Modes Hey, anybody remember when we were asking for an official PvE mode?

[Dietger]

Depends, the terms "griefer" and "ganker" are open to interpretation.

If you use Frontiers version of the words, I'd say around 0.1% or less if we work from the 3 million+ copies sold figure.
If you use the complaints from General Discussion, then it is around 50% according to the stories we are told about "griefers" and "gankers".
Reading some PvE groups forums, it would seem to be about 90% from their versions of events.

So unless Frontier want to actually give us some numbers, the answer is;

Somewhere above zero per cent but below one hundred per cent.

Hope that helps

Absolut


edit


getting things into perspective....

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

Is it a sign we need a PVE mode, or does it show us that a good portion of the playerbase is naive and wildly incompetent?

Signing into open play, fully aware of the dangers, then complaining on the forums after you blow up? The very same forums that are full of advice on how to avoid it?

Its a bad look, man.

---

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Is it a sign we need a PVE mode, or does it show us that a good portion of the playerbase is naive and wildly incompetent?

Why not both?

 

[Lateralus]

In an open PvE-mode, how would you counter the following scenario:

Player A is leaving the station in a T7.
Players B & C decide to grief Player A, so they pin him in the mailslot using a couple of throwaway ships, one from external, one from internal, boosting toward eachother so Player A can't move.
All players are killed by the station guns for blocking the mailslot.
Salt ensues..

Open PvE mode would be full of this and similar indirect griefing scenarios. Expecting Fdev to police it would be unrealistic as it would be a costly time-sink and drain on resources.

PvE players who want social interaction are better off in private groups where admins can ban players who break the rules.

 

[Jockey79]

In an open PvE-mode, how would you counter the following scenario:

Player A is leaving the station in a T7.
Players B & C decide to grief Player A, so they pin him in the mailslot using a couple of throwaway ships, one from external, one from internal, boosting toward eachother so Player A can't move.
All players are killed by the station guns for blocking the mailslot.
Salt ensues..

Open PvE mode would be full of this and similar indirect griefing scenarios. Expecting Fdev to police it would be unrealistic as it would be a costly time-sink and drain on resources.

PvE players who want social interaction are better off in private groups where admins can ban players who break the rules.

That happens now, so what's new here?
It's not as if PvP saves the T7 from that because if they open fire, the station kills them and the "griefers" don't lose their ships.

Of course, the solution is to put those blocking the exit on your block list and log out before the trespass timer expires.
When you log back in, you're 10Km from the station in a new instance and you don't lose your ship/cargo.

Exactly what you can do now.

 

[Lateralus]

That happens now, so what's new here?
It's not as if PvP saves the T7 from that because if they open fire, the station kills them and the "griefers" don't lose their ships.

Of course, the solution is to put those blocking the exit on your block list and log out before the trespass timer expires.
When you log back in, you're 10Km from the station in a new instance and you don't lose your ship/cargo.

Exactly what you can do now.

The point is that is one of the many risks of flying in open.. If you had an open PvE mode this whole sub-community who usually play private would suddenly be playing in the same instances as those they're trying to avoid. Not being able to damage eachother does not mean that they would not be able to grief players.

It would be a huge saltfest within a week.

 

[StiTch]

Good news, OP!

It turns out you had this all along, and people just tend to miss it.

Spoiler

You are welcome - have a great day

 

[Robert Maynard]

Good news, OP!

It turns out you had this all along, and people just tend to miss it.

You are welcome - have a great day

.... other than the facts that it's not PvE (both multi-player game modes are PvP enabled as we know); it's not truly Open (as it has a membership limit); it's not "Official"; and no Private Group is advertised in the launcher.

Apart from that, yes!

 

[StiTch]

.... other than the facts that it's not PvE (both multi-player game modes are PvP enabled as we know); it's not truly Open (as it has a membership limit); it's not "Official"; and no Private Group is advertised in the launcher.

Apart from that, yes!

As we're a fan of dev quotes, I distinctly recall them stating that such a feature isn't happening, as they are not up for magic disappearing bullets - and are also aware they cannot prevent players "griefing" through other means.

We were never entitled to the complete removal of PvP in the same way we were never entitled to PvP only gameplay.

So yes, PG is your Open PvE. This horse is as dead as making the game Open only. Leave the poor thing to rot in peace.

As has been discussed, if you want to reduce "non-consensual" PvP (the term still makes me laugh), stop denying the griffers otherwise valid gameplay.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As we're a fan of dev quotes, I distinctly recall them stating that such a feature isn't happening, as they are not up for magic disappearing bullets - and are also aware they cannot prevent players "griefing" through other means.

You are correct - however that does not make a Private Group functionally equivalent to an Open PvE mode.

We were never entitled to the complete removal of PvP in the same way we were never entitled to PvP only gameplay.

Solo and CQC suggest that that contention is incorrect.

So yes, PG is your Open PvE. This horse is as dead as making the game Open only. Leave the poor thing to rot in peace.

That it may be, in time - some QoL toggleable rules would likely improve the situation for those who don't find PvP to be fun (and those who do):

For PvP:

• Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
• Increase menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]
• Disable all healing experimental effects? [yes/no]
• Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
• Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]

For PvE:

• Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
• Kick player on attacking another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Kick player on destroying another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]

For all play-styles:

• Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.

 

[StiTch]

You are correct

Yes, I am. Looks like both sides are equally as good at whining for something they were told they wouldn't get, eh?

Solo and CQC suggest that that contention is incorrect.

CQC is a separate game, purchasable without buying ED and specifically intended to pull people to the main game - and solo is the removal of all other players, not PvP. This game was never intended to provide the actual removal of PvP mechanics.

some QoL toggleable rules...

Hell noooooo. ED isn't Garry's Mod...it needs a consistent experience. The very architecture that supports BGS across game modes means that players of all modes need to be subject to the same rules and environment, whether we see other players or not. And trust me when I say that's a positive thing for everyone.

I don't have a problem with PG being improved at all - I see no non-technical reason that there should be a size limit for PG, and it could be made a lot easier to access/administer the group.

But it's not part of the original scope of the game to treat PG like Open PvE, so frankly I don't see why anyone feels they have the right to complain about not having this while denying Open-centric content. We can either play tennis for the rest of ED's life, telling the other party what the Devs said we couldn't have years ago, or admit the game is flawed for both sides of us and work to improve it.

 

[Jockey79]

The point is that is one of the many risks of flying in open.. If you had an open PvE mode this whole sub-community who usually play private would suddenly be playing in the same instances as those they're trying to avoid. Not being able to damage eachother does not mean that they would not be able to grief players.

It would be a huge saltfest within a week.

Frontier would agree with you, hence why they have not done one.

However, I think that if people were encouraged to learn how the game features work.
The problem of "griefers" would solve itself in 6 months if the game had a PvE mode.

Just some notes on the login screen explaining how friend and block work, as well as PG and Solo.
Would go a long way to helping people understand they can PvE in peace if we had a PvE mode.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But it's not part of the original scope of the game to treat PG like Open PvE, so frankly I don't see why anyone feels they have the right to complain about not having this while denying Open-centric content.

There was no Open centric content mentioned in the Kickstarter pitch to my knowledge.

There was, however, a mention of the fact that "rules" in relation to "groups" in the explanation of how Multi-Player would work:

They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different.

 

[Jockey79]

But it's not part of the original scope of the game to treat PG like Open PvE, so frankly I don't see why anyone feels they have the right to complain about not having this while denying Open-centric content.

Excuse me?

When creating a group the player creating it can decide how the group will react to crimes committed by players while in the group

• The player can decide to either count only crimes committed against other players, or against AI ships
• The player can decide if a player who earns a bounty is either kicked back into the all players group, or can be kept in the private group

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ngerous-Groups?p=118753&viewfull=1#post118753

DDA Forums, 6th June 2013.
BEFORE the game was for sale.

So people have every right to complain that a proposed feature wasn't implemented.
Because this feature ensures a PG can be PvE without the need to fetch the instance owner every 5 minutes to kick rule breakers.

 

[StiTch]

BEFORE the game was for sale.

Nice try. It just says all bounty recipients can be kicked after commiting the crime. PvP hasn't been disabled - just rulesets in place that do what administrators can already do to remove criminals. I could still enter and blow up a ship, or better block station entrances, kill steal, etc. FD are aware of this which is why they never attempted the granular control of actually removing PvP.

But if you read what I am putting, rather than going for the instinctual backlash, I'm not saying you shouldn't have these features. I'm saying that it's selfish to keep demanding such features, which are largely a contradiction of the game's original values, while refusing other players their own content/TLC. It's also selfish to draw attention to the core values that suit you while conveniently dismissing the other original core values of the game, such as PvP piracy, which is in a state beyond belief.

If you are going to migrate to the great PvE PG, then why do you care what we are given in Open?

Been here before, said it before - you'd be surprised how many players would realise they are the ones trying to ruin another's game at no benefit of their own if they looked in the mirror. And it's not just "the griffers"

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'm saying that it's selfish to keep demanding such features, which are largely a contradiction of the game's original values, while refusing other players their own content/TLC. It's also selfish to draw attention to the core values that suit you while conveniently dismissing the other original core values of the game, such as PvP piracy, which is in a state beyond belief.

So, you'd also say those who want open only bonuses are also being selfish as they cotradict the game's orginal values?