Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

I would agree if the sample size would be much smaller. However at 900 voters and looking at previous polls results AND the significant majority result (we are not in a 45%-55% bracket), the results are absolutely relevant.

You cannot use the "biased population" argument in this case as no vote manipulation seemed to have occurred (multiple account created for purpose of answering, call for "ballot stuffing" from other platform/site...).
The time frame and the limited time of poll being open were random, no significant event (Private Group invasion for example) could have influenced as well the voters.

I can guarantee that the population who voted was Random in statistical term. If you have 900 random persons as a sample size, participating in such poll, the results will be indeed correct within a 3% Error Margin considering the relatively small player base.

If it's Random, it is representative by nature. Remember, I assumed a 95% Confidence Level, which is a safe/conservative assumption considering previous similar polls.

You cannot guarantee that people that use the forum are random though. if the breakdown ingame for pvp only/pvp and pve/pve only was 20/30/50 and the breakdown of forum users was 10/15/75 then it is not a representative sample and the 95% confidence rules break down. The simple fact is we don't know what the breakdown is and therefore cant make assumptions that the poll is not biassed. To be valid it is not enough for a poll to be random it has to also be a representative sample of the demographic that you are inferring results for
 
doesnt matter robert, if enough refuse to buy next season if there isnt an open pve mode then fdev will bend. That is of course assuming there is sufficient support for an open pve mode which is unknown. Subscription is only one way of hitting in the pocket. As to crime and punishment we already know that has failed. A decent crime and punishment system that allows meaningful pvp yet makes murder hobo'ing rare has been attempted over and over again in the gaming industry. No one has yet managed it, FDev does not inspire me with confidence that they can pull off what others havent

1: This statement makes the assumption that FDev's biggest money earner is Elite Dangerous.

2: CCP (EVE Online) has a working C&P system that does this quite well, actually. Though 90% of people playing that game know that PvP is a given and relatively unavoidable before they sign up.
 
1: This statement makes the assumption that FDev's biggest money earner is Elite Dangerous.

2: CCP (EVE Online) has a working C&P system that does this quite well, actually. Though 90% of people playing that game know that PvP is a given and relatively unavoidable before they sign up.

CCP's crime and punishment does nothing to stop ganking and griefing in hi sec in the least. I know that full well as an eve player. So no it doesnt work quite well. If it did CODE would not be able to function in eve in hisec as it does.
 
Though 90% of people playing that game know that PvP is a given and relatively unavoidable before they sign up.

indeed, this is the crux of the issue imo.
EVE knows exactly what it is, and does not try to hide it. i know what it is, and other than the free trial never would dream of paying money for it. (i know its F2P now but it wasnt way back when i had a look)... But equally i would never go on their forums and demand that the game was changed to suit what i wanted, by canning guilds and what not and making it so the lone wolf could play the game properly.

if anything the "problem" with ED if you want to call it that is, imo, either

1)FD does not know the type of game they want it to be (ie the devs themselves are not singing from the same hymn sheet) OR
2) or that FD are deliberately vague in its marketing to try to drag in as many sales as possible.

1) is just poor management internally.
2) is obviously great for sales initially at least, but would be worrying for favouring long term loyalty to the product, and could lead to a lot of angst from the users (which i think is reflected on the forums some what).

luckily my play style is possible (tho not ideal due to missing content) in the game due to the modes... so i continue to play the game, but other people seem to be not so fortunate.
 
Last edited:
What would be great (for everyone including frontier developments) in my personal opinion would be a poll on the actual game client similar to the one they did with the ship transfer function... something as important as a new mode should have a simple poll that allows all players of ED to participate in... Then, and only then, will a true and complete representation of the entire players base be possible and then of course it would be up to them to follow through with whatever the outcome from such a poll is...

1 question and 2 responses... Would you play in an OPEN PVE mode, yes or no...

You wouldn't even need a majority, just a number in mind that would constitute a sufficient interest to make it worth doing.

to my knowledge there are actual hard caps in the way groups where implemented that are actually not changable by frontier. that leads me to suspect that it is not their code that is the issue but some underlying backend tech from amazon (or perhaps one of the other 3rd party tools they are using in the backend) that has the limitation... they did state during the first mobius split that the hard cap was not something they could actually change...

You're probably right. Seems 20k is an arbitrary yet conveniently rounded figure for it to not be some hard set number from somewhere.

The only other possible way to do it would be to use whatever drives OPEN as it is now. I'd be blown away with shock if there's a stealth limitation on that also.

I have no idea on the cogs underlying all this tech.. i'm just sure that if there's a will there's a way (so to speak).
 
CCP's crime and punishment does nothing to stop ganking and griefing in hi sec in the least. I know that full well as an eve player. So no it doesnt work quite well. If it did CODE would not be able to function in eve in hisec as it does.

The difference between an EVE gank and an ED Gank is, in EVE, the ganking player has to work for it. They have to plan, build a proper throwaway ship and then, pending they have a positive enough reputation to make it to their targets location within HiSec, they have to actually take down their target before Concord takes them out.

In ED.. the ganking player just flies around known activity points within the game and kills at random.

There are pieces of that C&P system I would love to adopt for ED in an effort to curb random ganking and seal clubbing.
 
indeed, this is the crux of the issue imo.
EVE knows exactly what it is, and does not try to hide it.

if anything the "problem" with ED if you want to call it that is, imo, either

1)FD does not know the type of game they want it to be (ie the devs themselves are not singing from the same hymn sheet) OR
2) or that FD are deliberately vague in its marketing to try to drag in as many sales as possible.

1) is just poor management internally.
2) is obviously great for sales initially at least, but would be worrying for favouring long term loyalty to the product, and could lead to a lot of angst from the users (which i think is reflected on the forums some what).

luckily my play style is possible (tho not ideal due to missing content) in the game due to the modes... so i continue to play the game, but other people seem to be not so fortunate.
I have a funny feeling it's a bit of both.
 
Given DBOBE's comments on the Engineers launch stream, it would seem that Frontier are pinning their hopes on revisions to the C&P system (and, presumably, the karma system mentioned by Sandro) to encourage players back into Open - in which case, they're not going to start discussions on an additional Open mode that they hope not to have to implement.

It remains to be seen how effective changes to C&P / the introduction of a karma system will be in relation to encouraging players who eschew PvP back into Open. Frontier could be considering other forms of encouragement to play in Open as well, of course, but none have been hinted yet at as far as I know (apart from the Powerplay Open Bonus multiplier "hand grenade" that Sandro introduced a while ago, of course).

That's one of my fears. They may have to twiddle with C&P so much and hard, that it sort of messes around with regular PvPers expectation of what OPEN should be and THEN they also only somehow persuade an insignificant number from PvE into OPEN after their hard work... it would just feel very sad that they spent all the time reworking something for it only to not achieve what was supposed to be a great theory.

I personally would permanently switch to OPEN if the C&P system made me feel safe, and it brutally executed thugs that attempt to seal club in pointless cold blood. Just my personal preference... Is it too much to ask though? In EvE yes ofc, like someone above said you know where you stand with EvE, and you make that choice of if it's the game for you (for me no, so I don't play there). ED is the game for me, but OPEN as it is now, isn't the mode for me... yet...
 
The difference between an EVE gank and an ED Gank is, in EVE, the ganking player has to work for it. They have to plan, build a proper throwaway ship and then, pending they have a positive enough reputation to make it to their targets location within HiSec, they have to actually take down their target before Concord takes them out.

In ED.. the ganking player just flies around known activity points within the game and kills at random.

There are pieces of that C&P system I would love to adopt for ED in an effort to curb random ganking and seal clubbing.

CCP's works better than FDevs it is true however the point remains it still doesnt work. As for working for it, sorry it really isnt hard the ship builds necessary are known and its easy enough to stay clean enough to reach your target. Pods arent targeted, you drive your pod to where you need to be, hangared ship dumps your gank ships out, board gank wait for concord to blow you up
 
You cannot guarantee that people that use the forum are random though. if the breakdown ingame for pvp only/pvp and pve/pve only was 20/30/50 and the breakdown of forum users was 10/15/75 then it is not a representative sample and the 95% confidence rules break down. The simple fact is we don't know what the breakdown is and therefore cant make assumptions that the poll is not biassed. To be valid it is not enough for a poll to be random it has to also be a representative sample of the demographic that you are inferring results for

That's exactly why I referred to previous polls results regarding why I assumed a 95% Confidence level. Looking at polls history with similar topics (PVE/PVP, C&P, removal of Solo/PG, etc...), results were within a similar range (30%-40% to 70%-60%).

The sample is representative in my opinion as you would expect forum participants and voters to be active players and that they reflect the overall active player population.

Regarding the Randomness of the Sample, yes, I lack irrefutable evidence. So you are perfectly justified in disagreeing with me there. I just have the time-frame of the poll supporting my assessment.

But again, if you consider the clear majority (60% figure) and the sample size, you would expect a user "Launcher Poll" to give a similar result within the Error margin I calculated (Remember the ship transfer delay poll?).

Even, if the population is not as random as I assumed, there would be evidently a majority (>50%) on a "launcher poll".
 
Last edited:
The difference between an EVE gank and an ED Gank is, in EVE, the ganking player has to work for it. They have to plan, build a proper throwaway ship and then, pending they have a positive enough reputation to make it to their targets location within HiSec, they have to actually take down their target before Concord takes them out.

In ED.. the ganking player just flies around known activity points within the game and kills at random.

There are pieces of that C&P system I would love to adopt for ED in an effort to curb random ganking and seal clubbing.

Didn't (or doesn't) the EvE server spawn security forces for each aggressor? I had a feeling it did... somehow? I may be wrong though. So if you had one perp, then say 4 ships would spawn, if you had 3 perps 12 ships would spawn, 4 designated as a concord gank squad per perpetrator...?

Could that work in ED? That way if you had a wing, and did something unsavory, you'd each have to deal with your own death squad...

No idea.. but damn, i remember 1.0 systems being LETHAL to players misbehaving...
 
Didn't (or doesn't) the EvE server spawn security forces for each aggressor? I had a feeling it did... somehow? I may be wrong though. So if you had one perp, then say 4 ships would spawn, if you had 3 perps 12 ships would spawn, 4 designated as a concord gank squad per perpetrator...?

Could that work in ED? That way if you had a wing, and did something unsavory, you'd each have to deal with your own death squad...

No idea.. but damn, i remember 1.0 systems being LETHAL to players misbehaving...

the difficulty is do people want that? ie an abitrary ship spawns "poof" from no where. personally i do not like it when it obviously seems to happen now.
The game will feel far more alive imo if ships are patrolling and actually drop in from super cruise to an instance to help,

the problem with that is, a system in ED is massive, so even high sec space it would take time for this to happen and not sure if the game engine could cope representing enough ships in supercruise to do this (although arguably if there was the karma system, CMDRs with bad karma would attract the police to stay close...... but the shear size is why, if a player is set on seal clubbing somone in a totally inferior ship not able to survive for more than a few seconds i do not think it will ever be stoppable... which is why imo if the C&P system is ever to be plausible, it has to be about the repercussions AFTER the seal clubbing, rather than actually stopping the event from happening.

this could be in part from money from the aggressors coffers being taken by the pilots federation to cover the losses of the ships destruction they have caused, maybe even some of it finding its way back to the victim..... ie out of the blue a message on docking some time after an event from the PF saying "thanks to the destruction of criminal XYZ who betrayed the PF we have this amount of cash in reparations for you, we hope this goes someway to restoring your confidence in the sanctity of the pilots federation", as well as revoking of the perps docking from "legal" stations, and ultimately being kicked from the PF all together with a KOS flag put on the ship if they were bad enough... with a loss of insurance etc and the player forced to "live" on the fringes in pirate systems for a time.
 
Last edited:
No its not like that there are security forces in each system, one tactic to give yourself more time for the gank is to ensure the security forces have been called elsewhere. Higher sec level does mean faster response however
 
Last edited:
That's exactly why I referred to previous polls results regarding why I assumed a 95% Confidence level. Looking at polls history with similar topics (PVE/PVP, C&P, removal of Solo/PG, etc...), results were within a similar range (30%-40% to 70%-60%).

The sample is representative in my opinion as you would expect forum participants and voters to be active players and that they reflect the overall active player population.

Regarding the Randomness of the Sample, yes, I lack irrefutable evidence. So you are perfectly justified in disagreeing with me there. I just have the time-frame of the poll supporting my assessment.

But again, if you consider the clear majority (60% figure) and the sample size, you would expect a user "Launcher Poll" to give a similar result within the Error margin I calculated (Remember the ship transfer delay poll?).

Even, if the population is not as random as I assumed, there would be evidently a majority (>50%) on a "launcher poll".
Don't get me wrong here I am not saying the polls here are wrong merely that they can't be used as absolute evidence though like you I suspect they are in the right ball park. It is a shame that FD won't release figures (I can understand not releasing absolute numbers) percentage that play in open/group/solo percentage who pvp/don't pvp. It would certainly be interesting and might get people thinking
 
... which is why imo if the C&P system is ever to be plausible, it has to be about the repercussions AFTER the seal clubbing, rather than actually stopping the event from happening.

this could be in part from money from the aggressors coffers being taken by the pilots federation to cover the losses of the ships destruction they have caused, maybe even some of it finding its way back to the victim..... ie out of the blue a message on docking some time after an event from the PF saying "thanks to the destruction of criminal XYZ who betrayed the PF we have this amount of cash in reparations for you, we hope this goes someway to restoring your confidence in the sanctity of the pilots federation", as well as revoking of the perps docking from "legal" stations, and ultimately being kicked from the PF all together with a KOS flag put on the ship if they were bad enough... with a loss of insurance etc and the player forced to "live" on the fringes in pirate systems for a time.

i thought about this to. it's not so bad early on, but if you mow down someones trade cutter, and the losses are around 50m credits +.. how much would the criminal have to pay, and how much would the victim get back? Even only half, that's still a significant loss.. Who would be responsible for the kill? final blow? You'd end up with a griefer in a sidey, dedicated to getting the final blow, with no credit to his name to circumvent financial loss.. (hehe i know what tricks will unfold).

Also I dont know how the server could know if something was a seal clubbing episode, or if that trade cutter initiated that skirmish through passive-aggression, or other provocative means.. (somehow). Ofc i'm getting way way deep.. but questions dancing in my brain.
 
the difficulty is do people want that? ie an abitrary ship spawns "poof" from no where. personally i do not like it when it obviously seems to happen now.
The game will feel far more alive imo if ships are patrolling and actually drop in from super cruise to an instance to help,

the problem with that is, a system in ED is massive, so even high sec space it would take time for this to happen and not sure if the game engine could cope representing enough ships in supercruise to do this (although arguably if there was the karma system, CMDRs with bad karma would attract the police to stay close...... but the shear size is why, if a player is set on seal clubbing somone in a totally inferior ship not able to survive for more than a few seconds i do not think it will ever be stoppable... which is why imo if the C&P system is ever to be plausible, it has to be about the repercussions AFTER the seal clubbing, rather than actually stopping the event from happening.

this could be in part from money from the aggressors coffers being taken by the pilots federation to cover the losses of the ships destruction they have caused, maybe even some of it finding its way back to the victim..... ie out of the blue a message on docking some time after an event from the PF saying "thanks to the destruction of criminal XYZ who betrayed the PF we have this amount of cash in reparations for you, we hope this goes someway to restoring your confidence in the sanctity of the pilots federation", as well as revoking of the perps docking from "legal" stations, and ultimately being kicked from the PF all together with a KOS flag put on the ship if they were bad enough... with a loss of insurance etc and the player forced to "live" on the fringes in pirate systems for a time.

In the case of that last paragraph, I would love to see an anti-PF step up to fill the void for pilots who effectively terminate their own service with the PF through deviant behavior, rather than just forcing players to live on the fringes.

For me, a proper C&P system makes it harder/cost more to gank at random, but also builds an entirely new system for criminals to flourish in on their own, something separate from lawful players. That way both sects of players have a place, a core of systems they can retreat to when not actively pursuing each other.

My goal, personally, for a C&P system is one that doesn't aim to completely rid the game of ganking and player-induced misery, but rather aims to make it a.. how do I say this? A more in-depth part? Rather than just being able to fly into a CG system and yank people out of SC, the ganking player should have to be a lot more cautious and a lot more should be at risk to him/her than just a rebuy.

It's a horribly complicated system though, especially when trying to please both sides of the line.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
In the case of that last paragraph, I would love to see an anti-PF step up to fill the void for pilots who effectively terminate their own service with the PF through deviant behavior, rather than just forcing players to live on the fringes.

The Dark Wheel already exists in-game - but seems to be in cryo-sleep alongside the Pilots' Federation.
 
Don't get me wrong here I am not saying the polls here are wrong merely that they can't be used as absolute evidence though like you I suspect they are in the right ball park. It is a shame that FD won't release figures (I can understand not releasing absolute numbers) percentage that play in open/group/solo percentage who pvp/don't pvp. It would certainly be interesting and might get people thinking

Don't worry, I am on the same page as you. Statistics and probability are just what they are.

Also, what worries me is not that the players don't seem to agree whether ED is/should be a PVP or PVE game and therefore cater to both type of players.

What worries me is that Frontier seems not to acknowledge that there is problem to be addressed, in a timely manner, in relation to the ever increasing rift between the two groups.

I don't remember anybody demanding with posts with 1000's of commentaries that a PVE mode should be implemented last year or 2 years ago. And here we are today, with some people evidently not willing to play anymore with another group of people.
 
Last edited:
The Dark Wheel already exists in-game - but seems to be in cryo-sleep alongside the Pilots' Federation.

Points to you, I knew that one existed but couldn't remember it's name.

Here's to the hope that we'll get something from both the PF and the DW when FDev unveils their thoughts.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
What worries me is that Frontier seems not to acknowledge that there is problem to be addressed, in a timely manner, in relation to the ever increasing rift between the two groups.

I don't remember anybody demanding with posts with 1000's of commentaries that a PVE mode to be implemented last year or years ago. And here we are today, with some people evidently not willing to play anymore with another group of people.

The fact that DBOBE was on a stream recently being destroyed by players in Open and telling us that Frontier are working on some form of encouragement to play in Open suggests, to me at least, that Frontier may consider that there is a population issue with Open (not for the first time - as Sandro previously mentioned the possibility of increased penalties for PKing clean players in a thread titled "Yes PvP is unfair", nearly a year ago, spoiler refers).

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

If Frontier are well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP and if they are considering some form of encouragement to bring players who (presumably, if they are playing in a mode other than Open) eschew PvP, to an extent at least, back into Open, I would expect that at least part of the form of encouragement would be either to reduce the likelihood of a player encountering random PvP or by reducing the lossess associated with PvP - or both - or something else completely. The inference is that doing nothing is not an option for Frontier in this regard.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom