to be a "PVP arena", not even the griefers that I hunt on daily basis.

This entire "PVP = CALL OF DUTY" style gameplay argument has been bounced out of control in the forum echo chamber, and a lot of people are shouting this idea without going further into.

In reality, majority of the players do want to play in the Open with full ability to interact with other, using their own moral filters.

Of cource a few bad apples to take advantage of that, but in no way, shape or form, should this be the reason to segregate the community into different game modes.

That would be the most unimaginative and lazzy thing to do ever, and instead it would make sense to sort the bad apples whom seem to be the main cause of this, by introducing a strong C & P system which would only ADD to the game, instead of TAKING AWAY from the game.

As moderators , shouldnt you guys be pushing the neutral , unbias agenda that suits every single player and not only some players?

Unless you guys are being funded with Mobius revenue to do otherwise, which i suspect at least 2 moderators in this forum are.

- - - Updated - - -

If there was an immersive reason here to pvp then I might well do so and the idea of missions wouldnt be it. If my cmdr is risk a multi milliion rebuy by combat the risk reward would have to reflect that and if they set the mission payouts high enough for that then people would be taking to much money every time the mission was unopposed. I suspect anything less than territory control would remain pointless to me at least

Yes, I agree with most of what you said, if not all, so why not work on this and move forward with solutions, instead of segregation.

Otherwise, if we were to segregate the community into game modes like PVE only OPEN, PVP OPEN etc,


Than PVP OPEN, as it's original and purest form of open world, (including the fact that elite dangerous advertises itself based on this mode), should infact have the highest draw, and reward systems above all, including special rewards for territory control and stuff like that, to encourage players to play it, while having other modes available to them.

Alot of games do this already

 

[Nemayn]

We'll t
In reality, majority of the players do want to play in the Open with full ability to interact with other, using their own moral filters.

Source for this is? I like PVP, I do not like pvp in elite in its current state it ruins immersion for me that is why I joined mobius. Only thing that would make me personally want to play in a pvp enabled open s territory control. Most pve only people I suspect if you polled them would rather not play in a pvp enabled open at all though I have no source for that either. But see we can both make guesses