Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[kalniel]

Here's my take (for the n-th time) on this whole ordeal.

Implementing a working C&P system would be awesome, BUT this has to be done right and it's a delicate thing as well. I'd wager the amount of work for a decent system is substantial (and a quick-hack system based on some magical number representing a players "karma" probably won't cut it). There's a bit of a problem, however. No matter how good a C&P system is, a dedicated player will always be able to wreck someone's day. Sure, they may be punished for it, but the kind of player we're talking about here doesn't care about the punishment - they are there solely to cause grief to others. So while ganking and all the nasty stuff might happen less often, it'll still happen (or someone will find a way to be as annoying as possible after a save-clear with a Freewinder, making them free from any punishment whatsoever).

A PvE mode sounds like it requires far less work than the C&P mentioned above (disable player-to-player weapon and collision damage). While there's still potential for griefers (there's ALWAYS potential for those people), it's not far more difficult to pull off and the effects are lessened. Chances are, any loopholes found by griefers can be easily fixed / should be fixed, because most of the time it'll be due to bugs / exploits anyway.

Now, is there a need for a PvE mode? The ED universe is pretty damn large, so one might be inclined to answer "no". But judging by the fact that the private group Mobius created is choked, and the fact that it relies heavily on one person doing all the administration on such a massive scale, I'd say it IS needed. An argument could be made that with a proper C&P system people wouldn't need to play in Mobius to begin with... but this is only partially true. First, as I wrote above, even a working C&P won't deter gankers from their true goal of ganking. And secondly - the Mobius group already exists, and already functions (with all the nasty administrative overhead, yes, but it's there). Why would anyone interested purely in PvE play in a C&P-enabled Open where they are still at risk (smaller, but non-zero) when they can play in Mobius (still a non-zero risk factor, but probably safer than C&P-open)? On the other hand, as soon as a PvE mode is launched there won't be any reason to stay in Mobius (again, risk assessment - PvE mode is less risky than Mobius).

In any case - I do need to stress the administrative burden placed on Mobius. It's a bit insane and should never be required. This alone should be a big enough signal that something is needed. If not a full-fledged PvE mode, then better group management tools (web access, sub-administrators / multiple owners, etc). However, even with better group-management tools the sole fact that this administrative burden is placed on the players is a mind-boggling.

I was about to post almost an identical scribbling, so thank you for saving me the effort Friend or foe weapons (ala engineered healing beams) are already in the mechanism, so making that PC/NPC is probably viable. Friend or foe collision damage isn't, but I'm sure it's codable. And as you rightly say, there will still be griefing, but it'd be lesser (you could possibly imagine PC/NPC clipping distinction to reduce it further).

 

[Ian Skippy]

So I'm curious, how much people run into unshielded Sidey in Mobius is it as big a problem in Mobius as it is on Open?

1700+ hours in open, never seen an unshielded sidey except my own engineered one. I'm guessing its a non issue in Möbius too. Griefers don't do this because only the most pathetic cmdrs fall victim to it.

 

[Han_Zen]

Ah, so in a tough fight against AI all I have to is hit you once and you'll be compensated if AI kills you? Or is there a threshold? Or will compensation scale linearly? And ramming damage, does it count as grieving? Or can it be an accident? If so, when?

Now you are just being silly. This can easily be solved by 5 o 6 different Open-PvE modes, with different rules. It just takes a little development and balancing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ah, so in a tough fight against AI all I have to is hit you once and you'll be compensated if AI kills you? Or is there a threshold? Or will compensation scale linearly? And ramming damage, does it count as grieving? Or can it be an accident? If so, when?

I would expect that "friendly" fire would need to be adjusted - as interposing one's ship between a player and their target may become the grief-du-jour method - although the game could take action against the shooter and the unintended target. In your example, the player shooting at the other player would probably gain a suspension - and, presumably, suspension duration would be based on the offence and also take into account any previous offences on the account (not just the CMDR).

Similarly with ramming - as it is difficult to determine the rammer/target - deal with both accordingly.

.... with no financial penalty for being destroyed by a player there'd be less salt from the target (the same cannot necessarily be said of the attacker).

 

[TargetLost]

So I'm curious, how much people run into unshielded Sidey in Mobius is it as big a problem in Mobius as it is on Open?

From my experience there is zero problem about "mad" People on mobius.
In all my MMo experience where I was half time on PvE Servers and half time on PvP Server (ok a bit more time on PvP Servers) I had never experienced any of that Problems People here want to put out as such a Problem of a PvE Server.
Far the oposite whenever ganking griefing kill stealing and all that behaviour was reportet than it was on PvP Server forums.

Of course you can Play destructive on a PvE Server. But in general those playing on PvE Server show a different less agressive character.
And if some really Play destructive those one can be reported as it is possible on PvP servers too.
I do not see how anyone can seriously expect to have a bigger Problem on an Open-PvE mode than you already have in the existing Open-PvP.
Bad characters can be on both mode. So it is not a Point at all to even discuss that because it is the same for both.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Right - and your "open PvE" proposal (which allows all sorts of loopholes about station ramming, etc.) would solve these cases how?

Station griefing, incidentally, is a great illustration of why an automated PvE mode won't work - after all, from the game's point of view, it is responding entirely correctly and with full force to that bully of an Anaconda pilot who just rammed a shieldless Eagle to death in the no-fire-zone - and the current station ramming rules were brought in to stop just that sort of thing happening, of course. (And if you can propose a way that correctly and completely automates determination of fault in collisions, don't tell me - patent it and make real-world millions from selling it to insurance companies and the courts)

If ramming and shooting other player ships in a proposed Open-PvE mode caused zero damage to the other ship, the only thing left at stations is;

Pad Blocking : where one player gets between a landing pad and the ship that the pad it was allocated to.

You deal with that by having starport weapons fitted around each pad - which will shoot the miscreant's ship from a direction which doesn't hit the player's ship which has been allocated that pad - we already have pad loitering detection in the game, which you find out if you are flying towards your own pad in a starport a bit too slowly for the game's liking and you get an annoyed starport message about pad loitering. This can be 'upgraded' to detect a miscreant ship 'loitering' too close to a pad for too long - and blast it to smithereens.

The Dreaded Weakened Eagle Of Doom Attack : if said Weakened Eagle is not damaged by another player ramming it - this attack is no longer possible, innit.

I think you're responding to a point entirely unrelated to the one I made there.

Or is your suggestion that "Open PvE" would be exactly like the current "Open" in that you can shoot/ram/etc other players to death (it's just a "client connectivity mode" and "same set of in-game rules"), but it would be Frontier Support rather than Mobius or another PG administrator who banned you from using that mode afterwards if you did?

What I'm saying is that an Open-PvE mode would operate under the exact same Background Simulation/NPC/PvE ruleset that everyone plays in whatever mode, except that Player-to-Player shooting and ramming does zero damage only to player-controlled ships.

It's so darned simple that it doesn't even need complex coding to achieve.

What part of "better group management - especially including delegation of membership editing to stop it being so much work for one person" did you read as "Yes, it's great! Mobius having this massive membership hassle which only he can do is perfect."? Absolutely it shouldn't be on one person's shoulders!

On that last point we both agree.

I just think that letting Mobius get a team, and putting proper functionality for private group editing, would be both more straightforward in terms of limited development time and more likely to give satisfactory results than trying to automate the process through Frontier itself.

And this is where we part - I think Frontier should never have put the onus on what amounts to running a PvE group on one person in the first place. This is easily fixable by implementing said proposed Open-PvE mode as I described above.

In fact - seeing as FDEV are now starting to use extended betas in order to experiment with new ideas, an Open-PvE mode would be a perfect 'low hanging fruit' experiment to test in an extended beta. Then we all could find out if such a mode would work, or what might need tweaking to get it to work, if it really was a good idea to release to live, or not.

 

[Shaamaan]

Why? Is there something in the UELA that says "if a small percentage wants a mode where only sideys are allowed we'll make a separate mode for it?" No? Then you should take care of your own groups.

Why does it being in the EULA have anything to do with it? FD should, simply put, follow the money. They can see how many people are in the current PvE group(s), that shows what the bare-minimum demand for a PvE mode is (because those are the people who bothered to join - there are likely a lot of people who just don't want to bother with the group-joining process and just play solo, but would play in a PvE group if given the option).

Now, every one of those people in that group represents a possible future purchase (expansions, skins, etc). If FD keep telling those people they don't matter (and not even having the tools needed to handle groups of this size is such a signal), they might just as well leave. Not all of them, of course, and not all at once, but it will affect the bottom line in the end.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why? Is there something in the UELA that says "if a small percentage wants a mode where only sideys are allowed we'll make a separate mode for it?" No? Then you should take care of your own groups.

Interesting pattern though. "I don't want to defend myself, FD please help!"
"You can make a PG"
"I don't wanna do that myself, please help!"

I expect that a large portion of the, recently confirmed, PvE majority would quite like a game mode that catered to their play-style (i.e. does not contain direct PvP) but, like Open, offers the unlimited population that Private Groups lack.

 

[MarkAusten]

*sigh*

-

Because I'm not an idiot I knew that. You demean yourself and reveal yourself when it gets like this. Everybody knows this stuff, you insult us all.



"than for PVE mode"? what do you think that means?

I'm not being rude Gluttony but it's obvious English isn't your first language. There are other options than belittling people when they ask for clarification when you've been unclear

I have to say that I thought you were being obtuse followed by GF being more obtuse, but now that you highlight it I can see just what you mean. What the heck does that mean? Seeing as GF says that he was about to board a flight I wonder if the predictive text on his mobile device has kicked in and obscured what he was trying to write.

GF, please do elaborate because it really does not make any sense.

 

[Weps]

Interesting pattern though. "I don't want to defend myself, FD please help!"
"You can make a PG"
"I don't wanna do that myself, please help!"

Now lets be fair, the issue is not that players are not willing to organize themselves. Mobius' group has reached its max size twice now which forces players out of the group.

So the real quote would be:

"You can make a PG"
"I can't do that myself anymore, please help!"

 

[excalibus]

And considering none of the senior staff has been very enthusiastic at all about PvE modes, and they are very excited about stuff like space legs and atmo landing, what do you think they prefer to do? And what do you think the shareholders want FD to do? Work on major features the gaming community at large expects from ED, SC and such? Or do you think they want FD to spend massive resources on hand holding a small percentage of players who wish the basic premise of the ED universe was different?

You can all make a million polls, but there simply won't be a carebear paradise.

Firstly, let me address your points in reverse order...
No one is asking for a carebare paradise, and quite frankly I thought better of you in the past sleutelbos than to expect you to misrepresent what is actually being asked for by defining those who play PVE as carebears.... oh well I guess I will have to live with the dissapointment

The shareholders expect FDEV to make money and deliver a dividend each year commensurate with the stock the shareholders own. Preferrably increasing each year instead of decreasing...

The stock value is usually based on the assets owned by the company in conjunction with the turnover and and net profit. Simple economics I know... And yet, FDEV is hiring / has hired a team to create a PS4 version of the game. No doubt some of those costs will come out of the overall gross profit this financial year...

Now if you follow that with what is reportedly, according to some, a declining player base in the main mixed mode of the game, and possibly a declining player base overall for PC / MAC then as an investor I would be asking questions about what they are doing to either expand the PC player base or to retain the player base at a healthy level.

I do not see how it would require that much more effort to not only design the C&P system - which needs to be done and should have been designed properly back when Sandro put forward the request for player input and to discuss such a system over 18 months ago... Now they are discussing putting in an addon - karma - like that really has ANY bearing as part of a believable crime and punishment system, honestly, pulling magic numbers out of the air vs tracking a players criminal history and modifying their status depending on what criminal / good acts they perform and adjusting responses accordingly taking into consideration the current star systems state, economy type, tech level, trade level etc... but to include a PVE mode OR actual client enforced selectable rule sets for the group modes...

Okay you don't want to see a full fledged 'open pve mode', fine, give the group mode the ability to allow or disallow different types of player v player interactions... and code the client to follow those rule sets, and for the open mode of play, there would be no rulesets used per se...

That would be a great way to develop the ruleset system and the private groups can test it etc, and even allocate a smaller number of developers to working in it over a longer time frame so it does not significantly impact on the main development process... at least it would be a step in the right direction, then once such a system is completely working as intended in PG's THEN use that as the basis for implementing an official open PVE mode later on...

Here's my take (for the n-th time) on this whole ordeal.

Implementing a working C&P system would be awesome, BUT this has to be done right and it's a delicate thing as well. I'd wager the amount of work for a decent system is substantial (and a quick-hack system based on some magical number representing a players "karma" probably won't cut it). There's a bit of a problem, however. No matter how good a C&P system is, a dedicated player will always be able to wreck someone's day. Sure, they may be punished for it, but the kind of player we're talking about here doesn't care about the punishment - they are there solely to cause grief to others. So while ganking and all the nasty stuff might happen less often, it'll still happen (or someone will find a way to be as annoying as possible after a save-clear with a Freewinder, making them free from any punishment whatsoever).

A PvE mode sounds like it requires far less work than the C&P mentioned above (disable player-to-player weapon and collision damage). While there's still potential for griefers (there's ALWAYS potential for those people), it's not far more difficult to pull off and the effects are lessened. Chances are, any loopholes found by griefers can be easily fixed / should be fixed, because most of the time it'll be due to bugs / exploits anyway.

Now, is there a need for a PvE mode? The ED universe is pretty damn large, so one might be inclined to answer "no". But judging by the fact that the private group Mobius created is choked, and the fact that it relies heavily on one person doing all the administration on such a massive scale, I'd say it IS needed. An argument could be made that with a proper C&P system people wouldn't need to play in Mobius to begin with... but this is only partially true. First, as I wrote above, even a working C&P won't deter gankers from their true goal of ganking. And secondly - the Mobius group already exists, and already functions (with all the nasty administrative overhead, yes, but it's there). Why would anyone interested purely in PvE play in a C&P-enabled Open where they are still at risk (smaller, but non-zero) when they can play in Mobius (still a non-zero risk factor, but probably safer than C&P-open)? On the other hand, as soon as a PvE mode is launched there won't be any reason to stay in Mobius (again, risk assessment - PvE mode is less risky than Mobius).

In any case - I do need to stress the administrative burden placed on Mobius. It's a bit insane and should never be required.

The game does need a much better and more believable crime and punishment system... it has needed it for a long long time... It will take dev time, no doubt, I do see it working across all modes of play and would improve things considerably, but I do not think it will be the panacea that the PVP crowd are hoping for to solve the fact that a fair number of PvE players just don't want to to engage in a PvP open situation...

 

[GluttonyFang]

But they shouldn't have too. Something of this size and scale shouldn't be run as a private group once, let alone three times now.

Then by the same logic a large fan base of a comic should have their take on an original series made Canon because...

PVE is an aspect of ED, not its entirety.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then by the same logic a large fan base of a comic should have their take on an original series made Canon because...

PVE is an aspect of ED, not its entirety.

It is, however, a play-style chosen by the majority of players (according to Mark Allen).

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Then by the same logic a large fan base of a comic should have their take on an original series made Canon because...

PVE is an aspect of ED, not its entirety.

And this game was never sold as a PvP game.

 

[jasonbarron]

And considering none of the senior staff has been very enthusiastic at all about PvE modes, and they are very excited about stuff like space legs and atmo landing, what do you think they prefer to do? And what do you think the shareholders want FD to do? Work on major features the gaming community at large expects from ED, SC and such? Or do you think they want FD to spend massive resources on hand holding a small percentage of players who wish the basic premise of the ED universe was different?

You can all make a million polls, but there simply won't be a carebear paradise.

It's weird how much I find myself agreeing with you lately, sleutelbos. I used to not agree with you on all kinds of stuff, and now it's like you're the other me. Swings and roundabouts. It was with great relief that I woke up this morning and found that many of the opinions I hold on this matter have been championed whilst I was away.

That bit about "carebear paradise" almost made me spit coffee all over my screen.

Gluttony gets an honorable mention, too.

Morning everyone

 

[GluttonyFang]

*sigh*

-

Because I'm not an idiot I knew that. You demean yourself and reveal yourself when it gets like this. Everybody knows this stuff, you insult us all.



"than for PVE mode"? what do you think that means?

I'm not being rude Gluttony but it's obvious English isn't your first language. There are other options than belittling people when they ask for clarification when you've been unclear

I have stated several times on the forum that it isn't and it's actually my 3rd. Anyway. Point being is that I am countering your point regarding combat logging rendering PvP being a solution to complex issue is comparatively worse than a PVE mode. But when in actuality FD takes action against combat logging more than it shows willingness to craft a PVE mode. Not to mention CL will be a big aspect of C&P no doubt with its controversial nature.

 

[Shaamaan]

The game does need a much better and more believable crime and punishment system... it has needed it for a long long time... It will take dev time, no doubt, I do see it working across all modes of play and would improve things considerably, but I do not think it will be the panacea that the PVP crowd are hoping for to solve the fact that a fair number of PvE players just don't want to to engage in a PvP open situation...

Just to put it out there - never did I suggest that a C&P system wasn't needed. I did argue that its implementation is likely a lot more difficult than the proposed PvE mode and then even a fully working C&P system won't solve the issues the PvE mode would aim to solve.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And this game was never sold as a PvP game.

Indeed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q;t=44m09s

.... and a response, in my opinion, that does not rule out an Open-PvE mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q;t=42m37s

 

[GluttonyFang]

I have to say that I thought you were being obtuse followed by GF being more obtuse, but now that you highlight it I can see just what you mean. What the heck does that mean? Seeing as GF says that he was about to board a flight I wonder if the predictive text on his mobile device has kicked in and obscured what he was trying to write.

GF, please do elaborate because it really does not make any sense.

I am on mobile yes, apologies for genuine confusion.

- - - Updated - - -

And this game was never sold as a PvP game.

While I am in no way implying that ED is a PVP game, it seems that you are implying that it's a PVE game. I will let that sit there for a bit.

 

[VR Murgle]

From my experience there is zero problem about "mad" People on mobius.
In all my MMo experience where I was half time on PvE Servers and half time on PvP Server (ok a bit more time on PvP Servers) I had never experienced any of that Problems People here want to put out as such a Problem of a PvE Server.
Far the oposite whenever ganking griefing kill stealing and all that behaviour was reportet than it was on PvP Server forums.

Of course you can Play destructive on a PvE Server. But in general those playing on PvE Server show a different less agressive character.
And if some really Play destructive those one can be reported as it is possible on PvP servers too.
I do not see how anyone can seriously expect to have a bigger Problem on an Open-PvE mode than you already have in the existing Open-PvP.
Bad characters can be on both mode. So it is not a Point at all to even discuss that because it is the same for both.

I kinda expected that as it is my experience as well.