Open PvE already exists. It consists of regular open together with a very very long blocklist.
Create two versions of Open: One each for PvP (Enabled) & PvE (PvP Disabled)
- Thread starter Rat Catcher
- Start date
Because we still hope for change?
I agree to the extent we have what we have now - indeed there is "meaningful" PvP all over the shop - but that's not to say it can't be improved.
A good game design would use carrots to incentivise away from your typical Deciat Gank (whilst still allowing it) - and close exploits like the cutter I met the other day sniping ships well out of the range of the bases weapons.
Ramming is the problem.
Sure, you can set the direct damage from a player/player ram to zero as well, but then what do you do about being rammed into NPCs / stations / planets? In fact, that would be slightly more effective than in the current PvP mode, as the attacker wouldn't take any damage from ramming you, and could just bat you around the station with impunity.
Making player/player rams also not transfer momentum would mean that a pair of Sidewinders taking it in turns could block a Cutter from exiting a station by just getting in its way and being unable to be swept aside, until the launch timer ran out and the station destroyed the Cutter.
You'd have to make players completely pass-through other player ships as if they weren't there, which would be rather unimmersive and might make people inclined to stick to Private Group instead. (It also has the question of what happens if someone flies inside you while you're inside the docking cylinder, and opens fire from there - the station will treat you as their ablative armour, and you lose a T-9 to their Sidewinder)
Obviously in a manually moderated Private Group like Mobius, you'd only get to do any of that once. Frontier would never be capable of scaling up to do that work.
(The impression I get from what Frontier has said with Odyssey is that station interiors will be no-weapons zones, so I guess we'll see how easy it is to pin someone into a corner so they can't leave soon enough...)
I don't think a game exists that has managed to incentivise tragic gankers away from easy targets.
I'm no expert on pvp in fact I find it beyond tedious in this game but it seems reasonable that Frontier could close a loophole like that by having ATR respond to any incidence of a ship being damaged within the range of a station and drafting them to hunt down sniping ships.
Do stations have individual threat levels could they not increase security around stations where pew pew happens?
I'm not sure tbh - I think what probably happened is that stations have a fixed radius for weps, but engineering happened and weps now exist that out-range them.
Terrorists and "most wanted" should exist in game - and whilst this might not be suitable for ED, some sort of scaling response like in GTA should apply in high/mid security systems (if only if the peak response would be a capital ship, lol). Again this would need a major rework in supercruise and a mechanism where they player can flee fight again. But this is a pure fantasy that it will be implemented!
Terrorists and "most wanted" should exist in game - and whilst this might not be suitable for ED, some sort of scaling response like in GTA should apply in high/mid security systems (if only if the peak response would be a capital ship, lol). Again this would need a major rework in supercruise and a mechanism where they player can flee fight again. But this is a pure fantasy that it will be implemented!
They'll I suspect have to spend a lot of time during the Odyssey alpha to adjust station/outpost weapons radius from all those inventive Commandos wanting to do serious damage so perhaps something will be done then with regards to sniping.
I believe the efforts the "PvP Community' made to have San Tu as a player created PvP hub was a brilliant move, sadly there are always others who want their cat to bury something unpleasant in the sandpit.
Sadly, I'd disagree with the 'fine with what we have' as a regular 'feature' from the PvP community are those requests to 'nerf' & 'remove' existing game features as they dislike them - which of course is just the start of a degenerative spiral as once one META is 'broken' another will appear and the cycle would start once again.
How would it work? Exactly as we have now, all PG & Solo do is change who is visible to who - so PvE open would effectively be an unlimited size PG, pretty much what solo already is, except, of course, solo makes that group appear to be only one.
Another menu choice and restrictions set by the choice. (Which incidentally, as a rule set, would also implement every asked for 'change' by the PvP community in PvP Open)
PG still has its place - I play with a couple of friends in group that includes shooting each other quite often, entirely by consent, to attempt to improve both combat and evasion skills.
Yeah... This suggestion might make their chosen playstyle require more imagination.
Is the suggestion a serious one? Not particularly - only my attempting to highlight the hilarity of 'global' change being demanded by a group so small that if they could only play 'their way' in a dedicated mode, it would - apparently - be virtually empty...
Great point about the issue, but you may be surprised how much making characters passthrough isn't a problem in basically every mmo. That's pretty much the standard solution. 2 players have to make an effort to sit in a clipped ontop position, and if they do, that's their problem. For your own normal gameplay its definitely not an issue. In less juvenile communities its also very common for people to try to walk around you as well, no police required.
The only player issue that still remains today is if any games have pet classes.. constantly complained about peoples pets, not players, getting the way of other players. For elite, that would like a players slf clipping infront of the station services ui for another player.
Well youd hope they build in a duelling mode of some kind. Bonus points for a checkbox that both players could check to enable ship destruction or by default stop weapon effects at 0% hull.
While I like the idea of a PvE Open option, I don't think it will be as beneficial for the PvPers as they might think. I agree it would make it easier for PvE focused players - wouldn't need to know about Mobius for example. But the galaxy is so big that the PvP side would really only occur, for the most part, in the two occupied bubbles, being the main one and Colonia. Once outside the bubble, the modes are all but indistinguishable as far as encountering other players at random is concerned. For that matter, even inside the bubble it can be hard enough apart from the hotspots of CG and Engineer systems - for that matter, for once I went into open for the recent combat CG and could count on one hand the number of players I actually got instanced with. So while I wouldn't oppose the suggestion, I do struggle to see the point of splitting open into two to be honest.
Oh gawd I just realised something else this proposal would result in. It's bad enough we get the rubbish calls for open only content now - if this option got up it would become that content like Powerplay or BGS actions need to be in PvP Open only......arghhh....!!!
A group so small.....really? I'm assuming your talking about the pvp community which has been crapped on by both fdevs and cmdrs alike. No wonder their niche, driven away by overly loud others I won't name spouting purity and change nowt and don't progress the game leave it broke.
I'm a casual pvper in training and I for one don't give a crap what anyone thinks I say my piece.
Pvpers are as integral to this game as carebears.
Different playstyles should be respected and not flamed or trolled cos their ideas don't fit the meta remit.
Yes pvpers are few...who knows....but their few because their better than the rest. That's how the good few come about....being above the noise of the mundane
I'm a casual pvper in training and I for one don't give a crap what anyone thinks I say my piece.
Pvpers are as integral to this game as carebears.
Different playstyles should be respected and not flamed or trolled cos their ideas don't fit the meta remit.
Yes pvpers are few...who knows....but their few because their better than the rest. That's how the good few come about....being above the noise of the mundane
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While Frontier have said that the majority of players play in Open, with Solo and Private Groups both enjoying "significant portions" of the player-base, they have also said that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.
The assumption that the addition of an Open-PvE mode would "dissapoint the majority of players currently in Open" is just that, an assumption.
The proposal has nothing to do with the proposals to balance game modes - it simply adds the missing Open mode that the game obviously lacks, given that many MMO have PvP and PvE servers.
The number of proposals from PvP players to remove content from players who don't play in Open rather suggests that a number of PvPers are not "fine" with what they have - they want to shoot at anyone who engages in features in opposition to them.
Why is an MMO that offers players who eschew PvP a mode with an unlimited population where players can't damage other players "deficient"?
True. It'd still be amusing that if you wanted to help lift someone's SRV out of a hole you had to use "PvP" mode to do it
I guess station weapons could all be given the "Smart Rounds" experimental in addition to their other properties so the ablative armour trick wouldn't work either.
Any collision above a certain speed means no damage for the target and 1000% for the attacker. Means you would have to fly slowly around ground installations to avoid griefers but you normally do in built up areas. Like a PVP flag but with consequences. Can push Sideys out of the mail slot below that speed without consequence.
Stops the blending problem before its starts.
Mind you if Frontier just enforced the rules they do have a bit more, like they have been recently, then there wont be a problem. PVP & PVE on one server including proper Pirates, griefers in their own little world crying salty salty tears to other griefers that they cant grief or troll someone.
Indeed.... This would be inevitable as there is a 'need' for some players to 'kill' others for the pretty explosion and hopefully major loss of accumulated effort along with it...
The removal of PP modules to Tech Broker unlocks (already suggested by others) would mean that 'module shoppers' could satisfy their craving and those playing PP because they enjoy it get to play without 'filthy casuals' delivering leaflets to the nearest destination. I'd even support the suggestions put forward by @Rubbernuke in 'division of labour' in PP to have it make some sense.
BGS is affected equally by every player regardless of mode currently, there has never been any need for that to change, despite the calls by the frustrated.
Indeed, as you observe, in the main open is pretty empty currently, depending on where one is... But the suggestion is not about how busy or empty the mode may be, just an attempt to accomodate diametrically opposite playstyles to provision 'equal opportunity' to play as one wished. Mode changing would be no different to the current offering when any player could switch modes as and when they wish.
Allegedly 'other MMO games' manage to accommodate both playstyles, this 'MMO' should follow in their path, surely?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While some contend that that is the case, the fact that the game can be played without ever meeting a hostile player rather undermines the contention. Something that was actually integral would not be able to be avoided completely and game features would require it in some way. Frontier made PvP an optional extra in this game from the outset by choosing to have three game modes that affect the same galaxy with no requirement for any player to engage in PvP to affect any game feature (except CQC, of course).
Maybe it would be better rephrased as "PvPers are integral to the game that PvPers want to play (and, to a degree, to the game of those who tolerate them)". Those who prefer a PvP-free experience have no need whatsoever of PvPers - as interacting with PvPers is not required as part of any game feature.
Given the number of PvP players, over the years, who have opined that "affecting the galaxy from Solo and PGs is cheating"; "Solo and Private Groups should be removed and we should all have to play together"; "the effect of players in Solo and Private Groups on <feature> should be removed because <reasons>"; there are certainly some who want PvP to be unavoidable as part of the game and that we should all be forced to play together. Naturally not all players agree with them.
Last edited:
How could such a claim be responded to?
Perhaps the usual "My gun is bigger than your gun" type argument?
ETA: Which comment actually supports seperating the styles... Why would you wish to be 'forced' to play with others of such 'low ability' , it is an affront, I tell you, an affront!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
1) CMDRs on opposing sides in a CZ would not instance together.
2) See 1) for CZs; share bounties in RES.
3) Limpets could only collect fragments that the player, or wing member, mined.
4) Ships pass through each other to stop that sort of spoiling play.
5) One of the reasons often given for wanting to instance with all BGS / Powerplay opposition is for the possibility of communication (at least for the BGS) - players would be able to communicate. For Powerplay it is what it is - look but can't shoot.
6) CMDRs would be wanted for crimes against NPCs - not against players - and could not attack any players they encountered.
How could such a claim be responded to?
Perhaps the usual "My gun is bigger than your gun" type argument?
Surely with sympathy and understanding followed by laughter?
Can you see how a reasonable person may conclude that you dont actually believe that all players should be respected? Or how they may conclude that what you actually want is to force your gameplay onto others?
Indeed.... This would be inevitable as there is a 'need' for some players to 'kill' others for the pretty explosion and hopefully major loss of accumulated effort along with it...
The removal of PP modules to Tech Broker unlocks (already suggested by others) would mean that 'module shoppers' could satisfy their craving and those playing PP because they enjoy it get to play without 'filthy casuals' delivering leaflets to the nearest destination. I'd even support the suggestions put forward by @Rubbernuke in 'division of labour' in PP to have it make some sense.
BGS is affected equally by every player regardless of mode currently, there has never been any need for that to change, despite the calls by the frustrated.
Indeed, as you observe, in the main open is pretty empty currently, depending on where one is... But the suggestion is not about how busy or empty the mode may be, just an attempt to accomodate diametrically opposite playstyles to provision 'equal opportunity' to play as one wished. Mode changing would be no different to the current offering when any player could switch modes as and when they wish.
Allegedly 'other MMO games' manage to accommodate both playstyles, this 'MMO' should follow in their path, surely?
Would be interesting for Frontier to actually test it, maybe in an Alpha or Beta phase sometime. Problem with that though, I guess, is that only a fraction of the playerbase participates in Alpha/Beta phases, so I don't know how reliable a test it would be. Still, it might give an indication of the proportion of the playerbase that would take advantage of the split of Open modes. I can't see Frontier implementing it in live without enough evidence to indicate whether the juice would be worth the squeeze though.
I would say that Frontier have already accommodated both playstyles though - Open and Private already allow PvP to occur. It's just that the PvPers aren't happy that they can't force everyone else to play the game their way, in game wherein (combat-based) PvP was always intended to be optional from the start. PvEers, arguably the majority I would suggest, seem happy with the flexibility to choose and switch between modes whenever they wish.
Still, it's a proposal I'm sure will always be in the background as a suggestion (and I would likely favour a PvE Open mode myself), probably for as long as there are cries for Open only or bonuses for playing in Open.