Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[MassiveD]

Submission takes time; dropping into normal space takes time; the FSD takes c.10 seconds to become available (after a few seconds delay on dropping to normal space before the timer starts); the player requires to select a system to high-wake to; the FSD takes about 15 seconds to charge for a hyper-jump; the jump itself takes time - and the player is not in the system they wanted to be in in the first place.

None of the above depends on Engineers.

Dodge the interdiction itself in SuperCruise or the attacker in normal space?

Hmm I don't know if its my fast computer or internet speed, but i dont recall spending more than 15 seconds being interdicted, and I have that on multiple videos

Here , interdiction starts at 6:55, at 7:17 the counter initiates announcing successful dodge.

Ok so i checked, its roughly 20 secs, it's not 15, but not 50 either, and the actual vulnerability window is tiny

[video=youtube_share;fzgD_AbbaSI]https://youtu.be/fzgD_AbbaSI[/video]

 

[Robert Maynard]

My fear is a clear population.

Lets increase population first, and then have all the modes, no one will care how many, litteraly not a soul will care

The ones that seem to care most are the ones whose play-style depends on other players - PvE players don't depend on other players in that way.

 

[Whitehair]

Platform crossing is clearly a controller issue because mouse and keyboard master race

So - nothing to do with Microsoft policy then?

 

[MarkAusten]

Untill official spreadsheets are released it is safe to say that steam / non steam is 50/50, on avarage that translates accross a variety of other games like Division.

And its far more accurate than pulling a random number out of your hat.

Platform crossing is clearly a controller issue because mouse and keyboard master race

Unless you have official support for that 50/50 statement you are pulling that random number out of your hat. Care to elucidate?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hmm I don't know if its my fast computer or internet speed, but i dont recall spending more than 15 seconds being interdicted, and I have that on multiple videos

From onset of interdiction to arrival in the new system?

I'd like to see unedited footage showing that.... Thanks for the footage - what mode were you in - it seems that it was an NPC that interdicted you - so less matchmaking time required.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Untill official spreadsheets are released it is safe to say that steam / non steam is 50/50, on avarage that translates accross a variety of other games like Division.

And its far more accurate than pulling a random number out of your hat.

Platform crossing is clearly a controller issue because mouse and keyboard master race

I disagree with the 50/50 contention - as many PC copies of the game had been sold pre-Steam (and continue to sell on the Frontier store site), Frontier do not publish their player numbers and XB1 player numbers are not known at all.

Mouse and keyboard do not give the same advantage in this game as in games where the mouse pointer is the gunsight and moves as fast as the player can move it.

 

[MarkAusten]

From onset of interdiction to arrival in the new system?

I'd like to see unedited footage showing that....

You guys are talking at cross purposes. RM is talking about interdiction from the very start to the very end and MD is talking about from having been dragged out of SC to getting back into SC.

You are both correct. Move on...

 

[excalibus]

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but my fear in adding such a mode is that it will suck up significant development time.

The reasoning behind this is that this mode requires different rules inside the game. It will require any number of areas where the code goes one way for the existing mode and another for PvE. Taking the number of game rules from 1 (i.e. hard-coded) to >1 (i.e. mode-dependent) will be significant work.

It will also open a can of worms as to what PvE means. Everyone can understand "player cannot shoot player" but there are many ways in which one player can antagonise another, from kill stealing to pad blocking to finding creative ways to use the existing authorities to destroy other players. Each of these will need to be debated, designed and coded to come to a resolution.

So although I don't care one way or the other about an open PvE mode, I do care that the work involved will take away from parts of the game that I do care about. The pace of development is very slow as it is; making any further development more complex due to multiple rule sets is not something I would want to see.

I do understand your point of view as far as not wanting to take away the development time from the ongoing development work and yes, I will agree with you that it would require additional development staff or time taken from the current development teams focus...

How much time, well that would totally be dependent on the implementation. And it could be done with a harsh, and controlled, Terms of Service update. Enforced by frontier support staff... that would be the worst case approach if you ask me as it would require the most human intervention to manage it, but would be the fastest and least costly in terms of actual development time as it would require almost zero development beyond the mode being defined in the matchmaking set and a fairly definitive TOS for accessing the mode which the player would be required to agree to when entering the mode...

I think a more likely scenerio and to some extent reasonably quick to implement would be a pilots licence style rule set, whereby infringements stack up and after each infringement you get a suspension from the mode for a period of time and after enough infringements you are permanently banned from the mode... This will not entirely negate the possibility of some unscrupulous individual logging into that mode to cause some mayhem but it will prevent them from staying there and then after a certain threshold they will never be able to relog there again... I do not see that as too difficult to implement...

It could even be implemented in both current open mode and the PVE only mode, with the simple change of not inflicting an infringement if they are engaging in PVP in the current open mode... That way someone engaging in PVP in the current open mode will still be allowed to go to the PVE mode as long as they have not been naughty in the PVE mode, and can be further used with an implemented crime and punishment / rewards system as well...

A C&P system in my mind would not just be for PVP, but would be for all player types... so players going on NPC massacres would suffer the same wrath from C&P system responses as someone going after players...

 

[GluttonyFang]

And yet the whole argument goes mad when some PvE players say that PvP doesn't satisfy them. You can't have that both ways. If it is a valid argument for a PvP player then it is also a valid argument for a PvE player.

... What kind of logic shift is this?

PvP wasn't made for nor considered to be a PvE heavy or even relevant feature whereas some posters here claim that CQC was made to satisfy PvP players. You're sniping a post you either did not read the context to or got it confused somehow.

So if you agree that one style of play does not satisfy some PvP players, then you have to also accept the argument that one style of play does not satisfy some PvE players.

I've always agreed to this, which is why I push for an immersive Open instead of separating PvP and PvE hard.

Which I think is part of the reasoning for an Open PvE more.

I think.

No, and I already typed for the reason why too many times in this thread.

 

[MassiveD]

I disagree with the 50/50 contention - as many PC copies of the game had been sold pre-Steam (and continue to sell on the Frontier store site), Frontier do not publish their player numbers and XB1 player numbers are not known at all.

Mouse and keyboard do not give the same advantage in this game as in games where the mouse pointer is the gunsight and moves as fast as the player can move it.

M&k gives superior control over fixed weaponry aim. As a player who has a stick, and also choses to use xbox one wireless controler most of the time, i can testify to that,

- - - Updated - - -

You guys are talking at cross purposes. RM is talking about interdiction from the very start to the very end and MD is talking about from having been dragged out of SC to getting back into SC.

You are both correct. Move on...

Ok mom

 

[Achilles7]

You are conflating a desire to play without PvP with a perceived (derogatory) desire to play without any risk.

Many players want to play the game as Frontier designed it - and Frontier designed a game where there is absolutely no requirement to engage in PvP.

PvP is the pinnacle of risk in ED..if you have ever fought one of the great PvPers in this game, the challenge is on a different level entirely to the game's AI! In my view, the two are related in the majority of cases!

A sizeable proportion of the player base have proved time & time again that they are risk averse..as demonstrated with the whole 2.1 AI debacle & the recent shelved gimbal changes etc..many players want this game to be as dangerous as crown green bowls!

WARNING - if you are contemplating a move to bowls, extreme caution is advised! Lacerations from the blades of grass are a very real danger!

 

[VR Lucian Arkright]

... What kind of logic shift is this?

PvP wasn't made for nor considered to be a PvE heavy or even relevant feature whereas some posters here claim that CQC was made to satisfy PvP players. You're sniping a post you either did not read the context to or got it confused somehow.



I've always agreed to this, which is why I push for an immersive Open instead of separating PvP and PvE hard.



No, and I already typed for the reason why too many times in this thread.

If I may suggest... For me it seems perhaps a bit like when some members of the PVP community say "Well, go and play in Solo then", using CQC as an example of the "Well, go an play in $mode then" argument. Neither satisfies the criteria, and both arguments are weak. At the moment, there is already a massive split between PVP and PVE play styles, both Hard and Soft, it's just that the 'Hard' option is unofficial, and maxed out (twice).

I'd also welcome different play modes, such as RP Mode where PVP was allowed, but only within certain boundaries, such as Piracy, Powerplay, etc. (very hard to control as anything other than a Private Group I reckon).

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvP is the pinnacle of risk in ED..if you have ever fought one of the great PvPers in this game, the challenge is on a different level entirely to the game's AI! In my view, the two are related in the majority of cases!

A sizeable proportion of the player base have proved time & time again that they are risk averse..as demonstrated with the whole 2.1 AI debacle & the recent shelved gimbal changes etc..many players want this game to be as dangerous as crown green bowls!

WARNING - if you are contemplating a move to bowls, extreme caution is advised! Lacerations from the blades of grass are a very real danger!

PvP is an unbalanced risk in E: D. NPC attacks occur as coded by Frontier to give players their game experience. Some players will meta-build their Engineered ships to give them as much advantage as possible - and then attack inferior ships for "reasons" - it is unsurprising that this gets old, very quickly, for players who eschew PvP.

 

[MassiveD]

PvP is the pinnacle of risk in ED..if you have ever fought one of the great PvPers in this game, the challenge is on a different level entirely to the game's AI! In my view, the two are related in the majority of cases!

A sizeable proportion of the player base have proved time & time again that they are risk averse..as demonstrated with the whole 2.1 AI debacle & the recent shelved gimbal changes etc..many players want this game to be as dangerous as crown green bowls!

WARNING - if you are contemplating a move to bowls, extreme caution is advised! Lacerations from the blades of grass are a very real danger!

Btw, i have a video of me accodentaly destroying a federal corvette npc using unmodified vulture with unmoded dumbfire missles... I was trying to suicide by corvette while reading comments on the stream, and controling with muscle memory and peripheral vision...

AI in this game is not a challenge on any level

 

[VR Lucian Arkright]

PvP is the pinnacle of risk in ED..if you have ever fought one of the great PvPers in this game, the challenge is on a different level entirely to the game's AI! In my view, the two are related in the majority of cases!

A sizeable proportion of the player base have proved time & time again that they are risk averse..as demonstrated with the whole 2.1 AI debacle & the recent shelved gimbal changes etc..many players want this game to be as dangerous as crown green bowls!

WARNING - if you are contemplating a move to bowls, extreme caution is advised! Lacerations from the blades of grass are a very real danger!

You are probably right, if you define the pinnacle of the game by ship to ship combat.

If you don't, than your opinion is likely to vary. A play style that you show a strong preference for isn't always the same play style others show a strong preference for. I, for example, have no interest what's so ever in 'proving my mettle against top PVPers' (I am however getting involved with full contact medieval combat, so my risk/reward standards are skewed...).

 

[MassiveD]

PvP is an unbalanced risk in E: D. NPC attacks occur as coded by Frontier to give players their game experience. Some players will meta-build their Engineered ships to give them as much advantage as possible - and then attack inferior ships for "reasons" - it is unsurprising that this gets old, very quickly, for players who eschew PvP.

And once it gets old they have access to engineers. As little as 3 mods can make you immune to best modified ships in the game, so this argument is least valid of all and boils down to "i dont want to engineer, please give me separate server where i don't have to"

Obviously when i say immune i mean for the time needed to wake out safely without even dropping shields

 

[excalibus]

My fear is a clear population.

Lets increase population first, and then have all the modes, no one will care how many, litteraly not a soul will care

if your concern is open becoming zero population, then by definition of that happening, the clear majority of players would not be wanting PVP at all... And that won't change no matter if the current population is 10,000 or 1,000,000 as similar percentages will apply... by your definition, there would only be a small handful of players left in open if there was 1 million players in it prior to an open PVE mode being implemented...

I do understand that fear, but that also suggest that currently you are having to force players who do not want PVP into accepting PVP if they play in the current open mode, or as you put it earlier, leave an go to solo or private group, which is counter intuitive to your actual aims of having enough people in open to sustain enjoyable PVP play.

Do you not see the problem here... I think you do but choose not to accept responsibility for your actions and, more directly, your attitudes causing the problems of actually pushing people who prefer PVE only out the current open mode of play... (not you personally but you in the 'pvp player set')...

as an aside, I have played in open since before release... never looked at changing out to mobius or any other group, but after reading your own posts, and more importantly your attitude towards PVE players (you personally and the attitudes of a couple other PVP players as well) , I am actually considering switching to Mobius and leaving open for good...

I enjoy the 'thrill' and interaction with the possibility of PVP with other commanders myself, but more and more lately it has been coming across rather loudly from a PVP subset, that anyone who engages primarily in PVE is inferior and should not be in open play, that they should either learn to PVP or accept being ganked...

Well Done Commander!!! There comes a time when it feels like I am beating my head against a brick wall and this is one of those times...

 

[MassiveD]

if your concern is open becoming zero population, then by definition of that happening, the clear majority of players would not be wanting PVP at all... And that won't change no matter if the current population is 10,000 or 1,000,000 as similar percentages will apply... by your definition, there would only be a small handful of players left in open if there was 1 million players in it prior to an open PVE mode being implemented...

I do understand that fear, but that also suggest that currently you are having to force players who do not want PVP into accepting PVP if they play in the current open mode, or as you put it earlier, leave an go to solo or private group, which is counter intuitive to your actual aims of having enough people in open to sustain enjoyable PVP play.

Do you not see the problem here... I think you do but choose not to accept responsibility for your actions and, more directly, your attitudes causing the problems of actually pushing people who prefer PVE only out the current open mode of play... (not you personally but you in the 'pvp player set')...

as an aside, I have played in open since before release... never looked at changing out to mobius or any other group, but after reading your own posts, and more importantly your attitude towards PVE players (you personally and the attitudes of a couple other PVP players as well) , I am actually considering switching to Mobius and leaving open for good...

I enjoy the 'thrill' and interaction with the possibility of PVP with other commanders myself, but more and more lately it has been coming across rather loudly from a PVP subset, that anyone who engages primarily in PVE is inferior and should not be in open play, that they should either learn to PVP or accept being ganked...

Well Done Commander!!! There comes a time when it feels like I am beating my head against a brick wall and this is one of those times...

Sorry you misunderstood, I don't fear population in open becoming too low, I pointed out that current population is not enough to support multiple mods judging by available statistics. (Roughly 8k players on avarage , on PC, in a 400bln star galaxy). Once we have 30k or more, sure we can have more modes.

The game is currently advertised as "a dangerous game in which a player can blaze their own trail through a cutthroat galaxy".

It's right there on the first page on ed website, and directly describes most pure, unsegregated version of elite dangerous - Open mode.

Segregating at this point would be lawsuit for false advertising waiting to happen.

And im not a ganker, i dont care what they do, as long as main game mode remains unthreatened, especially by segregation while population is still low

 

[GluttonyFang]

If I may suggest... For me it seems perhaps a bit like when some members of the PVP community say "Well, go and play in Solo then", using CQC as an example of the "Well, go an play in $mode then" argument. Neither satisfies the criteria, and both arguments are weak. At the moment, there is already a massive split between PVP and PVE play styles, both Hard and Soft, it's just that the 'Hard' option is unofficial, and maxed out (twice).

As much as I don't use those arguments, I would like to point out that:

If you properly equipped yourself, you can deflect any player trying to instigate PvP in Open.

No matter how you equip yourself, you cannot stop players from combat logging/menu logging.

While I will agree both play styles are diverse, which makes think that splitting them up into different modes officially isn't a good idea. Crime and punishment is more efficient in dealing with the need of PvE and PvP. It creates order for PvE and more meaningful and contextual encounters for PvP.

 

[VR Lucian Arkright]

Sorry you misunderstood, I don't fear population in open becoming too low, I pointed out that current population is not enough to support multiple mods judging by available statistics. (Roughly 8k players on avarage , on PC, in a 400bln star galaxy). Once we have 30k or more, sure we can have more modes.

The game is currently advertised as "a dangerous game in which a player can blaze their own trail through a cutthroat galaxy".

It's right there on the first page on ed website, and directly describes most pure, unsegregated version of elite dangerous - Open mode.

Segregating at this point would be lawsuit for false advertising waiting to happen.

And im not a ganker, i dont care what they do, as long as main game mode remains unthreatened, especially by segregation while population is still low

The segregation - in fact even more so - has been part of the game since the Kickstarter documents, and the reason many people bought into the game. Indeed, I recall refunds being asked for and given with the Offline Mode was removed from the game's development.