Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Robert Maynard]

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....

There was a client stability / time-out issue that brought in the 20,000 player Private Group limit - plus the management "tools" in the client make kicking a player from such a long list very time consuming....

 

[Gunnet]

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....

That's a potential stopgap measure. But one of the largest issues with using private groups in lieu of a real PvE mode is right there in the name; private group. Most players of any game don't participate in an out of game community, and therefore have no idea that private groups are anything more than a way to play with a handful of friends. To the average player, the only options are open and solo. That's not a good situation for a multiplayer game which mostly appeals to players who aren't interested in PvP.

Unfortunately, those players who don't visit forums are also the most vulnerable to griefers. Since without information from outside sources they have a very long road to obtaining a ship that won't put them completely at the mercy of any engineered combat ship.

Not to mention that community-run PvE groups essentially operate on the honour system. Toxic players have gained access under false pretences for the purpose of griefing in the past, and there is no reason to believe it won't happen again.

 

[Exigeous]

I'll admit that I haven't read all 148 pages so it's possible this has been said/suggested. Everyone is right that the current C&P system is really bad and doesn't do anything to even make a commander think twice before killing someone. I also understand the rational for not using a bounty system on players as that could be exploited for credits easily. Two friends kill each other over and over until the bounty is high and they cash in.

I'm thinking there is a retaliative easy way to address this with what's currently in game, with tweaks. In a murder case System Authority should come down on a player like a ton of bricks. Constant interdictions from elite MPCs in big ships (Anacondas and Corvettes) and they should shoot instantly. There should be at least 4 ships in the NPC wing, if not two wings. If the commander low wakes he gets nabbed again in under 10 seconds. Over and over. Once he's chased out of the system if he goes to another exploited system that charge would follow him (so long as it's the same superpower). Kill someone in Hudson space and every Federation system you go to makes your life miserable. You could assign some sort of System Authority bounty so anywhere there is a System Authority NPC they too would rain fire down. They could also add some kind of alert that when someone with a murder charge enters system all pilots are warned. Hell they could use a different color or symbol on the scanner so they're easy to spot.

All of a sudden this would make the consequences of murder so incredibly frustrating that I'd have to think it would make a huge difference. NPCs would make life living hell and if they did add something to alert players via some method that might even spur a group in that system to go after the player as well. They could add a new USS type "Murder Target Engaged Threat Level [3]" so you'd know that NPCs are already there with a commander and you could jump in and help.

These seem like fairly easy features to implement and I just have to believe this would make a huge impact. The only place you could kill with impunity would be Anarchy systems. Commanders would know there's a risk in an Anarchy system and plot around or at least be ready.

 

[excalibus]

I'll admit that I haven't read all 148 pages so it's possible this has been said/suggested. Everyone is right that the current C&P system is really bad and doesn't do anything to even make a commander think twice before killing someone. I also understand the rational for not using a bounty system on players as that could be exploited for credits easily. Two friends kill each other over and over until the bounty is high and they cash in.

I'm thinking there is a retaliative easy way to address this with what's currently in game, with tweaks. In a murder case System Authority should come down on a player like a ton of bricks. Constant interdictions from elite MPCs in big ships (Anacondas and Corvettes) and they should shoot instantly. There should be at least 4 ships in the NPC wing, if not two wings. If the commander low wakes he gets nabbed again in under 10 seconds. Over and over. Once he's chased out of the system if he goes to another exploited system that charge would follow him (so long as it's the same superpower). Kill someone in Hudson space and every Federation system you go to makes your life miserable. You could assign some sort of System Authority bounty so anywhere there is a System Authority NPC they too would rain fire down. They could also add some kind of alert that when someone with a murder charge enters system all pilots are warned. Hell they could use a different color or symbol on the scanner so they're easy to spot.

All of a sudden this would make the consequences of murder so incredibly frustrating that I'd have to think it would make a huge difference. NPCs would make life living hell and if they did add something to alert players via some method that might even spur a group in that system to go after the player as well. They could add a new USS type "Murder Target Engaged Threat Level [3]" so you'd know that NPCs are already there with a commander and you could jump in and help.

These seem like fairly easy features to implement and I just have to believe this would make a huge impact. The only place you could kill with impunity would be Anarchy systems. Commanders would know there's a risk in an Anarchy system and plot around or at least be ready.

the consequences have to match the criminal history of the individual player, you would not want your suggested response happen to you because you accidently clipped a ship while boosting into the station one time... if you repeatedly killed commanders in the system then sure... such a response would be fairly realistic... but for one offs?? overkill... any true C&P system needs to scale to not only the commanders actions but to where and how those actions are performed... IMHO... for it to be believable as a justice system...

 

[Vorxian]

Ultimately I think everyone wants OPEN to work. PvE OPEN would be nice, but if FDEV want OPEN to work, we should work with them to make it work.

FDEV have to start the ball rolling with a good and fair C&P system. If being a seal is mandatory, they have to make being THE SEAL fun, as much fun as it would be to be the hunter.

Right now there is no fun being the seal. It's detrimental, with no incentive. That's the breaker.

 

[Exigeous]

the consequences have to match the criminal history of the individual player, you would not want your suggested response happen to you because you accidently clipped a ship while boosting into the station one time... if you repeatedly killed commanders in the system then sure... such a response would be fairly realistic... but for one offs?? overkill... any true C&P system needs to scale to not only the commanders actions but to where and how those actions are performed... IMHO... for it to be believable as a justice system...

Yeah, that's definitely a fair point but to me the answer would be in the crime your accused of. Killing by ramming would possibly be the equivalent of vehicular homicide which in society carries a lesser penalty than 1st degree murder. Even if it was a commanders first offense murder is murder and the penalty is rather harsh. I could definitely see something that built progressively until the commander was killed by system authority, first offense 2 ships interdict every 2 minutes, 2nd and it's 3 every 1 minute. And so on. Just trying to think of something that would add real consequences to the killer to add some level of incentive not to just kill when one feels like it.

 

[kimsnarf]

If being a seal is mandatory, they have to make being THE SEAL fun, as much fun as it would be to be the hunter.

Exactly. Cops and robbers is great fun. Robbers and victims, not so much.

 

[kimsnarf]

Even if it was a commanders first offense murder is murder and the penalty is rather harsh.

But killing in self defense is easy to mistake for murder. The "wanted" mechanic is buggy and error prone. If penalties are going to be harsh, the system must be rather idiot proof. Or there must be a way to prove innocence and clear your name, e.g by looking at your record, doing beneficial mission, paying damages, probation periods etc.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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.

PGs will take some players from open who would undoubtedly go there if given no option. As does solo. However these players would be in open because they were forced to be. Each mode should stand on its own feet without forcing players.... If open can't do that then it seems PGs are not the modes in need of closing IMO.
(I don't think open should be closed I just don't think losing players from open is a good excuse for not allowing other modes - tho I do think FDs belief open PvE would break the game is sadly)
Without PGs and solo many would not play at all.

The PvP side of ED is purely optional, in my view (which I am not saying is the only one) ED is a PvE game with PvE balance with PvP tacked in there. I am probably wrong but I feel CQC was FDs naive attempt to offer full blown PvP. As a PvE player I like cqc and think it works well. I just do not have the patience to get a game

 

[iSteel]

Problem with Crime & Punishment system is that it only affects the murderer. The victim still loses the cargo and the re-buy value of the ship. So from victim's point of view nothing will change. C&P system has to be really good to remove/diminish murderers to a number that would lure solo players to open.

PVP / PVE flag that would divide players to the mode they choose would be easiest way to get people to play more together, I think.

 

[aeshec]

Imo, if players that desire PVE are going to be sequestered in Mobius (and other PVE-focused groups) anyway, why not give them a dedicated mode so that more of them can play together? Essentially, currently, there is already a group PVE mode in Mobius, however, it is limited in number and also controlled by a player external to FDEV (thankfully it is Mobius, but you can imagine potential future issues). If I had to guess, it doesn't sound like this model for PVE will be sustainable.

 

[thirstyfish]

Hey everyone, guess where wee are now:

 

[kimsnarf]

Basically FDev could take two different approaches here:

1) Create an Open PVE mode to satisfy a large number of players. Then work on making Open more attractive for all players and try to lure players back from Open PVE. The risk is this could turn Elite into a definite PVE game with no going back.

2) Work on making Open more attractive for all players, in line with the original vision for the game. The risk is this could alienate a large number of players (the PVE crowd) while this work is in progress.

So far, it seems they are going for the second approach. I guess their player base numbers will guide their decisions more than forum discussions. Comparing private group numbers (+ solo numbers) with Open numbers should give a clear indication of priorities. Does anyone know how the various modes compare in player numbers?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Basically FDev could take two different approaches here:

1) Create an Open PVE mode to satisfy a large number of players. Then work on making Open more attractive for all players and try to lure players back from Open PVE. The risk is this could turn Elite into a definite PVE game with no going back.

2) Work on making Open more attractive for all players, in line with the original vision for the game. The risk is this could alienate a large number of players (the PVE crowd) while this work is in progress.

So far, it seems they are going for the second approach. I guess their player base numbers will guide their decisions more than forum discussions. Comparing private group numbers (+ solo numbers) with Open numbers should give a clear indication of priorities. Does anyone know how the various modes compare in player numbers?

They have, and I would agree that they seem to be going with Option 2.

I expect that Frontier have been comparing the population split between modes from the outset - and, as Sandro first mooted enhanced consequences for illegal PKing of CMDRs about a year ago and DBOBE mentioned in a recent stream that Frontier are working on ways to "encourage" players to play in Open, I expect that they are a mite concerned at what they see.

That is not to say that players do not play in Open, of course, just that I expect that Frontier would like (but not force) more players to play there.

 

[kimsnarf]

Even if FDev were to create an Open PVE mode it is not clear to me how this mode should work. Turning off damage between player ships will be very artificial, especially since damage from/to NPC ships will stay the same. A PVE/PVP flag is similar, just optional per player. Those without a PVP flag are essentially invulnerable.

If the Open PVE mode is instead controlled by consent (i.e. you agree not to hurt other players) then who is going to enforce this when conflicts arise? This sounds like a potentially huge support job to me.

Instead, the crux of the problem is the pain suffered by those victim to involuntary PVP. What if, instead of artificially limiting conflicts between players, the pain of such a loss was greatly reduced?

Some alternatives:
1) If killed by a player, outside a conflict zone or a lawless system, the cost of your loss (ship and cargo) is automatically reimbursed to your account. This reimbursement could come from e.g. a community-driven fund, where PVE players do "insurance" missions to fill it. If indeed PVE player numbers are greater than PVP player numbers, the PVE crowd should have no trouble co-operating to outweigh the losses caused by PVP-ers. This adds some competition between PVP/PVE.

2) If killed by a player, outside a conflict zone or a lawless system, the cost of your loss (ship and cargo) is drawn from the killer's account. If there is not enough coverage, the killer goes into debt. Any earnings the killer makes from that point goes towards paying down the debt until cleared. This solution puts risk and burden on the aggressor, balancing it with the victim.

3) If killed by a player, outside a conflict zone or a lawless system, the cost of your loss (ship and cargo) is tied to the killer's bounty. When the killer is killed, the amount is reimbursed to your account. The killer can also pay the reimbursement to remove the bounty. This creates incentive for PVP-ers to hunt other PVP-ers, or for PVE-er to create a group of hunterers with the purpose of taking out PVP-ers to release reimbursements.

The point of these alternatives is to have a crime & punishment system that takes the victim into account, not just the aggressor. Tying these mechanisms to Power Play could, of course, also unlock many interesting competitions and tensions.

 

[excalibus]

Even if FDev were to create an Open PVE mode it is not clear to me how this mode should work. Turning off damage between player ships will be very artificial, especially since damage from/to NPC ships will stay the same. A PVE/PVP flag is similar, just optional per player. Those without a PVP flag are essentially invulnerable.

If the Open PVE mode is instead controlled by consent (i.e. you agree not to hurt other players) then who is going to enforce this when conflicts arise? This sounds like a potentially huge support job to me.

Instead, the crux of the problem is the pain suffered by those victim to involuntary PVP. What if, instead of artificially limiting conflicts between players, the pain of such a loss was greatly reduced?

Some alternatives:
1) If killed by a player, outside a conflict zone or a lawless system, the cost of your loss (ship and cargo) is automatically reimbursed to your account. This reimbursement could come from e.g. a community-driven fund, where PVE players do "insurance" missions to fill it. If indeed PVE player numbers are greater than PVP player numbers, the PVE crowd should have no trouble co-operating to outweigh the losses caused by PVP-ers. This adds some competition between PVP/PVE.

2) If killed by a player, outside a conflict zone or a lawless system, the cost of your loss (ship and cargo) is drawn from the killer's account. If there is not enough coverage, the killer goes into debt. Any earnings the killer makes from that point goes towards paying down the debt until cleared. This solution puts risk and burden on the aggressor, balancing it with the victim.

3) If killed by a player, outside a conflict zone or a lawless system, the cost of your loss (ship and cargo) is tied to the killer's bounty. When the killer is killed, the amount is reimbursed to your account. The killer can also pay the reimbursement to remove the bounty. This creates incentive for PVP-ers to hunt other PVP-ers, or for PVE-er to create a group of hunterers with the purpose of taking out PVP-ers to release reimbursements.

The point of these alternatives is to have a crime & punishment system that takes the victim into account, not just the aggressor. Tying these mechanisms to Power Play could, of course, also unlock many interesting competitions and tensions.

a few questions on this... how would I be reimbursed for 15 months of my time out in the black exploring and getting first discovered tags on planets... how would I be reimbursed for lossed mission specific cargo and the mission payouts for completion if, due the PVP attack, I was to fail the delivery of the items... such as coming into the destination station with only a couple of minutes left on the clock when a PVP player kills me...

Personally I feel the lost time investment in exploring compared to paltry bounty the aggressor ends up with is one of the main issue for explorers shunning open

 

[Deadspin]

These "take my insurance cost from the aggressor" posts are cringe worthy and if you can't see how that is horrible game design then those of you suggesting it should probably stop posting recommendations for how to handle the PvP community.

 

[kimsnarf]

These "take my insurance cost from the aggressor" posts are cringe worthy and if you can't see how that is horrible game design then those of you suggesting it should probably stop posting recommendations for how to handle the PvP community.

That was one of three alternatives, which you used to dismiss the whole post without an argument of your own. Thanks. My suggestions were not intended to handle PVP. They were intended to improve PVE in Open. Possibly at the expense of PVP, yes.

But from the attitudes and resignations on display here, maybe there is no hope except for a full split between PVP and PVE. Where PVP has most to lose.

 

[Deadspin]

That was one of three alternatives, which you used to dismiss the whole post without an argument of your own. Thanks. My suggestions were not intended to handle PVP. They were intended to improve PVE in Open. Possibly at the expense of PVP, yes.

But from the attitudes and resignations on display here, maybe there is no hope except for a full split between PVP and PVE. Where PVP has most to lose.

All of your suggestions were intended to remove the consequences of dying at the hands of another player in open. Whether it be by community fund, taking it from the player who killed you, or taking it from some infinite pot of money the game produces when a bounty is paid off. Quite frankly, they were all ridiculous.

Removing the death penalty for dying at the hands of another player doesn't do anything to help Elite be a better game in the long run, nothing at all.

Forgive me if the thousands of times I've seen a "I shouldn't be penalized for being subjected to legitimate gameplay" post has left me a bit jaded.

If Frontier wants to fix open then they need to balance the abilities of PvP players against an NPC aggressor force meant to thwart their attempts at "unwarranted" contact. There needs to be a lot of changes made to the core structures of system security, bounties, etc. For all of the billionaires we have in this game it still surprises me how worried people are about players "exploiting" a bounty system that allows for more than a 1 million credit payout.

The Open PvE crowd can't seem to make a valid game mechanics suggestion unless they are the sole beneficiaries of said change and it's quite laughable.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Perhaps we're all thinking about this the wrong way...

How about a more classic approach? Instead of an Open PvE mode, an Open Cooperative Mode?

Then we can have generic Open (PvP, Griefing, Piracy and all), an Open Cooperative Mode (No PvP, only Pirating NPC's, Griefing only NPC's and of course Kill-stealing), Private and Solo and everyone will be happy, except the current Open Griefers as everyone will continue to vacate to other modes - and we have no use for them anyways.