Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Mengy]

No, bring on the non combat content says I; I would be happy as a clam to go back to Beagle Point if there were more meaningful exploration content & mechanics, for instance. Don't forget boys, in your rush to paint me with the bad 'ol PvPer who can't think past the pew pew because of his OCD, I'm Elite in Trade and Exploration as well as a member of the 65k LY's from Sol Club, so obviously I have a deep love for all aspects of the game

Yeah, I was pretty sure you truly felt this way, it's why your above comment surprised me a tad!

 

[MarkAusten]

It would however help those that play in groups to avoid the pvp aspect of the game and those that play in solo to avoid the pvp aspect yet avoid group as there's no room or they feel it's like having a target on your back so to speak.

Agreed. However my post was to emphasise that the sweeping statement that all players in solo would be drawn to an Open PvE mode is not the case. But I do agree that a lot would probably favour a mode like that.

 

[MarkAusten]

Take it offline. That would solve it. Prob be a better game too.

Nice idea, unfortunately not everyone can afford the mini server farm required to run the BGS which is why the offline mode was a non-started, as FDev found out.

But it would be very, very nice...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Although I would love to hear that FD has realized private group mode was a bad idea, I am not the one calling for the change. OP is. Although I know they didn't set out to make another version of that other game, crime/punishment, karma, security levels and such have all been handled over there and it works.

Opinions vary on the success of C&P in that game. As to calling for change - the possibility of multiple Open groups (modes) where the rules could be different to suit different play-styles was included in the published design information at the start of the Kickstarter - asking Frontier to provide an additional Open mode to suit a significant part of the population seems hardly unreasonable.

I am only posting here because I want to be another voice against this idea. The Mobius groups are an interesting situation. Can he just decide to disband them himself and off all those players? Or are they now sanctioned and membership overseen by FD? If for some reason they were no longer in existence would FD step in to help retain this part if the playerbase?

He could disband them. I do not know what would happen if he did. Frontier do not run them - and if they were sanctioned I would expect they would appear on the game mode selection screen as a primary choice.

If this Pve open play idea comes to fruition it will be another nail in the coffin of the original Open play that they have allowed to bleed players due to their failure to handle the security situation.

That may be - and while it is easy to blame the lack of a C&P system, players who prey on players should maybe look closer to home for an answer as to why Open is a less attractive option for many players. Mark Allen has confirmed the oft speculated, i.e. Frontier are well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP, after all.

Yes I could go into a CZ and shoot at fish in a barrel and that will make a little number tick up in the station. And if I do this enough maybe a different name will be first on the list of mission givers. For some reason though it doesn't scratch my itch.

Affecting the BGS is practically unavoidable in this game - from any game mode - by design.

And yes FD could easily create incentives for players to become piracy targets. They could give us mechanics to fight over space to encourage more PvP play. This might even cut down on the random killing if people can get their fix with in game mechanics.

DBOBE is not keen on territorial control (and it's all but meaningless in a game where players can circumvent any blockade by selecting a different mode), nor large player groups: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c;t=19m40s

We'll see what Frontier come up with to encourage Open play (as they have said they are working on it but are dealing with potential exploits).

 

[Robert Maynard]

An open server has all types of interaction, learning to avoid or escape from unwanted interactions is a skill to learn not a flaw to be destroyed.

.... and requiring to outfit one's ship differently to that required to escape NPC encounters, just to stand a chance (low probability, probably) of escaping an unwanted interaction by a player who likes to include others in their play-style regardless of the wishes of the target, isn't really "fun" for players who eschew PvP - it would seem to fall into the "annoyance" category, and being annoyed isn't "fun" either - which is why an Open mode without PvP is requested.

 

[excalibus]

This seems to have upset you, at least that's what I gather by your attempt to criticize me by accusations of "lack of understanding".

I had an expectation that others would understand my point, it seems you need some clarification.

I do understand that other people do not enjoy the same things that I do, I have never said that we all should enjoy the same things. I implied that I don't understand why some people enjoy things that present little or no challenge. I then demonstrated that with an outrageous example of a very simple game that my child plays.

I do not understand the joy derived from watching numbers grow in an imaginary bank account. I am of the opinion that any pve content is simply a means to earn credits. Surely you don't believe that if your t6 is blown up that little invisible space men will die because your medical supplies did not arrive? Do you believe that the Thargoids will take over the bubble, one system at a time until all of humanity is destroyed? Then FD turns off the servers?

But people get trapped in feedback loops, haul crap, get credits, buy bigger ship that can haul even more crap, haul crap, get credits, etc. They also have a tendancy to gravitate to the simplest methods to reinforce this feedback. This can be applied to any of the "professions" in the game.

I am against further segregation in game, I am for an active ecosystem of players. Another mode would exacerbate this segregation. See, in my dream world there is a place for you. You could mine rocks, haul crap, shoot harmless AI ships, all in the comfort of high security space. There seems to be call for on these forums for more punishment of killers and I support that. Give us CONCORD, the threat of their wrath would protect you from people like me.

It seems though, that in the dream world of the OP, there is no place for me, I can only assume, in your attack of my position, that you agree. Hence the reason for my post. I know I am not introducing any new ideas, I just want to be heard as an opponent of further separation of the playerbase.

your dream world exists...It is called eve online... why are you here???

Perhaps others (FDEV included) do not share your dream and instead are following their own dream...

Your opinion about why people play PVE is just that.. your opinion and nothing more... My reasons for playing PVE and what I enjoy out of it have nothing to do with credits, and more to do with what I enjoy and what motivates me... (hint for me credits are a means to funding ongoing playing but are not my motivation)

Why would I not want PVP, err I dunno, just as an example, perhaps when I return from over a year out exploring it would be nice to be able to dock without fear of some turkey shooting me before I get to sell off all that data and get my first discovery tags (yes that is one of the motivators for me - name across the galaxy for others to find if they visit places I have been).

As for segregation, we have segregation already, adding an open PVE mode would not really further segregate the player base considering I believe the impact of such a mode would bring a lot of PVE centric players together and we might actually see private groups go back to being used for what they where designed for, which is smallish groups of friends wanting to play together...

Of course you are 'technically' correct in stating that an additional mode would give more choices for people to make and by doing so could conceivably mean lesser people playing in the current open mode...

And may I ask, what is wrong with believing that little invisible space men will die because the medical supplies I was delivering did not arrive? What is wrong with playing to bring a system at the brink of a castrophe back from the edge or sending one over the edge into the abyss so my NPC minor faction can expand??? Oh gee there is another one of my motivators - playing with the BGS to expand my NPC minor faction... darn it I gotta stop giving this information away for free

 

[JosiahD]

On the subject of casting aspertions...

Actually, most of the older pvp players want a return to organised group vs group pvp before the SCB revolution and heat meta.

When people so inclined banged heads against each other with less difference between ships (meaning skill/organization was the defining factor of victory) then there was less (not no) seal clubbing. Some groups even went after gankers in a kind of rp keeping the skies clean kind of thing.

So let's just say you saw a return to organised grp vs grp PvP. Wouldn't this mean you'd be engaging coordinated, organised PvP groups and not PvEers? In which case the absence of PvEers due to being in an open PvE mode would not make one iota of difference to such PvP, correct? Because such PvPers want organised PvP events or coordinated grp vs grp action? In fact, this could be accomplished even now simply using a private group with self imposed rules on ship fitouts for example, similar to the way in which Mobius meets a need for PvEers. Or is it that the main opponents to an open PvE mode are more interested in simply player killing (ie ganking for lolz) and that such a mode threatens their access to such soft targets? I'm all for genuine PvPers having improved opportunities for their events but I have no sympathies for those who are simply interested in access to soft targets for their own enjoyment and thus oppose an open PvE mode out of their selfishness and arrogance.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I do not understand the joy derived from watching numbers grow in an imaginary bank account. I am of the opinion that any pve content is simply a means to earn credits. Surely you don't believe that if your t6 is blown up that little invisible space men will die because your medical supplies did not arrive? Do you believe that the Thargoids will take over the bubble, one system at a time until all of humanity is destroyed? Then FD turns off the servers?
.

And i think you just nailed the problem. When i am roleplaying in ED YES if i am getting into it i want to roleplay that what i do matters and here is the other nail for me. In ED when i am playing there are NO players and no npcs and this is why PvP for the sake of it is so game destroying for me. I get what you want, and even sympathise to a point but until the PvP players can even acknowedge the problem for the non PvPers without condescending there will be no happy ending.

You and i want totally different games and i just do not see how they can be compatible

And as for the money... Dont make me laugh. How many of the players here, both pvp and pve have exploited the many rediculous money loopholes?. I am a pure pve player and would never do any of that rubbish.

All of it just takes away from a convincing simulation about living the role of a space pilot.

 

[bootsam]

snip

I do not understand the joy derived from watching numbers grow in an imaginary bank account.

snip

Could it be the very same joy you get building an imaginary combat ship and using it against other peoples imaginary sitting ducks?

 

[Anopheles]

So let's just say you saw a return to organised grp vs grp PvP. Wouldn't this mean you'd be engaging coordinated, organised PvP groups and not PvEers? In which case the absence of PvEers due to being in an open PvE mode would not make one iota of difference to such PvP, correct? Because such PvPers want organised PvP events or coordinated grp vs grp action? In fact, this could be accomplished even now simply using a private group with self imposed rules on ship fitouts for example, similar to the way in which Mobius meets a need for PvEers. Or is it that the main opponents to an open PvE mode are more interested in simply player killing (ie ganking for lolz) and that such a mode threatens their access to such soft targets? I'm all for genuine PvPers having improved opportunities for their events but I have no sympathies for those who are simply interested in access to soft targets for their own enjoyment and thus oppose an open PvE mode out of their selfishness and arrogance.

Because I would like to return to what the game offered, and as Robert would say, promised in the Kickstarter: pvp piracy.

Not all Pvp interactions, when the game was simpler and better, was about destroying the other ship and because only the rare trade routes where the only real source of, as far as it could be, steady income for players pirates, it was easily avoided by those unwilling to participate. Risk could be assessed and managed.

In the same way that a much improved C&P system (and repaired mechanics) would allow only for hit and run attacks in certain high profit system that, again could be avoided and, therefore, like in the days of rare goods trading, any player who studied the simulation as was intended (best trade routes, juiciest mining spots, likely black holes, best smuggling routes) would be, de facto, giving consent in Open, to player interaction if they entered those locations.

Seriously, the forums where full of information threads about whether pirates where here, there and anywhere and the whole thing was livelier for it.

The destruction of skill based pvp, thanks to engineers and bored billionaires, thanks to overlong and low risk smuggling missions and now skimmer kills produced the mess that Open appears to be (though it's still safer than you think).

You can't blame a guy for wanting Open to return to when he and others (and not just pvpers) found it simpler, more fun and, yes, more Open to all playing styles.

 

[Cmdr-Wotherspoon]

I almost always play in open (sometimes you need to play in groups for instancing, or because event organisers have chosen to play in a group other than Open/All) but have no real desire to PvP. I hardly ever have an unfriendly encounter with another player, and I suspect the fear of griefers is greater than the reality. An occasional setback at the hands of another player is surely part of the rich tapestry of the game, and as long as you aren't relentlessly attacked by a player in a way that prevents you from enjoying the game (genuine griefing) there's no real harm in it.

There's little reward or fun in being a pirate right now, I suspect. Although Sandy Sammarco has said that crime and punishment is already in the game, it's a very soft implementation. We need criminals refused docking in systems where they are fugitive, and relentlessly pursued by effective police. Make the criminal life one worth fighting for. Greater rewards but also greater peril.

This might have the benefit of encouraging more people to try playing in Open. Private groups are fine, or Solo (which is effectively offline apart from the background sim) if you prefer playing on your own. Both valid choices. But you lose a little bit of what the game has to offer if you're never quite sure who is going to interdict you next.

 

[JosiahD]

Because I would like to return to what the game offered, and as Robert would say, promised in the Kickstarter: pvp piracy.

Not all Pvp interactions, when the game was simpler and better, was about destroying the other ship and because only the rare trade routes where the only real source of, as far as it could be, steady income for players pirates, it was easily avoided by those unwilling to participate. Risk could be assessed and managed.

In the same way that a much improved C&P system (and repaired mechanics) would allow only for hit and run attacks in certain high profit system that, again could be avoided and, therefore, like in the days of rare goods trading, any player who studied the simulation as was intended (best trade routes, juiciest mining spots, likely black holes, best smuggling routes) would be, de facto, giving consent in Open, to player interaction if they entered those locations.

Seriously, the forums where full of information threads about whether pirates where here, there and anywhere and the whole thing was livelier for it.

The destruction of skill based pvp, thanks to engineers and bored billionaires, thanks to overlong and low risk smuggling missions and now skimmer kills produced the mess that Open appears to be (though it's still safer than you think).

You can't blame a guy for wanting Open to return to when he and others (and not just pvpers) found it simpler, more fun and, yes, more Open to all playing styles.

But the so-called destruction of skill-based PvP is not what is driving calls for an open PvE mode - the subject of the OP. The desire of many to avoid PvP altogether IS, in particular a certain brand of so-called PvP that is anything but. And the implementation of such a mode if it were to come won't make much difference to any skill-based PvP as the players that use it (by and large) routinely (or exclusively) won't be a part of that PvP anyway, no matter how much some try to force it. Without an open PvE mode they just go to private or solo anyway. So by all means push for the PvP you want, but you won't magically get PvEers to jump to that way of thinking and suddenly jump into the open we have if the attitude and mindset of a certain subset of the PvP community doesn't change.

 

[BL1P]

Agreed. Either that or make ganking in Open not practical.

Ironman mode for open would be a good idea along with better C and P.

 

[Spiridon]

Because I would like to return to what the game offered, and as Robert would say, promised in the Kickstarter: pvp piracy.

And it delivered. It never said it would be easy, never said you'll be the absolute master of your prey, no... but it is here. It's possible.

The only thing missing from the Kickstarter is an offline.

 

[Priestly Ben]

Open is essentially PvE - for all practical purposes. Sure, you can find PvP if you go looking, but given the scale of the universe you either have to get "unlucky" to encounter a griefer or player pirate, or careless (e.g. staying around starter systems, known hot spots, CGs etc.). I've played since premium beta and can count on one - maybe two - hands the number of times I've been attacked unprovoked. And, once the basic escape mechanics have been learned, you can escape from virtually any player. Moral of the story: play in Open, but away from hot spots. The folks you/your daughter will meet there are overwhelmingly the helpful and cordial sort.

All you say is true, but isn't the point that we would LOVE to get involved in CGs in open, but can't because of the small handful of PvP griefers? At the moment they know that they can do whatever they want because it seems IMHO, that at the moment, FDev seem to be bending over backwards to accommodate them... So if they come across you, they believe that you are there for THEIR entertainment and as such will kill you, knowing that there will be NO price for them to pay!
Sadly, this has now resulted in vasts amounts of people to avoid open play, thus killing the human community spirit of which this game should IMO be based upon.

 

[Littlerift]

Because I would like to return to what the game offered, and as Robert would say, promised in the Kickstarter: pvp piracy.

Not all Pvp interactions, when the game was simpler and better, was about destroying the other ship and because only the rare trade routes where the only real source of, as far as it could be, steady income for players pirates, it was easily avoided by those unwilling to participate. Risk could be assessed and managed.

In the same way that a much improved C&P system (and repaired mechanics) would allow only for hit and run attacks in certain high profit system that, again could be avoided and, therefore, like in the days of rare goods trading, any player who studied the simulation as was intended (best trade routes, juiciest mining spots, likely black holes, best smuggling routes) would be, de facto, giving consent in Open, to player interaction if they entered those locations.

Seriously, the forums where full of information threads about whether pirates where here, there and anywhere and the whole thing was livelier for it.

The destruction of skill based pvp, thanks to engineers and bored billionaires, thanks to overlong and low risk smuggling missions and now skimmer kills produced the mess that Open appears to be (though it's still safer than you think).

You can't blame a guy for wanting Open to return to when he and others (and not just pvpers) found it simpler, more fun and, yes, more Open to all playing styles.

Other than the lack of profit, which is the same as it ever was, I fail to see what's stopping people from pirating today if they felt they could around the time of launch. I too would like to see more tools for player piracy - disabling weapons and the like - but the issue is not that the game has changed in a direction that makes piracy less appealing, but rather that many of the good player pirates have left or changed career, and the scum who just want to kill commanders have remained: the former group hasn't been rewarded or supported enough, and the second group faces no punishment or penalty for adopting what is the easiest playstyle in the entire game.

I find it very hard to believe that any of the player pirates around at the time of launch (and I was one of them, although I classed myself as a Privateer: I was RPing as an Imperial pilot who had been hired to pirate Federal trade routes) are the same people who today are ganking: there's no similarity in playstyle, roleplay opportunities, or attitude between those two activities. The people ganking now (and you're right, there's not many) exist because A) some people are just , and B) it's the easiest and least punished activity in the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because I would like to return to what the game offered, and as Robert would say, promised in the Kickstarter: pvp piracy.

While Frontier can create a multi-player game world, they cannot provide unwilling player targets for play-styles that require them.

 

[Anopheles]

While Frontier can create a multi-player game world, they cannot provide unwilling player targets for play-styles that require them.

My point being that when piracy had places to be, that most most people knew about, then anyone who knew and came to those places anyway, we're not unwilling.

 

[Robert Maynard]

My point being that when piracy had places to be, that most most people knew about, then anyone who knew and came to those places anyway, we're not unwilling.

I expect that some of the majority (who do not use the forums) might have been caught up in it unwittingly rather than willingly.

 

[Littlerift]

My point being that when piracy had places to be, that most most people knew about, then anyone who knew and came to those places anyway, we're not unwilling.

How would they know? There's practically no feedback in the galaxy map outside of security ratings for systems and they're completely irrelevant anyway.