Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[MarkAusten]

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....

Indeed so, but how else would such ruleset be implemented? The implication of the KS was either that the rulesets were player applied or that they would be implemented in code. This last one was and is to me so unlikely that I dismissed it. Remember I do code applications for a living and I can tell you that providing ad-hoc rule sets such as you are suggesting is way beyond complicated. Notice that I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that it is difficult and for a number of technical reasons impractical. I also find it odd that people are suggesting that this means that FDev will set up multiple open modes with differing rule sets willy-nilly, for any player or group that require it.

My opinion is that these rules sets were and are intended to be by player consent as the Mobius group(s) are doing and not via code.

But as I also said, I could be wrong.

 

[JosiahD]

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.

I get that but you wrote that it was the shared BGS that was one of the problems, which is what I responded to. But it's the differing behaviour you were getting at Ok. I don't deny that's an implementation consideration that would require some effort to resolve and one reason why Frontier might not WANT to implement such a mode. But if they want to keep relying on a player to provide an open PvE option (but not truly open) through (now) multiple Private Groups instead.........

 

[MarkAusten]

I get that but that's not what you wrote as the reason. You wrote that it was the shared BGS that was one of the problems, which is what I responded to. Now it's the differing behaviour. Ok. I don't deny that's an implementation consideration that would require some effort to resolve and one reason why Frontier might not WANT to implement such a mode. But if they want to keep relying on a player to provide an open PvE option (but not truly open) through (now) multiple Private Groups instead.........

Sorry, I was not clear. The meaning was that because there is one BGS whatever FDev do has to apply to that one BGS and therefore to all modes. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[JosiahD]

Sorry, I was not clear. The meaning was that because there is one BGS whatever FDev do has to apply to that one BGS and therefore to all modes. Apologies for the confusion.

Just amended my post as well, as you were posting the above.

 

[Gunnet]

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

That's what I said; PvP is a niche playstyle. I have always supported there being a separate open PvP mode avaliable after open goes PvE. But if it's impractical to split the code base to cater to everybody, catering to the majority will have to do.

I guess that does make sense, considering that there is already a dedicated PvP mode (i.e. CQC) with entirely separate mechanics to support it. How many modes does a niche playstyle need?

 

[TargetLost]

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.

That is true.

About the rest I could argue with you why it is not as simple as you think. Basicly your Argument is they resist because it is not what programmers likes to do for more or less good code reasons. Don't know about your experience but from mine i can tell you that Argument never works. The answer on this is always: Oh it is diffcult or doesnt fit in!? Nice ..customer wants it..make it happen..it's your Job your problem..along that line.... you get the idea.
Worse in advance it is always agreed that a Feature is limited to something. Somehwen later you can be sure said Agreement "we will not do" will be skipped and has to be done. I learned to code with an eye in the future.

I see it this way:
If FDev hopes on C&P/Karma they fool themself.
And something has to be done. It was much too long ignored.
They can do a minimum (an official unlimited Player Group backed by them) but just ignoreing the request ist not a very healthy to do for them.
Also remind you that various modes was forseen from the Kickstarter. If they missed to Keep this oor open in their Code then they did really bad.

The hope was, and that was truely my hope too, that the open concept will work. But it doesn't. It is now a very different Situation than back then when the game was new and still balanced and ganker grifer hardly existent.

 

[MarkAusten]

That is true.

About the rest I could argue with you why it is not as simple as you think. Basicly your Argument is they resist because it is not what programmers likes to do for more or less good code reasons. Don't know about your experience but from mine i can tell you that Argument never works. The answer on this is always: Oh it is diffcult or doesnt fit in!? Nice ..customer wants it..make it happen..it's your Job your problem..along that line.... you get the idea.
Worse in advance it is always agreed that a Feature is limited to something. Somehwen later you can be sure said Agreement "we will not do" will be skipped and has to be done. I learned to code with an eye in the future.

I see it this way:
If FDev hopes on C&P/Karma they fool themself.
And something has to be done. It was much too long ignored.
They can do a minimum (an official unlimited Player Group backed by them) but just ignoreing the request ist not a very healthy to do for them.
Also remind you that various modes was forseen from the Kickstarter. If they missed to Keep this oor open in their Code then they did really bad.

The hope was, and that was truely my hope too, that the open concept will work. But it doesn't. It is now a very different Situation than back then when the game was new and still balanced and ganker grifer hardly existent.

That argument does work, I use it all the time however, I do have to have very good reasons to back it up. However, when one client is paying millions for our tools then there is very much an element of just do it. And don't mention moving goalposts!

A eye to the future is also good but always within the structure of the application I'm working on. I don't leave hooks for a briefing tool functionality if I'm writing a fuel station profiling tool.

Now the structure of what FDev has used as the basis for the game Elite limits the ease with which they can add functionality. As I mentioned before, the fact that there is one BGS means that without complicated development all code has to apply to the BGS equally for all modes. Not that they can't do it but they are resisting development in this directing and quite correctly in my opinion.

That is why, as I said, they are going for a C&P/Karma system. It is one system that applies to all modes and all players. Whether or not it will work is an entirely different matter.

The thrust of my argument was in relation to Open PvE and why in my experience as a compute application developer, it is very unlikely. I know what to do when developing software, there are things that I know to avoid and there are things that I know to encourage. These reasons suggest to me why Open PvE won't happen. Which is a shame as in my opinion it would be a good thing.

As for the KS thing about multiple rule sets? I have already replied to that argument in an earlier post.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what I said; PvP is a niche playstyle. I have always supported there being a separate open PvP mode avaliable after open goes PvE. But if it's impractical to split the code base to cater to everybody, catering to the majority will have to do.

I guess that does make sense, considering that there is already a dedicated PvP mode (i.e. CQC) with entirely separate mechanics to support it. How many modes does a niche playstyle need?

I apologise, I'm not doing too well this evening. I misread your post entirely.

 

[JosiahD]

That's what I said; PvP is a niche playstyle. I have always supported there being a separate open PvP mode avaliable after open goes PvE. But if it's impractical to split the code base to cater to everybody, catering to the majority will have to do.

I guess that does make sense, considering that there is already a dedicated PvP mode (i.e. CQC) with entirely separate mechanics to support it. How many modes does a niche playstyle need?

And seeing as Frontier themselves have acknowledged that most players do not engage in PvP then the majority they should cater to is the non-PvP majority..........woohoo, open PvE mode here we come (TIC).

 

[MarkAusten]

And seeing as Frontier themselves have acknowledged that most players do not engage in PvP then the majority they should cater to is the non-PvP majority..........woohoo, open PvE mode here we come (TIC).

5/char

 

[Ian Skippy]

And seeing as Frontier themselves have acknowledged that most players do not engage in PvP then the majority they should cater to is the non-PvP majority..........woohoo, open PvE mode here we come (TIC).

Still choosing to ignore that FD also said "no" to OpenPvE I see? Out of curiosity, do you think it really matters what you type here? Doyou think by omitting the obvious conclusion (FD says no, so no) suddenly FD will forget their own opinion and do whatever you want? Or is it jusa complete inability to accept it for what it is? Something you want and most likely wont get?

 

[MarkAusten]

Still choosing to ignore that FD also said "no" to OpenPvE I see? Out of curiosity, do you think it really matters what you type here? Doyou think by omitting the obvious conclusion (FD says no, so no) suddenly FD will forget their own opinion and do whatever you want? Or is it jusa complete inability to accept it for what it is? Something you want and most likely wont get?

Cool it sleutelbos! Tongue in cheek, he's yanking some chains!

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Still choosing to ignore that FD also said "no" to OpenPvE I see? Out of curiosity, do you think it really matters what you type here? Doyou think by omitting the obvious conclusion (FD says no, so no) suddenly FD will forget their own opinion and do whatever you want? Or is it jusa complete inability to accept it for what it is? Something you want and most likely wont get?

I think you are right. DBs comments have really put this to bed imo. Best chance now is for increasing the size and improving the tools of PGs.

But then Michael Brookes' comments that all modes will always remain equal hardly help calm those arguments either in the SOGgy thread

 

[Ian Skippy]

Cool it sleutelbos! Tongue in cheek, he's yanking some chains!

There isnt much TIC about saying exactly the same stuff one says seriously on the same subject.

 

[jasonbarron]

One thing that has become quite clear from checking in on this thread every couple of days for the last month; there are a couple people really really interested in an Open PvE mode

 

[Robert Maynard]

One thing that has become quite clear from checking in on this thread every couple of days for the last month; there are a couple people really really interested in an Open PvE mode

Don't forget the recent poll that showed 66% in favour of such a mode (on c.900 votes).

 

[JosiahD]

Still choosing to ignore that FD also said "no" to OpenPvE I see? Out of curiosity, do you think it really matters what you type here? Doyou think by omitting the obvious conclusion (FD says no, so no) suddenly FD will forget their own opinion and do whatever you want? Or is it jusa complete inability to accept it for what it is? Something you want and most likely wont get?

Just like the arrogant and ignorant attitudes of certain types of so-called PvPers who seemingly can't accept why others have no interest in playing with them and being their content perhaps? Something those types of PvPers want is to draw those players back to open.....something they want and most likely won't get either.

 

[jasonbarron]

Just like the arrogant and ignorant attitudes of certain types of so-called PvPers who seemingly can't accept why others have no interest in playing with them and being their content perhaps? Something those types of PvPers want is to draw those players back to open.....something they want and most likely won't get either.

Hey, I've been spamming David & Co with PM's begging for them to strip Group/Solo from the game and code it so CMDR's exploded in a shower of gold coins and precious engineering materials, and they've basically just been ignoring me. So don't feel bad that your personal tastes aren't being exclusively catered to either, gang

 

[Ian Skippy]

Just like the arrogant and ignorant attitudes of certain types of so-called PvPers who seemingly can't accept why others have no interest in playing with them and being their content perhaps? Something those types of PvPers want is to draw those players back to open.....something they want and most likely won't get either.

I have no idea why you start talking about others, or why you would like to compare yourself to them. In any case I dont care why you want what you want, but I do care about dishonesty. Picking quotes that vaguely relate to what you want but in no way logically support it are given by you, yet the obvious "We are not going to do that" is conveniently ignored. It would also be nice if you would acknowledge for a second that this isn't about PvE versus PvP. As many here have said as well, I and many others play PvE in Open. We dont want your OpenPvE. We dont care about it. OpenPvE is not 'for the PvE community'. Its for a part of it that claims to speak on behalf of others. Dont do that, we can speak for ourselves just fine.

You want something? Just say so. But do me a favor and keep other PvE players out of it and provide information honestly and openly. Otherwise there is no point to having this topic at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hey, I've been spamming David & Co with PM's begging for them to strip Group/Solo from the game and code it so CMDR's exploded in a shower of gold coins and precious engineering materials, and they've basically just been ignoring me. So don't feel bad that your personal tastes aren't being exclusively catered to either, gang

There's a difference between asking for the removal of extant features that have been part of the game design for over four years (and in the released game for over two years) and asking for another open mode (permitted by the aforementioned game design) with different rules (again, permitted) to suit a different play-style.

 

[jasonbarron]

There's a difference between asking for the removal of extant features that have been part of the game design for over four years (and in the released game for over two years) and asking for another open mode (permitted by the aforementioned game design) with different rules (again, permitted) to suit a different play-style.

Robert, do you have a sense of humor in real life?

Another question that's been tickling me: why'd you guys all let V Jones' thread on C&P sink to the bottom without a trace? Are you all so dedicated to a Mode that simply isn't in the cards that you can't even countenance the idea of a potential solution that actually MIGHT have a chance?