Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[JosiahD]

It's by far the most sensible solution. If FD could add some kind of group management, it would be even better.

The problem with group management can be worked around, by having an extra account that all the group mods have access to. Management tools would be even better.

The main advantage of private groups is that there is no formal requirement for blocking players. Known PK'er = blocked from PG. Not so in Open-PvE.

Imagine there was an Open-PvE group and suddenly a divide happened in the PvE-only community. What then? Make a third open?

Well the KS did include the concept of multiple open modes with differing rulesets didn't it? I don't remember the specifics but I have seen that said. Or was it from the DDF?

Edit:
This is what the KS page still states under the link to how multiplayer will work' (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous):

"We have the concept of “groups”. 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. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group."

Note it states "open groups" (plural), not open group, so the intent, at least, during the KS was for multiple open groups.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Things change through development, compromises have to be made, there is no single player offline mode either, it was not practical, and neither is this, there are better things they can be getting on with.

its a valid point. so an equally valid point would be drop open and solo full stop and JUST have PGs then, inc a PG of 1 if wanted with a series of check boxes for what is and isnt allowed in the PG?

Yes i am being obtuse, but to go down the road of giving up on the DDF and KSer features for one feature (one which in this case i actually can live without personally), means to potentially give up on other features which i would be gutted to give up on, and I refuse to do so till the devs admit they are on that cutting room floor.

Yes offline was dropped - tho to be fair it was not in the KS initially, it was added after it started as a feature requested by the players.. further more, cash refunds were given to those backers who felt the lack off offline meant they no longer wanted the game AFAIK.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well the KS did include the concept of multiple open modes with differing rulesets didn't it? I don't remember the specifics but I have seen that said. Or was it from the DDF?

Last paragraph refers:

FAQ- Elite: Dangerous​

How does multiplayer work?

You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

We have the concept of “groups”. 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. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.
​

 

[JosiahD]

Last paragraph refers:

Thanks mate - just added the last para to my post just now as well lol

 

[MarkAusten]

Speaking purely from a computer application developer point of view, an Open PvE mode is highly unlikely to be developed by FDev not because they can't do it, they most certainly can. Nor will it be because it is not a good idea, it probably is. Nor will it be because the pro-PvP players have other convincing arguments to prevent it because they do not, although they may feel that they do.

No, the three major reasons for them not creating this nor any similar mode are:

1) It's a single BGS and everything they do will be based on that fact. Everything they offer will be available in all modes except where you can't do it. Wings, for example require other human players so you can't do it in Solo, and I used the term human loosely here. I expect the mechanics exist, you just have no way to get to them. Not until NPC wings are available anyway.

2) To offer something different in one mode, which Open PvE requires, means fragmenting the code and believe me, that is something all computer application developers actively resist, or the experienced ones do.

3) If FDev were to acquiesce and provide an Open PvE mode then the requests would quickly start for other tailored modes with differing rules and quite possibly with very good arguments for doing so. Once they have set up one tailored mode, it would be very difficult to justify refusing to do others, resulting in more fragmentation of the code base.

So, whilst I personally think that an Open PvE would be a good idea and beneficial, although I'd never use it as I am a Soloist, the chances of it happening are vanishingly small.

These are the reasons, in my opinion, why FDev are going for the C&P/Karma system. It affects all modes equally, does not fragment the code base and affects all players.

I fully expect FDev to expand the group membership limits and group user maintenance, perhaps along the lines suggested by Robert Maynard, since this is just enhancing code that already exists, but I doubt that anything more will be offered, at least not for the foreseeable future.

 

[JosiahD]

Speaking purely from a computer application developer point of view, an Open PvE mode is highly unlikely to be developed by FDev not because they can't do it, they most certainly can. Nor will it be because it is not a good idea, it probably is. Nor will it be because the pro-PvP players have other convincing arguments to prevent it because they do not, although they may feel that they do.

No, the three major reasons for them not creating this nor any similar mode are:

1) It's a single BGS and everything they do will be based on that fact. Everything they offer will be available in all modes except where you can't do it. Wings, for example require other human players so you can't do it in Solo, and I used the term human loosely here. I expect the mechanics exist, you just have no way to get to them. Not until NPC wings are available anyway.

2) To offer something different in one mode, which Open PvE requires, means fragmenting the code and believe me, that is something all computer application developers actively resist, or the experienced ones do.

3) If FDev were to acquiesce and provide an Open PvE mode then the requests would quickly start for other tailored modes with differing rules and quite possibly with very good arguments for doing so. Once they have set up one tailored mode, it would be very difficult to justify refusing to do others, resulting in more fragmentation of the code base.

So, whilst I personally think that an Open PvE would be a good idea and beneficial, although I'd never use it as I am a Soloist, the chances of it happening are vanishingly small.

These are the reasons, in my opinion, why FDev are going for the C&P/Karma system. It affects all modes equally, does not fragment the code base and affects all players.

I fully expect FDev to expand the group membership limits and group user maintenance, perhaps along the lines suggested by Robert Maynard, since this is just enhancing code that already exists, but I doubt that anything more will be offered, at least not for the foreseeable future.

1) the sought for open PvE mode would also use the same BGS that is already shared by the current open and private groups and solo - not sure what you're getting at here as a reason against an open PvE mode....there are already multiple modes using the same BGS, plus X-Box and soon PS4, so what's one more?

2) I don't know about fragmenting code - there are certainly some implementation considerations to resolve but you yourself state you believe Frontier 'most certainly can'.

3) Multiple open modes with differing rulesets was proposed during the KS that so many of us backed. Not customised ones mind.

 

[Deadspin]

Sorry, a bit OT. Pirates should have no special consideration. They are common thieves and should be whacked immediately by security forces for attacking any ship. We earned our cargo with honest trade, why should you just hand it over?

Because pirating is an accepted style of play in the game and Frontier isn't going to implement a feature that could destroy it.

Guess again.....

https://elitepve.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4684

The description clearly indicates that Frontier has indeed had a part to play....and therefore increased load on them....to assist in facilitating the timezone groups and also tools to make the group more secure against undesirable players. Sounds like something that Frontier will need to continue to assist with and support as the number of Mobius groups increases. In addition to the player membership managed by players, Frontier most definitely has had a hand in supporting the expansion of the group....arguably effort that would just as easily be expended supporting an open PvE mode if they so chose.

I think you don't really know what you're talking about in regards to how much work it actually is to expand the player limits on private groups. Mind you, I can't open that link here at work so I haven't actually been able to read it.

Private Groups do not have unlimited populations - Open has - hence the request for a second Open mode that caters to the gameplay preference of a significant number of players.

.... and the possibility of multiple Open groups (modes) was included in the game design information published at the start of the Kickstarter.

I think it's time for you to let go of the Kickstarter. It's been years. Things change. Plans adapt. Frontier is not required to share those adaptations/deviations with us.

 

[Gunnet]

Speaking purely from a computer application developer point of view, an Open PvE mode is highly unlikely to be developed by FDev not because they can't do it, they most certainly can. Nor will it be because it is not a good idea, it probably is. Nor will it be because the pro-PvP players have other convincing arguments to prevent it because they do not, although they may feel that they do.

No, the three major reasons for them not creating this nor any similar mode are:

1) It's a single BGS and everything they do will be based on that fact. Everything they offer will be available in all modes except where you can't do it. Wings, for example require other human players so you can't do it in Solo, and I used the term human loosely here. I expect the mechanics exist, you just have no way to get to them. Not until NPC wings are available anyway.

2) To offer something different in one mode, which Open PvE requires, means fragmenting the code and believe me, that is something all computer application developers actively resist, or the experienced ones do.

3) If FDev were to acquiesce and provide an Open PvE mode then the requests would quickly start for other tailored modes with differing rules and quite possibly with very good arguments for doing so. Once they have set up one tailored mode, it would be very difficult to justify refusing to do others, resulting in more fragmentation of the code base.

So, whilst I personally think that an Open PvE would be a good idea and beneficial, although I'd never use it as I am a Soloist, the chances of it happening are vanishingly small.

These are the reasons, in my opinion, why FDev are going for the C&P/Karma system. It affects all modes equally, does not fragment the code base and affects all players.

I fully expect FDev to expand the group membership limits and group user maintenance, perhaps along the lines suggested by Robert Maynard, since this is just enhancing code that already exists, but I doubt that anything more will be offered, at least not for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps you're right about splitting the code base, and it's not practical to maintain an open PvP mode with separate mechanics for a niche playstyle.

 

[Hexcaliber]

Some things change - some things remain the same - compromises may be made, or not, as the case may be. Just as XB1 did not have Private Groups on launch but received them in an update, the lack of a feature does not mean that the feature will not be implemented.

Player groups were part of the base game on PC, part of the original design architecture they had in place, it simply needed to be coded for the Xbox; very different.

Do you imagine the current limits on player groups are arbitrary, there for the fun of it? If it were straight forward, there would be no such limitation in game at present, it was almost certainly considered early on, and clearly not practical.

Further, your gameplay would not change one iota with the addition of an open pve group of unlimited size. Larger private groups, just like open, have any number of people off playing in smaller groups, many with their own aims counter to those of others. Even when working for the same end goal, larger player bodies are nevertheless fractured, this happens naturally as a matter of course, through the formation of player cliques, people on different schedules, and so on. Pve or Pvp we are all limited to 32 players per instance due to the limitations of peer to peer, and that would not change. And everyone’s efforts apply to the single universe regardless of which group or instance you happen to be in at any given moment.

Which brings us back to the question; why bother wasting additional developer time and server resources to now include something that was impractical during the early design phase, when pve only group play is already available.

Why would it be more practical to divert developer resources now, when they are already behind their planned release schedule? The answer to that should be obvious.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I think it's time for you to let go of the Kickstarter. It's been years. Things change. Plans adapt. Frontier is not required to share those adaptations/deviations with us.

legally? no probably not i agree.....

but in the interests of keeping their image as a small indie company with a big heart kind of thing, who actually interact with their fan base - which is an image they seem to try to nurture - then it is in their interests to keep the users in the loop when core feature plans change imo.... IF indeed they have.

until they say otherwise, their design decisions and KS promises are still features they should be actively working on and i do not think it is unfair to assume this is the case without official info to the contrary.

 

[sewerratuk]

I imagine the overriding factor that will dictate whether an extra mode is implemented it monetary cost.
How much will it cost to implement it vs. how much will it cost not to implement it (i.e. will everyone calling for it leave the game, stop buying updates, stop buying store stuff, etc. if it doesn't happen?)

Just my opinion ofc - I feel I need to add this every time now

 

[Han_Zen]

Well the KS did include the concept of multiple open modes with differing rulesets didn't it? I don't remember the specifics but I have seen that said. Or was it from the DDF?

Edit:
This is what the KS page still states under the link to how multiplayer will work' (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous):

"We have the concept of “groups”. 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. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group."

Note it states "open groups" (plural), not open group, so the intent, at least, during the KS was for multiple open groups.

It also says 'rules in each can be different' not game mechanics in each can be different.

 

[Deadspin]

Player groups were part of the base game on PC, part of the original design architecture they had in place, it simply needed to be coded for the Xbox; very different.

Do you imagine the current limits on player groups are arbitrary, there for the fun of it? If it were straight forward, there would be no such limitation in game at present, it was almost certainly considered early on, and clearly not practical.

Further, your gameplay would not change one iota with the addition of an open pve group of unlimited size. Larger private groups, just like open, have any number of people off playing in smaller groups, many with their own aims counter to those of others. Even when working for the same end goal, larger player bodies are nevertheless fractured, this happens naturally as a matter of course, through the formation of player cliques, people on different schedules, and so on. Pve or Pvp we are all limited to 32 players per instance due to the limitations of peer to peer, and that would not change. And everyone’s efforts apply to the single universe regardless of which group or instance you happen to be in at any given moment.

Which brings us back to the question; why bother wasting additional developer time and server resources to now include something that was impractical during the early design phase, when pve only group play is already available.

Why would it be more practical to divert developer resources now, when they are already behind their planned release schedule? The answer to that should be obvious.

So.. I'm really only quoting for the bolded text.

Did you not pay attention to the Distant Worlds Expedition? They uh.. they managed far more than 32 players in a single instance. I believe it was closer to 3x more.

legally? no probably not i agree.....

but in the interests of keeping their image as a small indie company with a big heart kind of thing, who actually interact with their fan base - which is an image they seem to try to nurture - then it is in their interests to keep the users in the loop when core feature plans change imo.... IF indeed they have.

until they say otherwise, their design decisions and KS promises are still features they should be actively working on and i do not think it is unfair to assume this is the case without official info to the contrary.

Edit! Forgot this quote.

I agree, you're right. I was more or less poking Maynard because his default defense to anything is to quote the KS promises.

I enjoy poking Maynard. He's one of the few mods that tolerates me.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Edit! Forgot this quote.

I agree, you're right. I was more or less poking Maynard because his default defense to anything is to quote the KS promises.

I enjoy poking Maynard. He's one of the few mods that tolerates me.

lol i think most of the mods are pretty tolerant on here really. i couldn’t do it, you may have noticed i tend to be a bit opinionated and quick to get defensive, so suspect if i was a mod i would be sacked quite quickly

 

[Deadspin]

lol i think most of the mods are pretty tolerant on here really. i couldn’t do it, you may have noticed i tend to be a bit opinionated and quick to get defensive, so suspect if i was a mod i would be sacked quite quickly

I'm right there with you. I'm pretty sure I have far too many previous infractions for "trolling" and "badgering" to ever even be considered for mod status. That and I doubt they'd let a Diamond Frog become one.

 

[Vorxian]

Which is why I think allowing private groups to have more people is the solution that should be adequate enough. At a certain treshold of players it's practically open anyway, the name doesn't matter.

Inadvertently; amongst the satire and sarcasm... you just circled the whole discussion back to square 1

(which is a very powerful suggestion to make to FDEV).

Give player groups an unlimited use of resources so they can contain as many players as an open mode..
Give group administrators the tools they need to make the group what they intended to be (aka PvE only).

Suddenly what we have is effectively an OPEN PvE mode run by the community! As suggested by your good self. Which is all that was asked for originally.

[Somehow I fear trying to find the happy medium between the split player preferences, will just be too much]

 

[Andovar]

Inadvertently; amongst the satire and sarcasm... you just circled the whole discussion back to square 1

(which is a very powerful suggestion to make to FDEV).

Give player groups an unlimited use of resources so they can contain as many players as an open mode..
Give group administrators the tools they need to make the group what they intended to be (aka PvE only).

Suddenly what we have is effectively an OPEN PvE mode run by the community! As suggested by your good self. Which is all that was asked for originally.

[Somehow I fear trying to find the happy medium between the split player preferences, will just be too much]

So simple it's almost wrong!
Seriously, I wonder if there's technical reasons for the group size limit, or it was just some arbitrary value they set originally, never expecting it to be reached.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Speaking purely from a computer application developer point of view, an Open PvE mode is highly unlikely to be developed by FDev not because they can't do it, they most certainly can. Nor will it be because it is not a good idea, it probably is. Nor will it be because the pro-PvP players have other convincing arguments to prevent it because they do not, although they may feel that they do.

No, the three major reasons for them not creating this nor any similar mode are:

1) It's a single BGS and everything they do will be based on that fact. Everything they offer will be available in all modes except where you can't do it. Wings, for example require other human players so you can't do it in Solo, and I used the term human loosely here. I expect the mechanics exist, you just have no way to get to them. Not until NPC wings are available anyway.

2) To offer something different in one mode, which Open PvE requires, means fragmenting the code and believe me, that is something all computer application developers actively resist, or the experienced ones do.

3) If FDev were to acquiesce and provide an Open PvE mode then the requests would quickly start for other tailored modes with differing rules and quite possibly with very good arguments for doing so. Once they have set up one tailored mode, it would be very difficult to justify refusing to do others, resulting in more fragmentation of the code base.

So, whilst I personally think that an Open PvE would be a good idea and beneficial, although I'd never use it as I am a Soloist, the chances of it happening are vanishingly small.

These are the reasons, in my opinion, why FDev are going for the C&P/Karma system. It affects all modes equally, does not fragment the code base and affects all players.

I fully expect FDev to expand the group membership limits and group user maintenance, perhaps along the lines suggested by Robert Maynard, since this is just enhancing code that already exists, but I doubt that anything more will be offered, at least not for the foreseeable future.

Probably the most reasoned, rational post I've read on this topic.

 

[MarkAusten]

1) the sought for open PvE mode would also use the same BGS that is already shared by the current open and private groups and solo - not sure what you're getting at here as a reason against an open PvE mode....there are already multiple modes using the same BGS, plus X-Box and soon PS4, so what's one more?

2) I don't know about fragmenting code - there are certainly some implementation considerations to resolve but you yourself state you believe Frontier 'most certainly can'.

3) Multiple open modes with differing rulesets was proposed during the KS that so many of us backed. Not customised ones mind.

1) The requested Open PvE has behaviour not shared with the other modes. The barrier to direct PvP enforced in some way by the code. By enforced I do not mean via C&P but but the code preventing direct PvP in some way. Thus won't be implemented as all behaviour is applied to all modes with the exceptions already noted.

2) Code fragmentation is a developer's nightmare, or one of them, the users being another other. The moment you start fragmenting the code into different behaviours you start making life exceedingly difficult for yourself as a developer. Compared to Elite the applications I work on are simple but even with these I resist allowing differing behaviours to suit different clients. They all get the same in any one application. they may not use all the supplied functionality but they get it. Result one set of code. Fragmented code also makes bug fixing more difficult and even simple code maintenance becomes more difficult. FDev could do this but I'm pretty sure that it is something they resist.

3) And you have this in the form of groups. You can have as many rule sets as you like, one per player if you really want to. The KS did not state that the rulesets were going to be implemented in Elite. Mobius is the most famous example of this. At least, this is what I understood when I backed it. I could have been wrong on this, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps you're right about splitting the code base, and it's not practical to maintain an open PvP mode with separate mechanics for a niche playstyle.

That it is a niche play style is your opinion, mine is that PvP is the niche play style. Only FDev know for sure.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably the most reasoned, rational post I've read on this topic.

Many thanks to you, commander, for your kind words.

 

[Robert Maynard]

3) And you have this in the form of groups. You can have as many rule sets as you like, one per player if you really want to. The KS did not state that the rulesets were going to be implemented in Elite.

If the rules were not going to be implemented in the game what would be the point of introducing the prospect of multiple Open groups (modes) where the rules can be different to suit different play-styles? Open groups with no in-game rules would all be functionally the same as each other - with nothing to stop players breaking the rules....