Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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.

indeed, i agree its not easy, but we have so long had it with zero consequences, even IF FD went all in and it ended up being "too" restrictive and took a few releases to get it right, well, i would say the "pacafists" for want of a better word have had to live with it for 2 years, so its ok if the agressors get harshly treated for a while.

as for being kicked from the PF.. the lore is already in place and the faction in the game... The Dark Wheel is meant to be the shady faction, the dark equivalent of the Pilots federation as i understand it.

edit, should have known Rob (or someone else) would ninja me.

 

[excalibus]

indeed for any C&P to work (IMHO) there has to be 2 scales to it, law abiding and criminal, the more law abiding (not caught doing bad deeds, bringing criminals to justice, supplying needed resources to a system under some emergency state (outbreak, famine etc) the more positive your law abiding state becomes, this should then allow for some MINOR alleviations such as no bounty for a friendly fire incident not doing hull damage to a ship in systems controlled by a faction where you have good standing... this could even take into consideration military rank and reputation with that faction (for major faction space)...

Similarly bad deeds, would cause negative feedback from the systems where you perform those actions... too far to the negative and every BH (NPC OR PC) will be chasing you... the more criminal you are, the higher the ramifications when you do eventually get destroyed... and destroyed you will get at some point...

Of course there needs to be some forms of both PVE and PVP gameplay built around the players legal status... perhaps as you become more criminal only the shady factions of a station will deal with you as long as you can dock there... go far enough to the dark side and you will only be able to dock at the unsanctioned stations....

 

[Tall Paul]

Having players easily distinguished on radar with a hollow box and in the scan with their CMDR designation makes it easier for a PKer to pick targets.

If players were indistinguishable from npcs then deliberate PKing would be tougher to undertake as the attacker would have no idea if they are pulling a player or npc out of supercruise.

Players should only be identified by locking on, the same way you find wanted npcs at a nav beacon.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Having players easily distinguished on radar with a hollow box and in the scan with their CMDR designation makes it easier for a PKer to pick targets.

If players were indistinguishable from npcs then deliberate PKing would be tougher to undertake as the attacker would have no idea if they are pulling a player or npc out of supercruise.

Players should only be identified by locking on, the same way you find wanted npcs at a nav beacon.

Players can tell whether other players are in an instance by looking at network throughput (CTRL-B in-game) and can also trivially determine which IP addresses the game client is attached to.

Requiring players to passive scan targets before identification as a player works both ways - the target would not know that they were being scanned nor that they had been identified as a player by a player.

It's better to know instantly on the scanner whether a ship is NPC or player, in my opinion.

Sandro did float the possibility of a mutual ident transponder quite some time ago - both ships would require to have it switched on for either to know whether the ship was player or NPC and players who switched it off would see all players as NPCS and could not be identified as a player. This caused quite the discussion in the DDF - but nothing ever came of it and we have what was pitched at the very beginning - players are instantly identifiable to other players.

 

[excalibus]

Players can tell whether other players are in an instance by looking at network throughput (CTRL-B in-game) and can also trivially determine which IP addresses the game client is attached to.

Requiring players to passive scan targets before identification as a player works both ways - the target would not know that they were being scanned nor that they had been identified as a player by a player.

It's better to know instantly on the scanner whether a ship is NPC or player, in my opinion.

Sandro did float the possibility of a mutual ident transponder quite some time ago - both ships would require to have it switched on for either to know whether the ship was player or NPC and players who switched it off would see all players as NPCS and could not be identified as a player. This caused quite the discussion in the DDF - but nothing ever came of it and we have what was pitched at the very beginning - players are instantly identifiable to other players.

I guess one thing they could try before implementing an OPEN PVE mode would be the ident transponder... I do feel that it is somewhat counter intuitive though... The primary reasons people play in open is to interact (or the possibility of interacting) with other commanders... The primary reason for an OPEN PVE mode is to simply remove the direct PVP element from an OPEN PLAY MODE where you can still see all the other commanders etc

 

[Morbad]

If I had my way, not even scanning another ship would reveal it as player or NPC. There would be constant obfuscating data sent to make the bandwidth meter unreliable for determining who was around and all NPCs would be high-end chat bot software to make it even more difficult to separate them from players. Of course, the AI of the best NPCs would also be so good that it would be hard to tell them from an ace CMDR in that regard either.

 

[Gunnet]

If I had my way, not even scanning another ship would reveal it as player or NPC. There would be constant obfuscating data sent to make the bandwidth meter unreliable for determining who was around and all NPCs would be high-end chat bot software to make it even more difficult to separate them from players. Of course, the AI of the best NPCs would also be so good that it would be hard to tell them from an ace CMDR in that regard either.

Still wouldn't prevent people from watching their network connections. I guess it could work against casual inspection if they had a decently large IP pool for the decoys.

 

[kimsnarf]

Hiding players from each other and limiting the ways in which they can interact (including combat) can't be the right answer.

I'm still fairly new to the game and I've played mostly Solo for fear of griefing/ganking and the accompanying loss of many, many hours of work. Recently I switched to Open and was delighted to see other players, any players. I'm not alone! But except for a few hotspots, Open is just as empty as Solo. And the loading times are far worse. Assuming they can fix the loading times, shouldn't the main focus of the game be to aid people in playing together?

Instead, this great push towards yet another mode is really a push for splitting the player base. If griefing/ganking was kept to a minimum, there would be very little difference between Open PvP and Open PvE. A single Open mode, which works for everyone, seems a far better long term goal than a player split. You play Open or Solo, together with others or alone. Private Groups are already being "misused" by stealing a large number of players away from Open. This is the wrong direction.

I am not into PvP. But I've played enough hand-holding PvE games to appreciate the danger and excitement of Elite. Where skill and experience actually counts for something. That is so refreshing these days. Yes, there are many issues to resolve, but I fear that lowering the "danger" part of Elite Dangerous will ultimately destroy the game.

Getting too close to a star should burn your ship. Crashing while docking should damage your ship. Crashing into another ship should damage both ships. Shooting at another ship should damage that ship. Elite prides itself on its "realistic" modelling, and PvE will definitely take away from that. Risk and danger is real. "Special" ships that can't be damaged (i.e. PvE) will destroy the illusion of the game.

Instead of splitting the player base, I prefer the suggestions for improving the existing splits between systems instead. Make it much harder to grief/gank in a high security system. Increase the penalties. Temporarily revoke access to dock. Temporarily revoke access to the system. Simultaneously reward good behavior and cooperation. Sticks and carrots.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

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).


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.

For some, myself included,the "Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment" has worn thin.

FD dragging their knuckles yet again .. 1 year later and nothing

 

[excalibus]

Hiding players from each other and limiting the ways in which they can interact (including combat) can't be the right answer.

I'm still fairly new to the game and I've played mostly Solo for fear of griefing/ganking and the accompanying loss of many, many hours of work. Recently I switched to Open and was delighted to see other players, any players. I'm not alone! But except for a few hotspots, Open is just as empty as Solo. And the loading times are far worse. Assuming they can fix the loading times, shouldn't the main focus of the game be to aid people in playing together?

Instead, this great push towards yet another mode is really a push for splitting the player base. If griefing/ganking was kept to a minimum, there would be very little difference between Open PvP and Open PvE. A single Open mode, which works for everyone, seems a far better long term goal than a player split. You play Open or Solo, together with others or alone. Private Groups are already being "misused" by stealing a large number of players away from Open. This is the wrong direction.

I am not into PvP. But I've played enough hand-holding PvE games to appreciate the danger and excitement of Elite. Where skill and experience actually counts for something. That is so refreshing these days. Yes, there are many issues to resolve, but I fear that lowering the "danger" part of Elite Dangerous will ultimately destroy the game.

Getting too close to a star should burn your ship. Crashing while docking should damage your ship. Crashing into another ship should damage both ships. Shooting at another ship should damage that ship. Elite prides itself on its "realistic" modelling, and PvE will definitely take away from that. Risk and danger is real. "Special" ships that can't be damaged (i.e. PvE) will destroy the illusion of the game.

Instead of splitting the player base, I prefer the suggestions for improving the existing splits between systems instead. Make it much harder to grief/gank in a high security system. Increase the penalties. Temporarily revoke access to dock. Temporarily revoke access to the system. Simultaneously reward good behavior and cooperation. Sticks and carrots.

your argument about splitting the player base is a misnomer argument, FACT 1. the player base is ALREADY split, solo, PG, OPEN... a PVE mode would help consolidate those who wish to enjoy a cooperative PVE experience and would bring people from the other modes (I bet it would be mostly PG and SOLO players actually) into it giving them a playing experience many players are after...

PG's did not steal players from OPEN, the MOBIUS group (I assume you are actually referring to them and not all PG's but do correct me if I am mistaken) has grown so large DUE to the sheer number of players who want to play in that kind of environment, and guess what, there is no special no damage mode in PG's... it's a concious choice by the members of the group to follow the groups rules which includes only a very limited set of options for PVP...

There are ways to implement a PVE mode that does NOT require invulnerable ships or no damage models... that will allow PVP in a limited and consentual construct while actually limiting (not entirely stopping) griefing etc... Sure you might be able to go in there and target some poor soul and fire on them, only to find you are then kicked from the mode back to the login screen... and unable to enter the mode for a period of time or possibly indefinitely... Had you read the thread (heck even if you read back 10 pages) you would have read about this so it is safe to conclude by your post that you did not read...

 

[kimsnarf]

There are ways to implement a PVE mode that does NOT require invulnerable ships or no damage models... that will allow PVP in a limited and consentual construct while actually limiting (not entirely stopping) griefing etc... Sure you might be able to go in there and target some poor soul and fire on them, only to find you are then kicked from the mode back to the login screen... and unable to enter the mode for a period of time or possibly indefinitely... Had you read the thread (heck even if you read back 10 pages) you would have read about this so it is safe to conclude by your post that you did not read...

I admit to reading only 20-30 pages. Some at the start, some at the end. I unfortunately do not have time to read all 148 pages. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not aware of every single argument proposed in this thread. But some people said that Open was a lot more crowded before, and that people have moved to private groups (Mobius). That is the basis for my assumption that Mobius stole from Open. If Mobius has indeed attracted another crowd instead, thus increasing the total player base, that would, of course, imply they are on to something. Unfortunately, I'm too new to know what has really happened. It was also expressed that in other games (like Ultima Online), creating a PvE world is a guaranteed way to kill the PvP world.

As I understand it, Mobius has no special mechanics. It is just based on consent. Which is fine, but why does it have to split the user base into separate "modes"? Couldn't the consent be implemented in the Open game. Not as a PvP vs PvE flag (which means invulnerable ships), but more in the line of systems being inaccessible to players who break that consent. That might be what you meant by "consentual construct", but, again, I don't have time to read all 148 pages. I just wanted to express my thoughts and participate.

 

[MarkAusten]

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".

Just as an aside here, we know that some people registered on the forum do not play Elite and owning a copy of Elite is not a prerequisite for forum membership. Also, many players have more than one game account further skewing the stats. Again, we don't know the figures for any of these. Finally there is also the issue of ensuring that the poll is asked in a neutral manner. All these need to be taking into account and to do that you need the appropriate numbers which we do not have.

Unfortunately.

 

[excalibus]

I admit to reading only 20-30 pages. Some at the start, some at the end. I unfortunately do not have time to read all 148 pages. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not aware of every single argument proposed in this thread. But some people said that Open was a lot more crowded before, and that people have moved to private groups (Mobius). That is the basis for my assumption that Mobius stole from Open. If Mobius has indeed attracted another crowd instead, thus increasing the total player base, that would, of course, imply they are on to something. Unfortunately, I'm too new to know what has really happened. It was also expressed that in other games (like Ultima Online), creating a PvE world is a guaranteed way to kill the PvP world.

As I understand it, Mobius has no special mechanics. It is just based on consent. Which is fine, but why does it have to split the user base into separate "modes"? Couldn't the consent be implemented in the Open game. Not as a PvP vs PvE flag (which means invulnerable ships), but more in the line of systems being inaccessible to players who break that consent. That might be what you meant by "consentual construct", but, again, I don't have time to read all 148 pages. I just wanted to express my thoughts and participate.

The reasons why players left open for mobius are varied (I recently left open after being playing in open solely for the last 2 years due to certain peoples attitudes that play there, while others left due to direct griefing experiences and others for their own valid reasons)... And mobius has had to be have been split into 2 groups because it reached the group mode limitation in early 2016, and is quickly approaching a second group fill (it has roughly 35,000 members and each group can only hold 20,000) so what is being asked for is a mode where those players, as well as the others who have gone to other PVE private groups (they exist mobius is just the largest) or to solo mode can join together in a mode that suits their play styles without the restrictions of number of members that groups currently have, the group member limit was confirmed by frontier as something they cannot actually change as it has to do with the back end software and not their game engine back when mobius was split the first time...

I understand that reading a whole 148 pages is not easy when you come in late to a discussion... that is fair enough... your quite welcome and within your rights to express your thoughts at any time...

 

[Quineloe]

Given DBOBE's comments on the Engineers launch stream

Three things about this:

That was almost a year ago. Progress since then: Zero, zip, nada.

Second, David Braben doesn't exactly have a good track record regarding C&P.

There's for example this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M&list=FLFkyi8Fhf36fFJu9mhGyNlg&index=15

1. Griefing is not a problem. That's a pretty strong statement against a C&P revision penalizing the murderers. They do not consider it a problem.
2. The pilots federation protects its members very strongly. Totally.
3. Then the police force, which they can make as strong as they like. And they've chosen to make it like the Blues Brothers car chase scene police. They've chosen to do this, according to David Braben.
4. Griefers in their own session? That also never happened.

And lastly, the 1.3 C&P update. Griefing and mass murder play was already well established in the game by then. And FDev basically removed all consequence from it by making bounties just expire.

TL'DR: FDev claimed to go one way, then went the opposite direction and has ceased talking about the thing forever.

I don't see how you can hope to see any improvement coming on this system in the light of these facts.

and frankly the question by Sandro you quoted later just shows that at FDev the notion of all players being part of the Pilot's Federation is all but forgotten at this point.

 

[Ixnatifual]

While you're at it, make a PvP mode, too!

 

[Robert Maynard]

I admit to reading only 20-30 pages. Some at the start, some at the end. I unfortunately do not have time to read all 148 pages. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not aware of every single argument proposed in this thread. But some people said that Open was a lot more crowded before, and that people have moved to private groups (Mobius). That is the basis for my assumption that Mobius stole from Open. If Mobius has indeed attracted another crowd instead, thus increasing the total player base, that would, of course, imply they are on to something. Unfortunately, I'm too new to know what has really happened. It was also expressed that in other games (like Ultima Online), creating a PvE world is a guaranteed way to kill the PvP world.

It's not really a case of Private Groups "stealing" from Open - more that when players have complained about being targeted by other players in Open they have, on occasion, been told to "git gud or go Solo" - and, rather than play alone, those players have left Open for Private Groups.

Plus the fact that every player can choose which mode to play in on a session-by-session basis. If the existence of a PvE play option were to "kill the PvP world" then, arguably, it would have happened already (due to the aforementioned ability to select a mode each game session).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Three things about this:

That was almost a year ago. Progress since then: Zero, zip, nada.

Second, David Braben doesn't exactly have a good track record regarding C&P.

There's for example this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M&list=FLFkyi8Fhf36fFJu9mhGyNlg&index=15

1. Griefing is not a problem. That's a pretty strong statement against a C&P revision penalizing the murderers. They do not consider it a problem.
2. The pilots federation protects its members very strongly. Totally.
3. Then the police force, which they can make as strong as they like. And they've chosen to make it like the Blues Brothers car chase scene police. They've chosen to do this, according to David Braben.
4. Griefers in their own session? That also never happened.

And lastly, the 1.3 C&P update. Griefing and mass murder play was already well established in the game by then. And FDev basically removed all consequence from it by making bounties just expire.

TL'DR: FDev claimed to go one way, then went the opposite direction and has ceased talking about the thing forever.

I don't see how you can hope to see any improvement coming on this system in the light of these facts.

and frankly the question by Sandro you quoted later just shows that at FDev the notion of all players being part of the Pilot's Federation is all but forgotten at this point.

1) More like 7-and-a-half months.

2) The lack of C&P (depending on one's opinion) has been there from the beginning - I expect that the hope was that players would deal with those who discourage players from playing in Open (much like the vigilantism during pre-launch mentioned by DBOBE) - the problem with scaling that to the whole galaxy is that there was virtually no play area pre-launch compared to now.

3) That video is from before the game was launched - and I don't doubt that what was said was based on the hope that the planned features would deal with players of a particular play-style.

4) Indeed.

I expect that Frontier now consider that Open has a population problem - why else mention that they are working on some measures to "encourage" players back into Open?

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

I know you're all on the edge of your seat regarding my Xbox Mobius join request so I'll release you all from your suspense and report that I have ineed been accepted in. Thank you Mobius team. You are providing a sterling service to the ED community. You'll get you reward in whatever afterlife you believe in I'm sure.

I mention this because it pertinent to the OP.

 

[Quineloe]

I don't see much room for "opinion" here. There is no Punishment. A minor bounty that they don't even have to pay, ever, because it will just expire next week and only applies to the system where they got it was a huge step down from faction wide federation and empire bounties. Any murderer who spent this weekend in Parun killing CG players left and right will today just leave the system and the bounty will not matter anymore, and by next weekend it will be a legacy fine in a system that he will most likely never again visit.

Even if he were to be destroyed, as long as his last docked station was not run by the major faction in the system he was destroyed in, he doesn't even need to pay the bounty. Even if that station is also under Federation control.

And let's not forget that less than 10k in total for each murder in bounty is negligible compared to the millions of rebuy cost for the combat ship he was shot down in.

And I honestly do not understand how any faith could have been placed into the AI police to have any effect on the game. They're comically inept. They're storm troopers shooting at a main character.

I don't know what the game was like in beta, I bought the game simply because of this video, only to be sorely disappointed on that point. However, in 2014 I was well aware how toxic online gaming was, which was the reason that this, what sounded like a very sincere promise by David Braben, made me buy the game. I don't believe they didn't know at all what complete sociopaths are playing online these days, with the sole intention of ruining the game experience for as many players as possible

I expect that Frontier now consider that Open has a population problem - why else mention that they are working on some measures to "encourage" players back into Open?

Frontier has quite a long history of speaking about things that then simply didn't happen and were forgotten. I'm hard pressed to even acknowledge a beta build at this point that would feature changes, as even that has repeatedly happened in the past. Luckily, most of the time because the systems they were beta testing were atrociously terrible (destroying illegal cargo upon scan for example). But it still happened. And when I smuggle in 720t of personal weapons and sell them for 980k of profit, and the scan fine is 820k, then the system is definitely not finished. That's another aspect of C&P, btw.

 

[Dark Martin]

Is the simple answer to this for FD to allow certain private groups to have much higher membership numbers, based on a support request?

Unless there's some bottleneck that makes groups with high player counts cause stability or performance issues, in which case that could get worked on....