Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[GluttonyFang]

Interested or not, each and every player affects the BGS to some extent.

Again, you're assuming a transitive cause and effect that doesn't stand when you're using the effect to justify your statement:

Cause 1: Player performs action.

Effect 1: BGS changes.

Cause 2: NPC/environment takes action.

Effect 2: BGS changes.

Cause 3: BGS changes.

Effect 3: Universe for players is changed.

You're focusing on the first cause while overlooking a second cause, they are both possibilities. Considering how FD is infamous for intervening in the BGS, the effect is further reduced.

Finally, it still requires the qualifier that the player cares about the BGS, since if said player doesn't care, changes are of no matter to said individual, and can be considered purely environmental instead of carrying a player agency. I'd still argue that BGS changes by player doesn't change the fact that Solo mode is PvE purely, but I have entertained your assertion so far.

Edit:

If I start stretching for edgy definition, I can technically say CQC has an element of PvE due to the powerup mechanic and intractable objects (because environment is affecting the player).

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'd still argue that BGS changes by player doesn't change the fact that Solo mode is PvE purely, but I have entertained your assertion so far.

At which point, I'll happily agree to disagree with you - based on the many complaints from players who want to oppose all BGS / Faction / Powerplay actions and are frustrated that all three game modes affect these.

 

[GluttonyFang]

At which point, I'll happily agree to disagree with you - based on the many complaints from players who want to oppose all BGS / Faction / Powerplay actions and are frustrated that all three game modes affect these.

You must have missed my qualifying statement there.

Now you're getting into player choice. Players aren't forced to care about the BGS, they made that choice. Similar to how a player in CQC can very much fly around the edge of the map and not engage a single enemy and only pick up power ups and interact with objects.

 

[jacozilla]

As some of you say maybe it wouldn't fracture the playerbase (I believe that it will) further, but I assume that an Open PvE mode is one that would require a lot of development time, seeing as how at the very least it would need some mechanism to make player weapons harmless to other players in a believable way. I guess if Fdev is struggling with implementing a proper C & P system in the game modes we already have, some fancy footwork for some fancy new styrofoam whiffle bat mode isn't anywhere even on the development horizon. Plus, I really don't believe a game mode absolutely devoid of danger from other players is even something they envision in the first place beyond what they've already provided with Solo, so they've already got that part covered.

I'm guessing that 2017 will come and go with this idea circling the forum like an object refusing to actually disappear down the pipe. Makes me feel kind of bad for those of you who are really hoping it comes about.

The coding is already there in large part. Just needs a trivial modifier introduced. Yes, that is new dev, yes that will take time to add and QA. But not nearly as much as some may think.

The modifier is an extension of the already existing engineer-special effects framework added to the game. A new modifier, say pve-pvp, would be added. Just as weapons special effects are added to the base dmg calculations, a 'pve-pvp' modifier would simply add an immunity modifier to all weapons dmg. It could either be an actual base x zero multiplication which would make all weapons do zero dmg if player fires on player, or a resistance modifier added to the fired upon player - with no cap and so near-infinite high that in effect zero dmg is done.

The point is existing framework is already there. The new dev would be more about tweaking variables and adding a few new modifiers to the current modifiers of that combat type already in play. It would be new dev, yes - can't get around that. But no more, and probably lot less, than what FD already does for a combat balance pass update.

The two sides will mostly never agree on this overall pve-open debate. Some individuals in each camp, yes. But overall, no. Reason being is that bottom line, devoid of all ego, bias, and emotions from heated debates - the argument boils down to the rather stark reality of ---> most the players arguing against open-pve need the pve players in their mode to play the game the way they want; the pve players wanting to escape open and have their own mode don't need them.

That's it - bottom line. They need us, we don't need them. Hence many of the entreaties, justifications, rationale why open can be good for them (some well thought out, some borderline insulting), etc.

Just like in a relationship, when one side needs to start to come up with rationalizations why the other side should stay with them, it is already 'game over'. There's no need to pretend one side is 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad' for wanting or not wanting this change. Good people with good rationales can exist on both sides, yet still net out to the same basic conclusion - a reasonably large population of players is being asked to forcibly stay without an FD-provided mode of their own, and cobble together duct-tape and Band-Aid private group solutions that are at best temporary.

 

[LeoBartlet]

The coding is already there in large part. Just needs a trivial modifier introduced. Yes, that is new dev, yes that will take time to add and QA. But not nearly as much as some may think.

The modifier is an extension of the already existing engineer-special effects framework added to the game. A new modifier, say pve-pvp, would be added. Just as weapons special effects are added to the base dmg calculations, a 'pve-pvp' modifier would simply add an immunity modifier to all weapons dmg. It could either be an actual base x zero multiplication which would make all weapons do zero dmg if player fires on player, or a resistance modifier added to the fired upon player - with no cap and so near-infinite high that in effect zero dmg is done.

The point is existing framework is already there. The new dev would be more about tweaking variables and adding a few new modifiers to the current modifiers of that combat type already in play. It would be new dev, yes - can't get around that. But no more, and probably lot less, than what FD already does for a combat balance pass update.

The two sides will mostly never agree on this overall pve-open debate. Some individuals in each camp, yes. But overall, no. Reason being is that bottom line, devoid of all ego, bias, and emotions from heated debates - the argument boils down to the rather stark reality of ---> most the players arguing against open-pve need the pve players in their mode to play the game the way they want; the pve players wanting to escape open and have their own mode don't need them.

That's it - bottom line. They need us, we don't need them. Hence many of the entreaties, justifications, rationale why open can be good for them (some well thought out, some borderline insulting), etc.

Just like in a relationship, when one side needs to start to come up with rationalizations why the other side should stay with them, it is already 'game over'. There's no need to pretend one side is 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad' for wanting or not wanting this change. Good people with good rationales can exist on both sides, yet still net out to the same basic conclusion - a reasonably large population of players is being asked to forcibly stay without an FD-provided mode of their own, and cobble together duct-tape and Band-Aid private group solutions that are at best temporary.

Does it solve the issue of ramming and other numerous ways to grief people?

 

[GluttonyFang]

The coding is already there in large part. Just needs a trivial modifier introduced. Yes, that is new dev, yes that will take time to add and QA. But not nearly as much as some may think.

The modifier is an extension of the already existing engineer-special effects framework added to the game. A new modifier, say pve-pvp, would be added. Just as weapons special effects are added to the base dmg calculations, a 'pve-pvp' modifier would simply add an immunity modifier to all weapons dmg. It could either be an actual base x zero multiplication which would make all weapons do zero dmg if player fires on player, or a resistance modifier added to the fired upon player - with no cap and so near-infinite high that in effect zero dmg is done.

The point is existing framework is already there. The new dev would be more about tweaking variables and adding a few new modifiers to the current modifiers of that combat type already in play. It would be new dev, yes - can't get around that. But no more, and probably lot less, than what FD already does for a combat balance pass update.

The two sides will mostly never agree on this overall pve-open debate. Some individuals in each camp, yes. But overall, no. Reason being is that bottom line, devoid of all ego, bias, and emotions from heated debates - the argument boils down to the rather stark reality of ---> most the players arguing against open-pve need the pve players in their mode to play the game the way they want; the pve players wanting to escape open and have their own mode don't need them.

That's it - bottom line. They need us, we don't need them. Hence many of the entreaties, justifications, rationale why open can be good for them (some well thought out, some borderline insulting), etc.

Just like in a relationship, when one side needs to start to come up with rationalizations why the other side should stay with them, it is already 'game over'. There's no need to pretend one side is 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad' for wanting or not wanting this change. Good people with good rationales can exist on both sides, yet still net out to the same basic conclusion - a reasonably large population of players is being asked to forcibly stay without an FD-provided mode of their own, and cobble together duct-tape and Band-Aid private group solutions that are at best temporary.

Well it's pretty clear which camp you're in.

But jokes aside, I really don't think a sandbox would be a sandbox with such a crafted pure PvE mode. While I will say that ED is a little silly for not adding in some "safe zones," and functional crime and punishment.

I'm a neutral player that leans slightly toward PvP, so I guess I'll put a label on myself before finger pointing starts. I really see the value of PvX being germane to a simulation. FD already gave the concession of private and solo mode to accommodate for the needs of players seeking pure, and I mean pure PvE. I think it's a little conceited to ask for a PvE mode, if I'm being completely genuine. Thus why I ask for a better crime and punishment system and oppose the concept of a pure PvE mode.

- - - Updated - - -

Does it solve the issue of ramming and other numerous ways to grief people?

It absolutely doesn't as I've explained in this thread about concerns I have about a pure PvE mode and the griefing related to it. It's actually a sentiment reflected by Braben in livestreams.

- - - Updated - - -

I dare say for many aggressive players in games is a motivator to git good and take them on not spit the dummy and leave.

Well, competition in general has the positive effect of productivity in terms of improvement/getting good, and the downside of hostility and heavy friction/conflict. It's necessary for growth, yes. Similar to the concept of getting good grades in school and getting ahead in life. But since we are in a game, so the question is where to draw that line, especially in a sandbox.

 

[Nemayn]

Well it's pretty clear which camp you're in.

But jokes aside, I really don't think a sandbox would be a sandbox with such a crafted pure PvE mode. While I will say that ED is a little silly for not adding in some "safe zones," and functional crime and punishment.

I'm a neutral player that leans slightly toward PvP, so I guess I'll put a label on myself before finger pointing starts. I really see the value of PvX being germane to a simulation. FD already gave the concession of private and solo mode to accommodate for the needs of players seeking pure, and I mean pure PvE. I think it's a little conceited to ask for a PvE mode, if I'm being completely genuine. Thus why I ask for a better crime and punishment system and oppose the concept of a pure PvE mode.

- - - Updated - - -



It absolutely doesn't as I've explained in this thread about concerns I have about a pure PvE mode and the griefing related to it. It's actually a sentiment reflected by Braben in livestreams.

ED is not a sandbox as far as I can see, a sandbox allows you to play with the sand to a far greater extent than bgs. The game is a simulator in my view but definitely not a sandbox

 

[LeoBartlet]

It absolutely doesn't as I've explained in this thread about concerns I have about a pure PvE mode and the griefing related to it. It's actually a sentiment reflected by Braben in livestreams.

Indeed and it begs the question why bother adding a pve mode at all.

It seems for some a mode like that is a cure to all the ills that open is afflicted by when it reality it will suffer the same issues with the exception of actual pew pew.

 

[GluttonyFang]

ED is not a sandbox as far as I can see, a sandbox allows you to play with the sand to a far greater extent than bgs. The game is a simulator in my view but definitely not a sandbox

We do have the infamous 8 year plan, heh...

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed and it begs the question why bother adding a pve mode at all.

It seems for some a mode like that is a cure to all the ills that open is afflicted by when it reality it will suffer the same issues with the exception of actual pew pew.

If this was any other game, I would say that it's not as bad, but ED with its current features going for a PvE mode is just asking for a better concentration of "griefers" than Open.

"Griefers" in open can be chased away, and some groups and individuals do it as their gameplay, such as Adle's Armada and MassiveD (forumer).

In PvE mode, there's no safeguard other than constant FD intervention and reports to read. Which will be a lot worse than combat logging since there's no damage being registered (I think damage is pure P2P, if so, ignore the damage part) and disconnections being logged.

 

[jacozilla]

Does it solve the issue of ramming and other numerous ways to grief people?

Yes and no. There is what you asked in literal face value, and there is what I suspect you are really asking. Let's take both.

To specifically ramming and other physical (non-weapons fire) collision based ways to grief people --> yes, whether through an extension of resistance/immunity with infinite cap, or simply adding the zero modifier to dmg calculation from collisions if player on player contact. How much work someone believes this involves I suppose is a can't win argument. Some will say minor, some will say major.

Granted its not in ED, but plenty of games have tutorial modes where various game mechanics are immune or limited as they teach the tutorial. If they can add this to a simple tutorial, I don't see open-pve safeguards to be a huge dev work.

To your actual broader question - will this solve for unintended bugs, consequences, and/or every single way to grief people? Of course not. There will be bugs (this is FD after all), there will be unintended loopholes that will take time to find and close, and just as with everything since the dawn of recorded civilization - soon as someone makes a better mouse trap, the inventive human mind starts to find better way to evade it.

This doesn't in my mind invalidate forming an open-pve mode because the net positive will still be worth it for an open-pve supporter like me, and the conditions cited above are no different than the limits we live with in every other mode - including the sometimes infiltrated Mobius. I don't need perfection in order to believe it will be overall better.

 

[LeoBartlet]

To your actual broader question - will this solve for unintended bugs, consequences, and/or every single way to grief people? Of course not. There will be bugs (this is FD after all), there will be unintended loopholes that will take time to find and close, and just as with everything since the dawn of recorded civilization - soon as someone makes a better mouse trap, the inventive human mind starts to find better way to evade it.

Very similar to what a proper crime and punishment system would provide?

Given Frontiers reticence to provide a C&P to the game how likely do you think they would be willing to play constant hall monitor to a pve mode.

 

[Nemayn]

There is also here an easy way to deal with griefers in an open pve mode. You grief and get reported it your account simply gets locked out of open pve mode,obviously with investigations etc

 

[Robert Maynard]

Cant wait for the threads and polls asking for two separate galaxies for both pve and pvp if and when a pve mode is added.

Those threads have existed since players who prefer direct opposition in all things (i.e. not long after the game design was first published over four years ago).

Michael Brookes gave a characteristically terse (and unequivocal, in my opinion) to the question of separating the galaxy.

Some relevant quotes:

Spoiler

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

I’m also pleased to announce PC, Mac and Xbox One players will all share the same overarching narrative and galaxy state. That means even more players contributing to the wars, power struggles and Community Goals across the galaxy.

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

If Open were to be favoured with a galaxy state of its own then, logically (from the basic requirement to be able to directly oppose all other players in Open) each Open mode on each platform would require its own galaxy state....

 

[LeoBartlet]

There is also here an easy way to deal with griefers in an open pve mode. You grief and get reported it your account simply gets locked out of open pve mode,obviously with investigations etc

As my previous post mentioned that sounds like Frontier having to play constant hall monitor for one particular mode.

- - - Updated - - -

Those threads have existed since players who prefer direct opposition in all things (i.e. not long after the game design was first published over four years ago).

Michael Brookes gave a characteristically terse (and unequivocal, in my opinion) to the question of separating the galaxy.

Some relevant quotes:
If Open were to be favoured with a galaxy state of its own then, logically (from the basic requirement to be able to directly oppose all other players in Open) each Open mode on each platform would require its own galaxy state....

I was aware of Brookes pithy retorts to those asking for separate modes but if experience is anything to go by people will ask and ask and ask and ask.

 

[GluttonyFang]

To specifically ramming and other physical (non-weapons fire) collision based ways to grief people --> yes, whether through an extension of resistance/immunity with infinite cap, or simply adding the zero modifier to dmg calculation from collisions if player on player contact. How much work someone believes this involves I suppose is a can't win argument. Some will say minor, some will say major.

Granted its not in ED, but plenty of games have tutorial modes where various game mechanics are immune or limited as they teach the tutorial. If they can add this to a simple tutorial, I don't see open-pve safeguards to be a huge dev work.

The problem is that the issue is much more than just damage inflicting between players:

Kill stealing, advanced station griefing, advanced pad blocking. Cargo ramming, mineral ramming, blocking in general, I can think of several just off the top of my head. At least these issues you can more or less deal with currently by using brute force.

Kill stealing means conflict zone/RES/CNB, and we don't even know how is it going to work with powerplay with two opposing factions (shoot only NPC ships?). Right now if you're not in a wing, the kill goes to someone random that landed the last hit (from what I understand, but I'm certain it only goes to a single person). The worse thing is that devs went on record and stated that they want kill stealing to be a thing. You'd start resenting other players rather than wanting them to be there.

Cargo ramming/mineral ramming. This is self explanatory.

Advanced station griefing would be something like pinning down a ship to get docking infraction for being in inappropriate places, which will make the station open fire. Unless we throw the collision model out for player on player, which I don't even know how will that work or if the engine allows it even and if it's an immersion concession FD is willing to make.

Pad blocking will become a real issue and constant re-instancing means friends might have to log off and on just to get into an empty station to get serviced.

These are just things off the top of my head, and I haven't gone into details about mission target conflicts (exploding generators/mission cargo being scooped by someone else/mission target gets exploded by someone else)

Edit:

And these aren't even edge cases.

 

[jasonbarron]

As my previous post mentioned that sounds like Frontier having to play constant hall monitor for one particular mode.

And the very idea that people who play in this mode want to be monitored to keep them "safe" from the baddies makes me want to search for my roll of antacid.

 

[LeoBartlet]

And the very idea that people who play in this mode want to be monitored to keep them "safe" from the baddies makes me want to search for my roll of antacid.

I have no doubt many of them will retreat to the groups from whence they will all apparently come from.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I was aware of Brookes pithy retorts to those asking for separate modes but if experience is anything to go by people will ask and ask and ask and ask.

Indeed - ask they will, in the hope that Frontier will change one of the fundamental aspects of the single/multi-player game experience design.

 

[LeoBartlet]

Indeed - ask they will, in the hope that Frontier will change one of the fundamental aspects of the single/multi-player game experience design.

Frontier is no stranger in trying to please everyone and failing.

Lack of a C&P being a prime example of that.

 

[jacozilla]

Very similar to what a proper crime and punishment system would provide?

Given Frontiers reticence to provide a C&P to the game how likely do you think they would be willing to play constant hall monitor to a pve mode.

Yes and no. For some players it will be part yes/no, for some all yes, and for some like me - still all no.

2nd group - definitely sure that for some who currently play in Mobius, and would like open-pve, if such a thing as a truly 'good' C&P system existed, I believe they would move back to Open and see no need for Mobius and/or open-pve mode.

3rd group - no matter how good the C&P system is, the bottom line is that it will always be 'you can still do the crime' and then you'll face the 'punishment'. For many griefers, the joy of ruining someone's day will always be worth whatever the punishment - however horrendous and lop sided it may be to punish the griefer. So for many players, it doesn't matter how good the C&P system is if the crime part is still doable first.

Take Lineage 2 back when I played (years ago, no idea current state) - the murder penalty was so large you can be killed at will by anyone, and drop to the ground your own player loot / equipped gear that may have taken months to years of play to accumulate (very powerful weapons you need to craft, armor, etc). For just walking up and ganking someone, that griefer would turn red, be flagged as open loot piñata for anyone/everyone, and drop what in that game is a huge reward.

There was no 'sidewinder' kills in L2 back then, a griefer needed better arsenal than the avg player to kill them, so what they dropped was always worth taking. And yet hordes of griefers still existed, because it was a crime-then-punishment system, not immune-from-crime.

Re: FD reticence and hall monitor - can't read their minds but you asked my opinion so I'll give just that - an opinion, not saying I know as fact --> I believe the reason FD talks amongst themselves and decides 'we can wait on doing a pve mode' come s down to one single conclusion - 'well, they already have Mobius and that's a good enough Band-Aid for now'

If Mobius didn't exist, I think we'd have a pve mode already. Since it does, it allows FD to ignore or delay an actual pve mode. I've said it in a prior reply on this megathread somewhere - if it weren't for two filled to capacity Mobius groups already existing as partial relief valves, this balloon would have burst long ago.

Given the constant, steady growth of Mobius, whether it represents a majority or minority, reasonable people ought to be able to agree it is a pretty solid chunk of the player base, including obviously the many who play open but don't know about Mobius (just read the Mobius forums if you have access to it, read how many players join and first thing they say is 'omg, played ED for XX time and didn't even know about Mobius till now'.

So yes, I believe a proper C&P system will help for some, but in essence be another band aid for others. I don't think it will absolve the need for a true immunity mode, aka open-pve, for enough players that FD won't inevitably have to create that mode. Contentious debate aside, it's just a matter of time.