Open PvE Mode

[Brrokk]

I believe recent events with DW2 have dramatised the need for an Open PvE mode. Many of the CMDRs at the DW2 launch didn't have access to a suitable Private Group. Therefore, to take part in a mass launch event they had to be in Open and risk becoming the prey of people intent on wrecking the event.

I propose Open-PvE to be an extra choice at login, in addition to Open, Private Group and Solo.

Possible implementations:

1. Player-player damage disabled. I assume that all damage is already tagged according to source to enable bounties, mission counts, notoriety etc. to be apportioned. All that's needed is a final check that damage is from an allowed source before it's applied. This should ideally include both weapon fire and collision damage between players.

2. No damage modification, but automatic sanctions. E.g. if a player is destroyed by another player in Open-PvE mode, the destroyer pays the victim's rebuy and also a fine, and/or gets banned from Open-PvE for a significant time.

3. Implementation as a PvP flag in Open; so Open-PvE is not actually a separate mode and players with and without the flag set are visible to one another. To avoid exploits it could be appropriate that the flag can only be changed when docked. Attacking a player who has the flag not set could be managed by the methods of either 1 or 2.

I believe this addition would avoid the negative publicity and problems of the kind we've just seen at DW2 and also reunite the fractured player-base. At present those who want PvE play are spread over several huge private groups (which lack admin tools and can't really prevent PvP violations of their rules when infiltrated). It would not have any effect on the play in Open.

 

[Marra Morgan]

I believe recent events with DW2 have dramatised the need for an Open PvE mode. Many of the CMDRs at the DW2 launch didn't have access to a suitable Private Group. Therefore, to take part in a mass launch event they had to be in Open and risk becoming the prey of people intent on wrecking the event.

I propose Open-PvE to be an extra choice at login, in addition to Open, Private Group and Solo.

Possible implementations:

1. Player-player damage disabled. I assume that all damage is already tagged according to source to enable bounties, mission counts, notoriety etc. to be apportioned. All that's needed is a final check that damage is from an allowed source before it's applied. This should ideally include both weapon fire and collision damage between players.

2. No damage modification, but automatic sanctions. E.g. if a player is destroyed by another player in Open-PvE mode, the destroyer pays the victim's rebuy and also a fine, and/or gets banned from Open-PvE for a significant time.

3. Implementation as a PvP flag in Open; so Open-PvE is not actually a separate mode and players with and without the flag set are visible to one another. To avoid exploits it could be appropriate that the flag can only be changed when docked. Attacking a player who has the flag not set could be managed by the methods of either 1 or 2.

I believe this addition would avoid the negative publicity and problems of the kind we've just seen at DW2 and also reunite the fractured player-base. At present those who want PvE play are spread over several huge private groups (which lack admin tools and can't really prevent PvP violations of their rules when infiltrated). It would not have any effect on the play in Open.

Firstly - Open PvE mode already exists. You can PvE in Open, as I and many others have been doing over the last 4 years. I understand that what you want is a "No-PvP Mode".

Here is David Braben speaking in 2016, where he addresses this issue. He agrees that it's a nice idea and that he likes it, but expands on the difficulties in implementing it and how the game would end up "more broken" (David's words).

Spoiler

From 42:30
[video=youtube_share;gEtHu3AXw2Q]https://youtu.be/gEtHu3AXw2Q?t=2557[/video]

Personally, I think it would take up considerable developer effort to make what you're asking for, and that does affect people in Open and everywhere else - devs that would be working on requests from very vocal minorities such as No-PvP Mode, Open-only mode, bringing the ADS back, etc are devs that are not working on new content that everyone can enjoy.

As it stands, there are several No-PvP Private Groups which provide a solution at no expense to Frontier - I can't see them rushing to throw time and budget at something which players themselves are taking care of.

 

[Brrokk]

Firstly - Open PvE mode already exists. You can PvE in Open, as I and many others have been doing over the last 4 years. I understand that what you want is a "No-PvP Mode".

Here is David Braben speaking in 2016, where he addresses this issue. He agrees that it's a nice idea and that he likes it, but expands on the difficulties in implementing it and how the game would end up "more broken" (David's words).

Spoiler

From 42:30

Personally, I think it would take up considerable developer effort to make what you're asking for, and that does affect people in Open and everywhere else - devs that would be working on requests from very vocal minorities such as No-PvP Mode, Open-only mode, bringing the ADS back, etc are devs that are not working on new content that everyone can enjoy.

As it stands, there are several No-PvP Private Groups which provide a solution at no expense to Frontier - I can't see them rushing to throw time and budget at something which players themselves are taking care of.

No, I'm asking for an Open-PvE mode. It's counter-intuitive to define a mode by what doesn't happen in it. Would you want to rename Solo the "No other players mode"?

As for development effort, I suggested various possible implementations after making informed guesses about the software structure. (I have considerable software experience). I'd be happy for FD to make a selection from the possibilities or use their own variation.

David Braben's vision is indeed why we're all here. I don't think this would be the first time a deviation from it was made for practical reasons though. I think he's idealistic and didn't adequately take into account the worst parts of human nature.

 

[Marra Morgan]

I think he's idealistic and didn't adequately take into account the worst parts of human nature.

Idealistic or not, he's the fella you have to convince!

And if you believe the actions you've seen in this spaceship video-game are the "worst parts of human nature", then I truly envy your fortunate upbringing and comfortable lifestyle.

Good luck!

 

[Martind Forlon]

I hope FDev will leave things in game as are now regarding damage model (i.e no exception if player or npc). Private groups or Solo are good solution for these not liking pvp. Sorry OP, but simply 'No' to your idea.

 

[Hullreaver]

I believe recent events with DW2 have dramatised the need for an Open PvE mode. Many of the CMDRs at the DW2 launch didn't have access to a suitable Private Group. Therefore, to take part in a mass launch event they had to be in Open and risk becoming the prey of people intent on wrecking the event.

I propose Open-PvE to be an extra choice at login, in addition to Open, Private Group and Solo.

Possible implementations:

1. Player-player damage disabled. I assume that all damage is already tagged according to source to enable bounties, mission counts, notoriety etc. to be apportioned. All that's needed is a final check that damage is from an allowed source before it's applied. This should ideally include both weapon fire and collision damage between players.

2. No damage modification, but automatic sanctions. E.g. if a player is destroyed by another player in Open-PvE mode, the destroyer pays the victim's rebuy and also a fine, and/or gets banned from Open-PvE for a significant time.

3. Implementation as a PvP flag in Open; so Open-PvE is not actually a separate mode and players with and without the flag set are visible to one another. To avoid exploits it could be appropriate that the flag can only be changed when docked. Attacking a player who has the flag not set could be managed by the methods of either 1 or 2.

I believe this addition would avoid the negative publicity and problems of the kind we've just seen at DW2 and also reunite the fractured player-base. At present those who want PvE play are spread over several huge private groups (which lack admin tools and can't really prevent PvP violations of their rules when infiltrated). It would not have any effect on the play in Open.

I have been thinking about ways to improve open play and make it more dynamic and interesting. One of the big deterrents to people playing in open play is the inevitable encounter you will have with a murderer/griefer. The usual “solution” given is to not play in open or play in a private group, which are lazy excuses, not solutions. Here is my thought on adding to the game play to make this type of conduce actually more interesting and a part of the game and also bypass the CQC that is simply not working.

1) Create a PVP option in open play for CQC, instead of a separate CQC. Maybe they could be located at stations through the Authority Contact or something similar, but they would allow a commander to sign up and challenge anyone to a duel. You can then go on your merry way and play in the game until someone accepts. There could then be a signal source in the system for you both to drop in on (and only the 2 players that accepted the duel, no one else).

2) Anytime you murder another player in a system with any type of security, you get an enormous bounty (several million credits) and notoriety that never expires. In addition, your name gets posted on the “Wanted” board at the Authority Contact in all systems for other players to see, and it also tracks your last know location. People could then try and hunt you down either alone or in a wing to collect the bounty. It would also make Anarchy systems more truly Anarchy systems then they are now, since a murder there would not be tracked, and add intrigue and fun to the murderers in Elite, instead of them just being murderers. If you combat log while being interdicted or engaged with a real player in a secure system and you have such a bounty on your head, the system considers you to have surrendered and the next time you log in you will be at the detention facility sans your ship and your credits (see below).

3) If you are a murderer and get taken down by a real player, you lose your ship (no buyback whatsoever) and your credits. Again, adds more excitement and probably more realistic.

4) True Pirates should be treated differently. If you are trying to get some loot and rob someone, not just kill people for the sake of giggles, then you should be allowed to tag cargo items using your manifest scanner and if the other player does not drop them and you then kill them, the current C&P would apply, allowing your notoriety to diminish over time.

 

[AndyJ]

I hope FDev will leave things in game as are now regarding damage model (i.e no exception if player or npc). Private groups or Solo are good solution for these not liking pvp. Sorry OP, but simply 'No' to your idea.

Private groups and Solo are actually not good solutions for players who want to play in a non-competitive way and share the universe with like-minded individuals.
Solo removes any chance of co-operation, player groups still greatly limit the chance of meeting others and often require out-of-game actions - joining groups/websites which means sharing of email address etc which is undesirable to many.

Frontier sold this game on the premise of being able to play it how you wanted, but the simple reality is that for those that do want a PvE experience, it's not possible from the start menu without jumping through other hoops first, and that's a real shame.
It's about time FD cater for the players that don't want to treat the game like deathmatch-in-space, or have any chance of crossing paths with those that do.

I have been thinking about ways to improve open play and make it more dynamic and interesting.

I won't quote it all, but yes I agree with those suggestions - there should be more reason and consequence to being a pirate/murderer. I've suggested in the past that pirate outposts in anarchy systems should treat 'bad' players better than those that keep their noses clean etc...

However, the PvE thing is a different discussion. It's a game mode without ANY PvP - that's the whole point. Log in & chill out. Spend a few hours at a barnacle/guardian site without any risk of little Billy crashing through your relaxing session and blasting your ship to bits just for the giggles.
Players should have the choice, and it should be there on the start menu.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Option 1: what do you do about collisions? If player A can ram player B with no damage to either, player B can still collide with a station wall, or a planet, or similar. It's technically the environment that killed them, even though they'd have survived if the other player hadn't been there.

Option 2: station ramming as a way to get PvEers banned from PvE mode would be the new sport, I expect.

Option 3: change only when docked doesn't solve a lot of the exploits - a group of players some of whom are PvP-enabled and some of whom aren't can do a lot of exploity stuff - the PvP-disabled could heal their PvP-enabled friends without being able to be taken out themselves, for example ... or just act as convenient shields.


There's not - unlike many other games - a clear split between a "PvP" action or a "PvE" action. Simple non-combat example: you're mining, I show up in an unarmed ship with a collector swarm. Am I doing some pre-emptive piracy, or am I helping the DWE crew with tonight's CG by reducing the number of ships which need to find space for a refinery? You know which I'm doing ... but can you make a reasonable rule for the game?

Or ... you're mining away. I keep dropping in and out of supercruise, each time I do it attracts a new NPC pirate, which I lure over to your position before I get a new one.

The only way to guarantee no PvP action is to make sure players can't instance with each other in normal space. So, basically, Solo with a shared supercruise. With the System Comms channel, the shared supercruise isn't really necessary either nowadays ... or you can choose to only be instanced with players you can trust not to attack you: Private Group.

2) Anytime you murder another player in a system with any type of security, you get an enormous bounty (several million credits) and notoriety that never expires. [...]

3) If you are a murderer and get taken down by a real player, you lose your ship (no buyback whatsoever) and your credits. Again, adds more excitement and probably more realistic.

Scenario: you're doing some NPC hunting in a HazRES. You're not carrying any cargo, you're clean, and you know anyone who kills you will get your designed and very large griefer penalty, so the appearance in the zone of a few other hollow triangles doesn't massively concern you.

Then one of the triangles - a Sidewinder - hits silent running, flies through your line of fire, and boosts into an asteroid. As the last player to attack them, you are credited with the kill, and get a bounty.

Two seconds later - before you've really realised what's going on - you're hit by fourteen simultaneous frag cannon volleys and explode. The Sidewinder's friends claim the bounty, and you're down one Corvette and a few million extra credits.

Scenario 2: you're leaving a station and have got out of range of the station guns, but not outside the NFZ, and have not been travelling at under 100m/s all the way to the edge of the NFZ. A Sidewinder rams you and explodes. You're now target number one for every PvP bounty hunter, who will ensure you don't make it to the next station.


The big problem with "if only C&P was extremely harsh" is that
- people who intend to be criminals will be very aware of what C&P does and how to mitigate the effects
- people who do not intend to be criminals will not.

We saw this in 3.0 - C&P got quite a bit harsher, especially on player-killers. You can run up a very large bounty from a relatively small number of player kills now, and you can't avoid paying that bounty forever without permanently abandoning your ship.

Who complains? Not the habitual criminals, who looked at the new system, adapted to it, and carried on with somewhat higher costs than before ... but the people who tag an NPC in a RES and find that they can't just jump out of the system for ten minutes to have it all forgotten.

Push it much harsher, and it'll be at the stage where "trick someone into becoming a criminal, then kill them" is the new pastime.


There's also the problem that "lose your ship permanently" is not necessarily that big a deal to someone planning *for that consequence*. It's trivial to build a frags FAS and give it some basic G2/G3 engineering mods:
- lower total credit cost than the rebuy on some bigger ships
- with remote engineering and material traders, you can give it 75% of the performance boost of G5 just with "spare parts" levels of materials ... in five minutes without leaving the hangar.
- still more than enough firepower to destroy a poorly shielded trader.
Lose it completely? No big deal, there's another fifty ready in the shipyard for less than the credits and materials costs of a single G5 Cutter.

(But it's of course a major consequence for the unexpected criminal who didn't expect to lose their ship that day)

4) True Pirates should be treated differently. If you are trying to get some loot and rob someone, not just kill people for the sake of giggles, then you should be allowed to tag cargo items using your manifest scanner and if the other player does not drop them and you then kill them, the current C&P would apply, allowing your notoriety to diminish over time.

So give up a single utility mount and you can kill any trader you like? Given that people are currently doing enough outfitting compromises to follow DWE around in a heavy combat ship, one utility mount would be an easy deal for them.

Scan the trader, mark certain items as wanted, blow them up with heavy weapons before they can comply. (Or get them to hit "dump all cargo" in an attempt to stop you, which in a trade T-9 will probably cost them more than the ship's rebuy anyway)

The other problem with this: you're a pirate, you've been doing some "legitimate piracy", you've worked up a bit of a bounty with the assaults, etc. but you've not hit any "is a griefer" flags. A player bounty hunter finds you and attacks. Your options are:
1) Immediately high-wake and keep running. (Which is no fun for the bounty hunter)
2) Surrender and die. (Which is no fun for the pirate and not much for the bounty hunter)
3) Kill them, and be declared a griefer for killing a cargo-less clean ship.

Pirates need to be able to fire back on bounty hunters, including without keeping track in a wing fight of which bounty hunter hasn't actually shot them just yet (or take out the one who isn't shooting them because they're healing the one who is!), without excessive penalty. (Sure, it should be illegal, but there's illegal and there's "you're not actually supposed to do that in-game", which is the level of deterrent you're proposing)

 

[Havvk]

[video=youtube;31g0YE61PLQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ[/video]

 

[Martind Forlon]

Private groups and Solo are actually not good solutions for players who want to play in a non-competitive way and share the universe with like-minded individuals.
Solo removes any chance of co-operation, player groups still greatly limit the chance of meeting others and often require out-of-game actions - joining groups/websites which means sharing of email address etc which is undesirable to many.

Frontier sold this game on the premise of being able to play it how you wanted, but the simple reality is that for those that do want a PvE experience, it's not possible from the start menu without jumping through other hoops first, and that's a real shame.
It's about time FD cater for the players that don't want to treat the game like deathmatch-in-space, or have any chance of crossing paths with those that do.

What you ask for is easily doable with making security forces much harder/faster/persistent in high-sec systems and there have part of CGs. Ideally would be set conditions for hsec such way that make murder there wouldn't be usable scenario. I can imagine few ways how to do this with already existing mechanisms. This all without the need to implement changes which break game basic logic (OP request ).

Elite isn't safe exploration utopia game for masses .... it's safe enough for everyone who is prepared for risky situations when go to risky places. Players hotspots can be made relative safe, based on system security, this is a way which I hope FDev chose to give nore fun and diverse play for all players.

 

[SpaceScania]

There really is no substitute for a an open-PVE mode. For players that prefer co-operative play and are not interested in PvP this is the best option. I think this mode for Elite is loooooong overdue. None of the arguments for making a PvP environment for PvE friendly are convincing to me. At its very core if you have the ability to engage in non-consensual PvP by definition it is not a PvE environment.

 

[AndyJ]

What you ask for is easily doable with making security forces much harder/faster/persistent in high-sec systems and there have part of CGs. Ideally would be set conditions for hsec such way that make murder there wouldn't be usable scenario. I can imagine few ways how to do this with already existing mechanisms. This all without the need to implement changes which break game basic logic (OP request ).

Elite isn't safe exploration utopia game for masses .... it's safe enough for everyone who is prepared for risky situations when go to risky places. Players hotspots can be made relative safe, based on system security, this is a way which I hope FDev chose to give nore fun and diverse play for all players.

You're not taking on-board the point that a PvE mode is not about reducing the impact of player-on-player violence, or adding consequences for when it happens, it is about removing the possibility of that happening.

Trying to solve anything via system security is a non-starter anyway - you only have to consider the remote un-populated systems that have barnacles, guardians etc - some which are well known locations and attract exploration-biased players. They soon become griefing zones because certain players will make the effort to get there just to club a few seals, with no game consequence because it's lawless space.

There's no reason why Elite cannot be a safe exploration utopia game, and it's difficult to agree with the argument that a solution in open would give more fun & diverse play for all players when players are stating that's NOT how they'd like to be able to play. And when rules are obeyed, Private Groups can create a utopia game, but they're still not immune to infiltration by the really determined idiot (I have been on the receiving end) and as I'd argue, they're just a hoop that really shouldn't need to be jumped through by players or those who have to manage the groups.

 

[Hawkadium]

You want a safe mode in a game called ELITE DANGEROUS?

 

[Hullreaver]

Scenario: you're doing some NPC hunting in a HazRES. You're not carrying any cargo, you're clean, and you know anyone who kills you will get your designed and very large griefer penalty, so the appearance in the zone of a few other hollow triangles doesn't massively concern you.

Then one of the triangles - a Sidewinder - hits silent running, flies through your line of fire, and boosts into an asteroid. As the last player to attack them, you are credited with the kill, and get a bounty.

Two seconds later - before you've really realised what's going on - you're hit by fourteen simultaneous frag cannon volleys and explode. The Sidewinder's friends claim the bounty, and you're down one Corvette and a few million extra credits.

They did change the "friendly fire" so that if you accidentally shoot a friendly you do not incur a bounty, just a fine, so why would that change? Just because you rammed into a rock?

Scenario 2: you're leaving a station and have got out of range of the station guns, but not outside the NFZ, and have not been travelling at under 100m/s all the way to the edge of the NFZ. A Sidewinder rams you and explodes. You're now target number one for every PvP bounty hunter, who will ensure you don't make it to the next station.

How are they going to ram me in my FDL doing 450 kmh, lol? If ramming is such a big issue, or becomes one, let them deal with it. Another red herring.


The big problem with "if only C&P was extremely harsh" is that
- people who intend to be criminals will be very aware of what C&P does and how to mitigate the effects
- people who do not intend to be criminals will not.

So what? All I am saying is add more to the game on that front. If you want to be a criminal, fine, but let's make it more interesting.

We saw this in 3.0 - C&P got quite a bit harsher, especially on player-killers. You can run up a very large bounty from a relatively small number of player kills now, and you can't avoid paying that bounty forever without permanently abandoning your ship.

Who complains? Not the habitual criminals, who looked at the new system, adapted to it, and carried on with somewhat higher costs than before ... but the people who tag an NPC in a RES and find that they can't just jump out of the system for ten minutes to have it all forgotten.

Push it much harsher, and it'll be at the stage where "trick someone into becoming a criminal, then kill them" is the new pastime.


There's also the problem that "lose your ship permanently" is not necessarily that big a deal to someone planning *for that consequence*. It's trivial to build a frags FAS and give it some basic G2/G3 engineering mods:
- lower total credit cost than the rebuy on some bigger ships
- with remote engineering and material traders, you can give it 75% of the performance boost of G5 just with "spare parts" levels of materials ... in five minutes without leaving the hangar.
- still more than enough firepower to destroy a poorly shielded trader.
Lose it completely? No big deal, there's another fifty ready in the shipyard for less than the credits and materials costs of a single G5 Cutter.

You are missing the piece about losing your credits. Now is it trivial to rebuild with nothing in the bank?

(But it's of course a major consequence for the unexpected criminal who didn't expect to lose their ship that day)
I would be fine taking a “wait and see” approach to all of these unexpected criminals. Do not think it would be much of an issue.

So give up a single utility mount and you can kill any trader you like? Given that people are currently doing enough outfitting compromises to follow DWE around in a heavy combat ship, one utility mount would be an easy deal for them.


Scan the trader, mark certain items as wanted, blow them up with heavy weapons before they can comply
So, give them 30 seconds to comply. Also, put in a zero throttle safety, that if they try and throttle away, evade or jump, they are fair game and the current C&P applies.
(Or get them to hit "dump all cargo" in an attempt to stop you, which in a trade T-9 will probably cost them more than the ship's rebuy anyway)

The other problem with this: you're a pirate, you've been doing some "legitimate piracy", you've worked up a bit of a bounty with the assaults, etc. but you've not hit any "is a griefer" flags. A player bounty hunter finds you and attacks. Your options are:
1) Immediately high-wake and keep running. (Which is no fun for the bounty hunter) Are you in an anarchy system? If not, who cares?
2) Surrender and die. (Which is no fun for the pirate and not much for the bounty hunter) Are you in an anarchy system? If not, who cares?
3) Kill them, and be declared a griefer for killing a cargo-less clean ship. Are you in an anarchy system? If not, so what?

Pirates need to be able to fire back on bounty hunters Why? Are you in a secure system or anarchy system? You ignored that whole part of the discussion. You are pirate with a bounty on your head in a secure system, so what "rights" do you really have?, including without keeping track in a wing fight of which bounty hunter hasn't actually shot them just yet (or take out the one who isn't shooting them because they're healing the one who is!), without excessive penalty. (Sure, it should be illegal, but there's illegal and there's "you're not actually supposed to do that in-game", which is the level of deterrent you're proposing)

As is usually the case, people come up with fantastic scenarios as a reason not to make a change. Much like the friendly fire issue that used to exist and they finally fixed it, none of the things you bring up would be deal breakers. The simple fact is they could make changes to vastly improve the game, at least for 99% of the players. There is the 1% that would complain, but everyone knows why….

 

[AndyJ]

You want a safe mode in a game called ELITE DANGEROUS?

You must be new here. I'll leave it for you to find out why your side-splitting comment, that nobody's ever heard before, is factually incorrect.
[zZzZz]

Yes OP is requesting a Safe mode. A Co-op mode. PvE by another name.
A desired game mode that tens of thousands of players already try to play via Private Groups, but without the need for joining/managing multiple, massive Private Groups.

 

[Hullreaver]

Instead of the made up scenarios, here is a real one. After the Beyond update, I went out in my Asp Explorer to map some ELW's and WW's in some systems that I had previously discovered and tagged. For some dumb reason, I logged into open mode on my trip back to Jameson. I was about 100 ls away in the Shinrarta system when I get interdicted by a wing of 2 players (Anaconda and a Phantom) and they fry my shields and blow me up in literally 10 seconds. There goes my roughly $100M of exploration data. Now, was I dumb for logging into open play? Yep. Why? Because, they allow random murderers to roam around without any real consequences. Who is that fun for? So, maybe they should look at changing things to improve the play for more than 99% of the people, even if it es off 1% of the out there.

 

[Chaparral]

A nice alternative might be a "PVE" mode that eliminates PVP rebuy costs and preserves data/missions/cargo - then place the pilot in the most recent system visited. This would allow people to embrance, learn and practice PVP, or just ignore the consequences when it happens. If it's really PVE, then PVE death would suffer the current costs.

I think coding an actual PVE mode is beyond FDEV. With the ramming vs. bad piloting - I think it would be really tough to figure out.

PVE Open is a thing in every other MMO - so it really should be offered.

The problem with PGs is the cap, and restricted instancing. Your chances of seeing someone in even a very large PG is much less than in an Open mode.

 

[Hawkadium]

Wait, ya'll are saying that "Single Player Solo Mode" thingy, actually allows you to travel safely across the galaxy? Then you just log back in to Online Play and carry about your day? What kind of carebear crap is this?

Dev Discussion:
Hey, guys, I have an idea. Hear me out. How about we create a game with every single star in the Milky Way. We procedurally generate over 400,000,000,000 stars and populate most of them with explore-able planets/moons/etc... wait for it... and we add a Solo mode for people to hide in. With 400,000,000,000 stars in our game, players will NEED an option to hide from other players. It'll make us so much money and won't make the game any more dead than it already is. I mean people don't actually play MMOs to see and interact with other people, do they? Nah, that's crazy talk.

Fire this guy ^

 

[Martind Forlon]

You're not taking on-board the point that a PvE mode is not about reducing the impact of player-on-player violence, or adding consequences for when it happens, it is about removing the possibility of that happening.

Trying to solve anything via system security is a non-starter anyway - you only have to consider the remote un-populated systems that have barnacles, guardians etc - some which are well known locations and attract exploration-biased players. They soon become griefing zones because certain players will make the effort to get there just to club a few seals, with no game consequence because it's lawless space.

There's no reason why Elite cannot be a safe exploration utopia game, and it's difficult to agree with the argument that a solution in open would give more fun & diverse play for all players when players are stating that's NOT how they'd like to be able to play. And when rules are obeyed, Private Groups can create a utopia game, but they're still not immune to infiltration by the really determined idiot (I have been on the receiving end) and as I'd argue, they're just a hoop that really shouldn't need to be jumped through by players or those who have to manage the groups.

All this fear from ganking is clearly exaggerated ...

 

[Siobhan]

All this fear from ganking is clearly exaggerated ...

I refer the honourable commander to the comments else thread of one zarek null, who stated that 900+ commanders (and later 1100) were ganked in one session during the launch od DW2 in open. This would not appear to be consistent with "clearly exaggerated", though I suppose it is possible that someone is telling porkies.