Modes Elite Dangerous PvE vs PvP and who needs a Solo play if you had PvE server

[Whitehair]

Last question did this experience made you change the way you play in Open Play or force you to play in Open Play less?

I explained it in the last part of my post. I choose from now on to do CGs in a private group where there are no players attacking 'just because they can'.

So my stance is that I've tried playing in open, as so many PvP'ers want other players to do, and experienced that these people are not interested in anything else except destroying player ships, just because they can.
I'm simply not interested in playing with those type of players, so I won't any more.

 

[Jockey79]

..if I want interaction with others I will log into that well known PG.

Hutton Truckers?

 

[digitalblade]

a location people know about where PVP can be easily had for those who are and (this is the important bit) might be interested.

Again I agree with you. The problem is that a single player can not and should not have to organize that kind of location and activities. That is normally done by the game play designers. That was what I and probably every other PvP player would very much like to have.

What I cannot do is create that place for myself and everyone else. As individual even if I could persuade 5 players to do the same made up activity that I thought of, that is not an actual game location for everyone else to use and know about in game. And that is exactly what you need to center and lead such players to something better to do then pointless made up activities buy little groups of individuals or the mindless destruction of who ever you met in Open Play.

For example there is the Problem of Players being killed while doing the Delivery missions for CG. As we all know there is usually one Delivery and one Bounty mission for CG to attempt to counter the player campers with player bounty hunters.

THE PROBLEM:
The player bounty hunters are NOT ENCOURAGE but DISCOURAGED to go against Wanted Players. Since the efford of defeating such is so much greater and the reward is the same as defeating a brainless NPC with the help of the security .

Solution:
Reward Player Bounty Hunters incredibly more if they take down a Player Ship that was wanted (perhaps in that region of the Delivery CG only). This will actually make and encourage players to Defend other players and punish the "Evil Doers". The way it stands the counter CG for bounties is useless as a counter measure for the campers for traders. Again since there is no benefit for anyone to go again them. This is all by Game-play design and there could have been done differently so that it involves PvP players more with actual benefits for them not just the joy of killing for nothing..

 

[digitalblade]

I explained it in the last part of my post. I choose from now on to do CGs in a private group where there are no players attacking 'just because they can'.

So my stance is that I've tried playing in open, as so many PvP'ers want other players to do, and experienced that these people are not interested in anything else except destroying player ships, just because they can.
I'm simply not interested in playing with those type of players, so I won't any more.

Yes and the main reasons they do that is because there is nothing else for them to do ... I am sorry. Again I personally do not like doing things that are pointless and the one thing I like right now is pointless in this game. So I try to find out how others like me deal with this fact right now.

I will last say one more time, this discussion is actually about how PVP players are playing the game.

If you are not PvP player, ofc you are free to state your opinion, I like to know that too. However the statement that this game was not made for pvp and it's pointless is not debatable since that is exactly what PvP players want and are interested in and by design and definition the game is neither PvP or PvE but is is suppose to support both sides as an MMO.

 

[Stealthie]

In my case, as I said I have never killed anyone that did not returned fire and was not equipped for combat. I am full aware most people are just doing their missions and it sucks when you get your time wasted. Especially when you know your offender gains NOTHING out of it. I am also not doing PvP since ages, I have recently reached what I consider End game so I am switching to PvP.

But I find there is nothing of value in PvP and everything in PvP is only negative to you. Power play does give some thing, but it is insane to make it worth for you. Especially as because of the way Power Play works most people would chose not to commit to it. Since it makes the completion of missions even more harder and time consuming.

Oh, I agree with your sentiment.

We can really only speculate but FDev MUST have access to statistics regarding stuff like how many players indulge in PvP and who they fight with.

Just to propose one scenario, what if FDev have looked at those stat's and found that, say, only 1 in 100 players indulge in PvP and when they do it's almost always against a hugely mismatched ship - indicating that they've either been ganked or they're the one doing the ganking?

If (and I stress "IF") that's the case then they're going to know that it'll be pointless attempting to develop PvP because the main PvP activity in-game is ganking and people aren't actually interested in participating in "meaningful" PvP.

Thing is, as I said, we definitely don't know if this is the case or not.
The only way we're going to find out the truth is if FDev either publish a bunch of data regarding PvP encounters or if they go to the effort of implementing PvP focused content and then we'll see if people embrace it or not.

The only problem, there, is that it's unlikely that FDev would actually publish data suggesting that the majority of PvP encounters are ganks because that wouldn't exactly portray their game in a good light.

As a player, I'd love it if FDev created more PvP content.
Somebody suggested that, perhaps, Elite pilots could purchase some kind of "Pilot's Federation bounty hunting licence" from Jameson Memorial which would give them data about wanted criminals and offer large bounties for destroying their ships.
That would provide some extra content.
First you'd have to work your way up to Elite to gain access to Shinrata Dezrha, then you could buy the "licence", build your flying death-machine and you'd have a good excuse to go and use it against other players.
The other side of the coin would be that other players who wanted PvP would welcome the thought of well-equipped, skilled, players confronting them and it would also work as a deterrent to "seal clubbers" who aren't especially good at PvP but just enjoy harassing newbies and people in defenceless ships.
So, win/win.

Trouble is, any new PvP content is going to take a substantial effort on FDev's part and they're only going to do that if they think it WILL yield a significant improvement to the game.
They're not going to make the effort if they think the majority of PvP is, and will continue to be, ganking.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I am a PvP player.
I do not and never will apologize about it. Yes I would love to enjoy all other aspects of ED but the way I see the game, the only one thing that is fully developed are ship vs ship battles. That is the meat and bone of this game. Every other activity is only a filler for me personally. I do not enjoy holding a scan button down to become elite explorer I do not enjoy making rout A to B X times to become elite trader. What I enjoy is ship vs ship fights as they are the only fully well developed mechanic in the game. As the best opponents are others like me I want some way some reason and some benefits for us to meat and enter PvP activities or else the only thing that is left for me is to go after every possible random player in Open Play that makes no sense neither for me or my victim.

And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm a roleplayer myself, who would like PvP to actually have a better role to play in this game. Frontier's decision to delay implementing the second tier of their crime and punishment system has relegated PvP to the role of "unpleasant interruption of my game." I would love for this to change.

Please learn from what exists already if you want to ED to continue to claim the title of an MMO.
Every other MMO has both PvP and PvE or only PvP servers. Even games like Warframe that started like only co-op games created pvp arenas. ED arena is a stand alone game that is not the same game as elite dangerous and no one is playing it so do not refer that here ever.
ED's biggest mistake is that they have the open play that is the equivalent of PvP server or the only server in EvE online. I AGREE most of us do not play Eve because of that reason. But why have a Solo play option instead of PvE play where Commanders cannot attack each other? How hard was it to make that one thing that would have fixed every problem you meet now to defend people vs evil doers.
PvE players are spitting on us since we are ruining their game, while no one realize that the Solo play should have been just a PvE server and not that in Open play there should be 0 hostility in a game called Elite DANGEROUS.

What has happened in Open is the same thing that has happened to every other game that tried for the holy grail of having a shared environment, but failed to implement tight controls on toxic behavior: the "PvP" community drove everyone out of the game except for the most PvP tolerant of players. I had hoped, based on what I read on the DDF, that Frontier had learned from the experiences other game developers have had over the last 30 years, but it took them three frelling years to decide to implement what they should've done before the game went live.

My experience in ED vs every other game is that
I am forced to fight people that don't want it. I have 0 options for legitimate pvp play without negatives for training and I Get Zero benefits for doing anything PvP related. Major draw back is that everyone can just pull the plug and get out.

I repeat in elite dangerous all you have to do is pull the plug to get out ... How is that not an insult to every serious PvP player?

I call bull hockey on this. I'm a roleplayer, not a hard-core PvPer, and yet I see numerous threads for PvP tournaments on this board, on reddit, and even in the newsletters sometimes. I've even participated in a few of them over the years. You are not forced to attack players who are unable or unwilling to fight back. You choose to do so.

Last I have never killed anyone that have not shot at me back or was just trying to escape.
He is better to me alive and well but armed to the teeth next time we meat.
I just want to now what other PvP players are doing here not go in discussion what is right and who's to blame.

Bull hockey². Which is it? Are you "forced to fight people that don't want it," or not? Do you have "0 options for legitimate pvp play" or don't you? Because you don't get to say your have to fight people who don't want to fight, and then turn around and claim you've never killed someone who didn't deserve it.

Commanders Please share your PvP Experience in Elite Dangerous.

Do you like the idea of PvE play instead of Solo play or as an extra alternative?
Do you want more ... I mean any PvP activities in the game?
What PvP activities do you do right now?

I am asking the community not the Developers there for this is not a future suggestion this is a discussion.

And remember commanders to fly safe, you must not only be Elite, but there has to also be Danger.
CMDR Jordan in Space

What I want is an open that is less toxic than it is right now, so that there will be more players in open to interact with. I want there to be more fun adversarial encounters, where both sides enjoy themselves, and less what is the norm: encounters so asymmetrical that anyone not equipped for PvP is boiled in seconds. Over 25 years of online gaming experience has taught me that I cannot expect good PvP the "PvP" community, unless I actually seek out those PvPers who actually enjoy a good fight, and as opposed to the "thrill" of killing another player in the game.

Nor can I expect the "PvP" community to police themselves, let alone demonstrate self restraint. Time and time again, in game after game, when people point out to them that more people would be willing to play with them if they, in turn, made an encounter with them fun, the inevitable reply is "I shouldn't have to provide content to other players."

I do not want a PvE server. I would prefer Frontier implement an opt-in system allegience system, akin to PowerPlay but more BGS oriented, to contextualize and incentivize PvP, especially good PvP, while heavily disincentivizing random player-killing that is the norm in Open these days.

A PvE server, especially if you could migrate your current commander to, would be the final nail in Open's coffin. Currently, players like me, who sit in the middle of the PvE vs PvP spectrum, are able to choose what degree PvP risk we face. If we don't want any risk, for whatever reason, we can play in solo or private groups. If we want to face that risk, for whatever reason, we can play in open. If we are forced to make that choice, for all time, we will inevitably choose PvE.

Why? Because the "PvP" community tends to make PvP so unpleasant, that it can only be tolerated in small doses.

I often compare PvP to spicy food. Some people prefer their food bland. Some like to ignite fires in their mouths. Some prefer a slight "kick" to their meal, but can't tolerate the extremely hot stuff. Some prefer bland meals, but try the hot stuff from time to time, and then once again swear "never again." And some jerks seem to think its funny to unscrew the lid of the spice jar, so that the next diner will have their meal ruined. The trick isn't to have one restaurant that only sells bland food, and another that sells only the extremely hot stuff. The trick is to provide as broad a menu as possible, with sufficient information for diners to make informed decisions, while keeping the jerks out of the kitchen.

 

[Stigbob]

Again I agree with you. The problem is that a single player can not and should not have to organize that kind of location and activities. That is normally done by the game play designers. That was what I and probably every other PvP player would very much like to have.

What I cannot do is create that place for myself and everyone else. As individual even if I could persuade 5 players to do the same made up activity that I thought of, that is not an actual game location for everyone else to use and know about in game. And that is exactly what you need to center and lead such players to something better to do then pointless made up activities buy little groups of individuals or the mindless destruction of who ever you met in Open Play.

For example there is the Problem of Players being killed while doing the Delivery missions for CG. As we all know there is usually one Delivery and one Bounty mission for CG to attempt to counter the player campers with player bounty hunters.

THE PROBLEM:
The player bounty hunters are NOT ENCOURAGE but DISCOURAGED to go against Wanted Players. Since the efford of defeating such is so much greater and the reward is the same as defeating a brainless NPC with the help of the security .

Solution:
Reward Player Bounty Hunters incredibly more if they take down a Player Ship that was wanted (perhaps in that region of the Delivery CG only). This will actually make and encourage players to Defend other players and punish the "Evil Doers". The way it stands the counter CG for bounties is useless as a counter measure for the campers for traders. Again since there is no benefit for anyone to go again them. This is all by Game-play design and there could have been done differently so that it involves PvP players more with actual benefits for them not just the joy of killing for nothing..

Mobius exists and is hugely popular for two reasons, Mobius created it and got people interested, FDEV supported it due to demonstrable massive player interest.

If you got enough PVP'ers interested in a set location, you would have an easier time getting FDEV to support it. They could add in things like gal-net updates a custom CZ just to spice things up, the structures from CQC, opposing asteroid stations 20 km's apart in a really unstable belt, a cap-ship battle. Permit lock it based on being in open.

If it proved popular and reduced counterproductive murder-hoboing, open might even benefit from increased interest.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

From the outset, when Frontier published the design information for the game over five years ago at the start of the Kickstarter, it has been clear that the game was not designed to be dominated by direct PvP, with the choice left to the player, at the beginning of each session, how many players they play among.

Except that the choice is not always left to the player, at least not in Open play. I could chose NOT engage in direct PVP, yet still be attacked by another player, regardless of my own choice, and this has long been the cornerstone of complaints by the PVE players. I do understand that other modes of play are available - Private Groups and Solo, as an "opt out" option if I do not desire to engage in direct PVP, but from a new player's perspective, this is neither obvious nor particularly clear. And while this may have been the design intent, not everyone is going to "get it".

It has been equally clear that indirect PvP, through the BGS, is at the core of Frontier's desired user experience as every player both experiences and affects the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode or platform.

This has been the cornerstone complaint of the dedicated, die-hard, PVP BGS manipulators for as long as I can recall - they cannot enforce their wills and ways on those playing in different modes, thus the "shared experience is not quite so shared.

Both multi-player game modes are direct PvP enabled.

Frontier have confirmed that the BGS will not be split and that they consider all game modes to be equal and valid choices (and they are aware that not all players will agree).

Every player who bought or backed the game did so with these features in place.

Not every player engages in direct PvP, indeed one Dev has indicated that Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't. Every player engages in PvE however - which will often result in indirect PvP, whether intentional or not.

I hate to do this but... Let's take a good look at No Man's Sky here. It was also labeled as a multi-player, online game, and it took only a few weeks after launch for two people to find the same planet, the same location on the same planet, to discover they could neither see nor interact with each other and to whip the internet into a hate-frenzy because of it - yet the actions of these players - for instance, the first one to reach that planet, to tag is as "Discovered by" and upload that information and potentially rename that planet, could be seen by either and any subsequent players to find that same world. It's the same sort of "indirect" multiplayer experience that we can see when players in Solo or Private Groups exert influence over the same shared galaxy as Open players.

I never bought in to the inter-hate, not in NMS, not here, that existed then or now. I actually appreciate the "shared universe" experience, though likely for reasons that are different than most.

 

[andrewg_oz]

I've read more than one person on this thread suggest that if Frontier were to create an "Open PvE" mode that the existing open mode would die.

If the existing open mode is such a poor place to be that the only way it can survive is for there to be no competing modes, then it doesn't deserve to exist now.

I say Frontier *should* create an "Open PvE" mode to exist right alongside an "Open PvP" mode. Then let each stand or die on its own merits as the community sees fit.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

After CG was over logged in at the station. Rammed to death by 'speed cops'.

As far as I am concerned, this should be treated as an Exploit, as there is no way any sane person or even the majority of insane persons could have conceived the notion: "If someone commits suicide by ramming themselves into a speeding ship, the speeding ship should be targeted for destruction as a murderer."

This is purely gaming the play - taking advantage of a flaw in the implementation of a - let's be blunt, a poor excuse for a "legal system".

 

[Robert Maynard]

Except that the choice is not always left to the player, at least not in Open play. I could chose NOT engage in direct PVP, yet still be attacked by another player, regardless of my own choice, and this has long been the cornerstone of complaints by the PVE players. I do understand that other modes of play are available - Private Groups and Solo, as an "opt out" option if I do not desire to engage in direct PVP, but from a new player's perspective, this is neither obvious nor particularly clear. And while this may have been the design intent, not everyone is going to "get it".

Playing in Open, with the inherent risk of attack by other players (however small, given the size of the galaxy), is the result of a conscious choice made when the player started the session.

Yes, it could probably be made clearer on the start menu (for new players, anyway) that direct PvP is a potential consequence of playing in either multi-player mode.

This has been the cornerstone complaint of the dedicated, die-hard, PVP BGS manipulators for as long as I can recall - they cannot enforce their wills and ways on those playing in different modes, thus the "shared experience is not quite so shared.

Indeed it is and indeed they can't - the game was quite clearly (to me anyway) not designed to be dominated by direct PvP - Frontier could have designed it differently but chose not to.

I hate to do this but... Let's take a good look at No Man's Sky here. It was also labeled as a multi-player, online game, and it took only a few weeks after launch for two people to find the same planet, the same location on the same planet, to discover they could neither see nor interact with each other and to whip the internet into a hate-frenzy because of it - yet the actions of these players - for instance, the first one to reach that planet, to tag is as "Discovered by" and upload that information and potentially rename that planet, could be seen by either and any subsequent players to find that same world. It's the same sort of "indirect" multiplayer experience that we can see when players in Solo or Private Groups exert influence over the same shared galaxy as Open players.

At least players that choose to play in Open / a particular Private Group, on the same platform, can (matchmaking permitting) encounter each other in the same instance in this game.

I never bought in to the inter-hate, not in NMS, not here, that existed then or now. I actually appreciate the "shared universe" experience, though likely for reasons that are different than most.

Some appreciate it, some don't like it because it cannot be dominated in the same way that it would be in a single instance game.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I've read more than one person on this thread suggest that if Frontier were to create an "Open PvE" mode that the existing open mode would die.

If the existing open mode is such a poor place to be that the only way it can survive is for there to be no competing modes, then it doesn't deserve to exist now.

I say Frontier *should* create an "Open PvE" mode to exist right alongside an "Open PvP" mode. Then let each stand or die on its own merits as the community sees fit.

One shared world has been the holy grail of MMO game developers for 30 years now, starting with the first MUDs. The reason for this is simple: when provided with the right environment, players will provide the best content, as opposed to NPCs. Game development resources are limited. Player time and imagination are effectively limitless. Given the right combination of player personalities and game resources, players will create a game world far richer than a development team can provide. We see this time and time again in this game, between the Lugh and Ross 128 campaigns, the various racing and PvP tournament organizations, the Fuel rats, BGS and Powerplay groups, or groups dedicated to science and archeology in this game, like Cannon Research Group.

The problem game developers have repeatedly run into is how to deal with the more... aggressive parts of the player community. In small numbers, these players can make the game much more interesting, by filling the niche of the "bad guys." In large numbers, they make the game so unpleasant that everyone else quits the game entirely, and players who quit rarely come back to see if its gotten better. Getting this mixture right is a lot more work, because if you get the mixture wrong, you lose customers, lose money, and then have to close down your game.

Most MMO developers, having seen what happened to Ultima Online and other early MMO pioneers, choose to avoid dealing with this headache entirely, by forcing players to choose to play on either PvP or PvE servers. Some MMO developers choose to avoid dealing with this headache, by making a game focused solely on PvP, and accepting that they will be a niche game.

Frontier tried to have their cake and eat it too, by designing a system where players could choose, each time they log in, what game mode they want to play in, and call it good. The results were fairly predictable. Right now, the population in Open is artificially high, thanks to players who fall between the PvP and PvE extremes being able to choose which game mode they want to play when they log into the game. If they were forced to choose, they'll chose PvE every time.

 

[Jockey79]

Frontier tried to have their cake and eat it too, by designing a system where players could choose, each time they log in, what game mode they want to play in, and call it good.

Frontier are not the only people to use "Selective Multiplayer".

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/

They use the same mode system.
And if both Developers keep defending this system, it could spread / grow as a concept.
Deal with "griefing" by letting folks choose whom to play with and when they play with them.

 

[Han Zulu]

You mean all the 3 of them ?
They can have their own server.

On XBox and PS4 you have to be a subscriber to each player network to play multiplayer. So the Open-only idea would lock everyone out who doesn't have MS XBOX Gold or whatever it's called and/or PSN subscription. So, they can't have their "own server" because of Sony and Microsoft.

 

[Brrokk]

I think the "one game / multiple modes" scheme is a really clever feature which goes a long way to explain the success which ED has had so far. It makes the game appeal to people who want many different kinds of play instead of just one demographic or interest group.

Consider what would happen if Open was made the only mode. Would all the players who prefer other modes move to Open? No, many would be lost. And what if Solo was made the only mode? Would Open players be willing to move to Solo? No, many would be lost. The present player-base is therefore larger that it could have been with only one of those modes.

 

[duckofdeath]

Even pure PvP FPS games often have bot modes or mods, allowing for single player gaming, for many reasons. Elite is based on a single-player game with added multiplayer interaction. It would never have worked or been a sales success had it been pure PvP. None of the layers, be it netcode, combat balance, crime and punishment or anything else works particularly well for forced PvP.
Here's an idea, instead of trolling the small dev team into constantly wasting time on fixing something that can't be fixed, why not troll them into focusing on the progression of the bigger picture? The lore, features, ships, planets, species. All the things that actually is the core of Elite. If they'd done that from day one after Horizons launched, I'm 100% sure this game would have been a much bigger success. With that success we'd have more players in all instances, including open gameplay.

 

[Roybe]

Frontier are not the only people to use "Selective Multiplayer".

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/

They use the same mode system.
And if both Developers keep defending this system, it could spread / grow as a concept.
Deal with "griefing" by letting folks choose whom to play with and when they play with them.

It also puts the responsibility for 'healthy' PVP interactions on the shoulders of the PVP players...with punishment meted out only on their 'bad actors'....leading to 'bad actors' being the reason for dwindling people in their preferred mode...creating 'rare' PVP....and you cannot argue that the punishment dealt out is also quite meaningful.

 

[Roybe]

Even pure PvP FPS games often have bot modes or mods, allowing for single player gaming, for many reasons. Elite is based on a single-player game with added multiplayer interaction. It would never have worked or been a sales success had it been pure PvP. None of the layers, be it netcode, combat balance, crime and punishment or anything else works particularly well for forced PvP.
Here's an idea, instead of trolling the small dev team into constantly wasting time on fixing something that can't be fixed, why not troll them into focusing on the progression of the bigger picture? The lore, features, ships, planets, species. All the things that actually is the core of Elite. If they'd done that from day one after Horizons launched, I'm 100% sure this game would have been a much bigger success. With that success we'd have more players in all instances, including open gameplay.

At its heart E: D is a game completely purely based on PVP, albeit a modified definition....since everything a player does can affect another player....the problem is that PVP definition is the movement of PVE trophies by opposing people/groups of people. This does not scratch the itch of those that look at PVP as a direct confrontation....and the marketing of the game to these people definitely gives the impression that direct confrontation would be more front and center to the game play....

 

[Eidolon]

I got all excited thinking about an open PvE server.
Ahh to dream...

Ah well, back to the Imp Eagle in open and my ever burgeoning block list.

 

[Roybe]

I got all excited thinking about an open PvE server.
Ahh to dream...

Ah well, back to the Imp Eagle in open and my ever burgeoning block list.

I'd be happy with Public Groups and a handful of flags to limit interactions.....