Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Robert Maynard]

I agree it would be awesome, but won't the attacker (presumably a PvPer) then complain that instant appearance of such security ruins their immersion, leading to Frontier then nerfing the security response? Yes, I'm getting cynical in my old age...... ��

If we accept that the target will be destroyed regardless, it matters less when the security response arrives than how persistent they are, i.e. get bad enough karma in the Empire (for example) and, eventually, the Imperial Navy will mobilise soon after one arrives in an Imperial System (as the Nav Beacon could be keeping track of all system arrivals - as they all happen within close proximity of the main star around which it orbits).

Not an instant response - but a sustained response - consistent with being on a "galaxy's most wanted" list.

 

[willowfan]

This is why I have swayed more towards open PvE as the solution. While I'd like effective consequences/punishment in place, it should have been in place on day one. It's taken too long already, and I'm not confident it's going to be all that effective anyway whenever we do get it. And if it's not effective it will fail dismally at bringing people back to open. Sort of akin to CQC being attractive to PvPers.....
.
In the absence of effective consequences, I'd prefer a contextual PvP flag, but we've got less chance of getting that than getting an open PvE mode. Which is why I now prefer the open PvE mode as I think it's the only option that we KNOW will be effective at concentrating PvE focused players (in an open format as opposed to spread across multiple private groups).

While I fully support the idea of an open PvE mode (I play, after all, almost entirely in Mobius) the one thing that is pulling me away from the idea is the then complete absence of any kind of friendly fire possibility between players, as I've always held the opinion that trigger discipline is a crucial element in combat.

Short of an open PvE, the only way you would ever get me into open is with a working C&P system to fully discourage the ats of this world.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

While I fully support the idea of an open PvE mode (I play, after all, almost entirely in Mobius) the one thing that is pulling me away from the idea is the then complete absence of any kind of friendly fire possibility between players, as I've always held the opinion that trigger discipline is a crucial element in combat.

Short of an open PvE, the only way you would ever get me into open is with a working C&P system to fully discourage the ats of this world.

indeed, this is my worry too, and is why, in an ideal world, an honour system would be best with no game rules added at all, but a box checked by people entering knowing that the rules are no direct PvP.

sadly a small number - and i like to believe it is a small number - make this impossible.

 

[Mephane]

While I fully support the idea of an open PvE mode (I play, after all, almost entirely in Mobius) the one thing that is pulling me away from the idea is the then complete absence of any kind of friendly fire possibility between players, as I've always held the opinion that trigger discipline is a crucial element in combat.

I already suggested before:

* In the Open PvE mode, players cannot damage each other, neither by weapon fire nor by ramming.
* But if an action would have resulted in a fine or bounty in a non-PvE setting (due to weapon fire, ramming etc.), then the perpetrator still receives this criminal penalty.

So you would still need trigger discipline not to get wanted by accidentally firing at another CMDR in an RES, you just wouldn't be able to actually damage or kill them with your guns.

 

[Vorxian]

I already suggested before:

* In the Open PvE mode, players cannot damage each other, neither by weapon fire nor by ramming.
* But if an action would have resulted in a fine or bounty in a non-PvE setting (due to weapon fire, ramming etc.), then the perpetrator still receives this criminal penalty.

So you would still need trigger discipline not to get wanted by accidentally firing at another CMDR in an RES, you just wouldn't be able to actually damage or kill them with your guns.

Problem is, it gives griefers (i mean people that simply play to get others ships blown up by use of exploits) the perfect tool to kill players in PvE OPEN. they simply fly infront of people shooting deliberately. OK trigger discipline applies, but it's still a mechanic that can be used to abuse.

 

[Vorxian]

I agree it would be awesome, but won't the attacker (presumably a PvPer) then complain that instant appearance of such security ruins their immersion, leading to Frontier then nerfing the security response? Yes, I'm getting cynical in my old age...... ��

As DBOBE said it takes two to tango. PvPers for large part, probably the majority of players looking for combat are not likely to scan a player, see they're squeaky clean and simply attack them if they're likely to get bent over and manhandled by system auth for being a plonker... the same way that PvErs scan an NPC ship see they're clean and just ignore them to. This concept preserves the safety for those that do just want to be law abiding citizens and get on with it.

It would be great that the only type of player who could actively engage a clean player is someone with pirate intentions. They can engage any player without immediate annihilation from sys auth (unless they start gunning the target), but there's still consequence.. Give them tools to pirate properly. What then happens is that they get flagged as a criminal.. hey piracy is a crime after all, and they get a juicy bounty.. not karma at this stage, as it's fair non damaging piracy is more frowned at rather than treated like a capital crime. So piracy will become a lot more attractive, hopefully attract a wider audience. THEN you have the real PvPers hunting pirates for juicy bounties without any system auth intervention. The food cycle is complete.. PvEer <--- Pirate <--- Pvper Ofc nothing stopping pirates from bumping into other pirates in their turf and pop them to a) collect their bounty and b) get that trader.

That works for me.

The only people getting instagibbed by system security will be those turning guns on clean players trying to get a cheap non-honorable kill. I actually cannot see this breaking the game.

Ofc you'll get the odd PvEr so something stupid, get a bounty and get hammered RIGHTFULLY. That's fair game, and in my mind a good compromise as an alternative to a dedicated PvE mode..

maybe

 

[Shaamaan]

While I fully support the idea of an open PvE mode (I play, after all, almost entirely in Mobius) the one thing that is pulling me away from the idea is the then complete absence of any kind of friendly fire possibility between players, as I've always held the opinion that trigger discipline is a crucial element in combat.

Short of an open PvE, the only way you would ever get me into open is with a working C&P system to fully discourage the ats of this world.

Depending on the implementation, it is entirely possible to implement a scenario in which a reckless shooter gets a bounty while still causing no damage to another player.

- - - Updated - - -

Problem is, it gives griefers (i mean people that simply play to get others ships blown up by use of exploits) the perfect tool to kill players in PvE OPEN. they simply fly infront of people shooting deliberately. OK trigger discipline applies, but it's still a mechanic that can be used to abuse.

IF weapon damage was disabled vs player ships, it would be annoying, yes, but wouldn't cause ship destruction. I.e. the annoying player can, at best, cause the victim yo gain a wanted status and a small fine, as opposed to blowing them up. UNLESS wanted ships are fair game... it all comes down to implementation. I guess the devil's in the details.

 

[Vorxian]

Depending on the implementation, it is entirely possible to implement a scenario in which a reckless shooter gets a bounty while still causing no damage to another player.

- - - Updated - - -



IF weapon damage was disabled vs player ships, it would be annoying, yes, but wouldn't cause ship destruction. I.e. the annoying player can, at best, cause the victim yo gain a wanted status and a small fine, as opposed to blowing them up. UNLESS wanted ships are fair game... it all comes down to implementation. I guess the devil's in the details.

I'm with ya.

I can just see annoying players flying extremely fast maneuverable ships staying in front of pvers when they're shooting NPCs for bounties ..I know it'll happen I have a crystal ball lol. Even if they're unable to destroy the pver, they know that by forcing a bounty on their heads, they'll get harassed by system auth, and get attacked by NPCs.. it's a good a way as any to let 'someone else' do the griefing.. they just need to plant the seed, and even worse; the game then regards the griefer as a victim.. OUCH

With my suggestion for decent response in OPEN C&P, the same person firing at a clean commander would simply get insta gibbed by angry system auth. It pays to identify your target and leave alone the clean ones It's an ironic twist that open could be safer than a PvE mode lol..

 

[soldieroffilth]

If Elite goes to a strictly open play model I will leave entirely. I don't play video games to interact with other humans. I play video games to get away from interacting with people because I spend all day interacting with people.

 

[Roybe]

I'm with ya.

I can just see then annoying ones flying extremely fast maneuverable ships to simply stay infront of pvers when they're trying to collect PvE bounties. I know it'll happen I have a crystal ball lol. Even if they're unable to destroy the pver, they know that with a bounty on their head then they'll get harassed by system auth, and get attacked by NPCs.. it's a good a way as any to let 'someone else' do the griefing.. they just need to plant the seed

With my suggestion for decent response in OPEN C&P, the same person firing at a clean commander would simply get insta gibbed by angry system auth. It pays to identify your target and leave alone the clean ones It's an ironic twist that open could be safer than a PvE mode lol..

Mind boggling irony!

This is the only authority response that would immediately stop people from killing other players. At which point, there is no need for a PVE mode...as the PVP player would pay amply for their destruction of others.

Of course, the PVP people scream loudly against this type of Justice system....so it will never happen...a PVP MUST have the capability to fight and kill an authority vessel after they have killed a player...otherwise the game is designed badly.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If Elite goes to a strictly open play model I will leave entirely. I don't play video games to interact with other humans. I play video games to get away from interacting with people because I spend all day interacting with people.

Few participants would seem to be suggesting that - and it would seem clear, to me at least, from the fact that the three game modes have been part of the game design for over four years now (and in the released game for over two) that Frontier won't remove either Solo or Private Groups. The conscious decision not to force every player to play in the same mode was made years ago, after all.

 

[Duedy]

Problem is, it gives griefers (i mean people that simply play to get others ships blown up by use of exploits) the perfect tool to kill players in PvE OPEN. they simply fly infront of people shooting deliberately. OK trigger discipline applies, but it's still a mechanic that can be used to abuse.

simple fix, shooting players doesn't make you wanted. just a small fine. idiots won't get their lolz as they can be reported and fine logs will show who is being an idiot and then can be banned to open, because they are getting shot far too oftern.

 

[Apos]

simple fix, shooting players doesn't make you wanted. just a small fine. idiots won't get their lolz as they can be reported and fine logs will show who is being an idiot and then can be banned to open

So someone shooting your drives out and doing it again every time you finish the repair sequence gets no bounty, but a fine? And since security only replies to bounties, this will be possible to do in front of them as well?

Damn they are going to love this.

 

[soldieroffilth]

Few participants would seem to be suggesting that - and it would seem clear, to me at least, from the fact that the three game modes have been part of the game design for over four years now (and in the released game for over two) that Frontier won't remove either Solo or Private Groups. The conscious decision not to force every player to play in the same mode was made years ago, after all.

I understand. I'm simply stating my position.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

So someone shooting your drives out and doing it again every time you finish the repair sequence gets no bounty, but a fine? And since security only replies to bounties, this will be possible to do in front of them as well?

Damn they are going to love this.

i have no doubt at all you are correct.....

A simple rule "dont be a Richard" should be enough to stop this in an ideal world imo. the more people who act like this in the game however, the more i think it should just be multiplayer like payday 2. I will never ever understand the mentality of players who go out of their way to act like pillocks to other players... and i would hope genuine competitive "PvPers" would agree that would be a pillock move.. The elite equivalent of players who continually downed players in gears of war, let them crawl around for 30s without finishing them off, auto get up again, then down them again before they could react.

which is why PGs ultimately work for me even if not ideal for everyone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So someone shooting your drives out and doing it again every time you finish the repair sequence gets no bounty, but a fine? And since security only replies to bounties, this will be possible to do in front of them as well?

Damn they are going to love this.

Indeed they would.

However, if the security services responded promptly to common assault on clean players then they'd probably be chased off quickly enough....

 

[Vorxian]

I understand. I'm simply stating my position.

We understand. The posed question is what it would take for say, Mobius, as a community of PvE loving folks to consider making a switch to an open mode INSTEAD of an OPEN PvE mode proposition. Tbh the ONLY thing that would, would have to be swift and brutal responses with hardline C&P.

No one would ever take away solo and group modes.

- - - Updated - - -

So someone shooting your drives out and doing it again every time you finish the repair sequence gets no bounty, but a fine? And since security only replies to bounties, this will be possible to do in front of them as well?

Damn they are going to love this.

I'm not sure what mode or suggestion you're referring to..

In an OPEN PvE only mode.. you'd not get a chance to smash someones drive apart since player damage will be turned OFF against another player.

Under proposals to try to persuade PvEers into OPEN with effective C&P, we're saying that before you have had a chance to smash a clean commanders drive system, you'd have several engineered FDL authority vessles decloak and smash YOU to bits before you could utter 'MOMMY' and suck ones thumb. As a PvP player, you'd want to scan them and leave their behind alone if they're squeaky clean Your target would more likely be pirates with juicy bounties which you can attack at leisure. Pirates can engage clean players with non lethal tools (to be proposed), but even if a pirate then unloads their rail gun on a clean commander they're trying to pirate, then they'll get gibbed, and i'm sure they'd not want that either. Like I said earlier.. I have no issue with Pver <-- Pirate <-- Pvper food cycle.

 

[Vorxian]

This is the only authority response that would immediately stop people from killing other players. At which point, there is no need for a PVE mode...as the PVP player would pay amply for their destruction of others.

Of course, the PVP people scream loudly against this type of Justice system....so it will never happen...a PVP MUST have the capability to fight and kill an authority vessel after they have killed a player...otherwise the game is designed badly.

Aye exactly, I'd aggressively promote an OPEN PvE server if other ideas fall over first. I'd happily nod my head in acceptance if OPEN PvE never happens in lieu of an acceptable (and fair) C&P policy

getting that balance, and acceptance is a mine field in itself.. hypothetically speaking, if clean players are safe from destruction in designated areas according to faction status and their karma for example then much of the argument for an OPEN PvE server actually holds less weight.

Obviously I advocate an OPEN PvE server.. but if a proper and sensible C&P plan can be proposed to instead encourage folks to join open, then that would be magical.. if something sensible, fair and agreeable can be.... agreed ofc

 

[Duedy]

So someone shooting your drives out and doing it again every time you finish the repair sequence gets no bounty, but a fine? And since security only replies to bounties, this will be possible to do in front of them as well?

Damn they are going to love this.

Open PVE no PvP damage at all.

 

[James Razor]

I think FDev have failed in this pretty miserably as they did not allready find a suitable solution.

The demand has been there from the very start of the game and Mobius was always only a band-aid solution. While i am among the lucky to be part of mobius, even mobius has been targeted by malevolent people in the past. And with FDevs unwillingness to act drasticly to enfore rules (even their own anti-griefing rules) i utterly lost my faith in their ability to tackle this issue.

I simply fail to realize why they act as the did and do and deny us the Co-Op-Open Mode.