Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Robert Maynard]

It's pretty clear they haven't hired Mobius.

That's not what I asked for....

 

[excalibus]

my few cents worth on this topic...

The C&P system has been a joke ever since it was first designed... It is not granular enough to allow for both positive and negative actions to really affect how a commander behaves, it has no real long term history etc... the responses to crimes vary between being completely inadequate under the circumstances the crime was committed in to being total overkill for the crime committed... Sure some inroads where made with regards to friendly fire etc a long time ago...

The Open PVE mode is something that has been a definite need ever since Mobius reached capacity the first time... That coupled with much better group handling tools...

I suspect FDEV did not really expect so many people would end up joining Mobius...

I do believe it would give incentives to bring a reasonable number of players out of solo mode for their (misguided or otherwise) fear of the current open mode of play as well as the fear that if they are in mobius, rogue elements may infiltrate and by doing so destroy their fun in the game...

Like wise there is nothing actually wrong with PVP either... it can be a rush and exciting... even meeting other commanders comes with some trepidation at times... and that does add to the atmosphere of the game in my opinion...

Some of you will know that there have been many a long thread on this topic and that there have been a lot of possible solutions to some of the problems presented for managing a PVE environment.

I have been out in the black for the last 13 months or so and so have not been in the bubble in a long long time besides beta testing, so I guess I cannot comment on what the current state of the C & P is in the bubble as of today, but if it is anything like it was a year ago then it will be pretty basic and crappy in my eyes compared to what should be and what needs to be...

We need a fluid and responsive C&P system that scales / escalates to the criminal players actions, we need low sec anarchies to be dangerous places, while high sec core systems should be basically a place most criminals would not want to tread for fear of rapid responses...

There should be lasting effects for career criminal that go beyond suisidewinding....

'matched' PVP should be rewarded - by matched I do mean those that pvp for fun in similarly or having combat strength equality ships... Piracy should be a thing that is not dealt with as harshly as PKing should be...


As an aside... an Open PVE would most likely see all the PVE groups (there are more than just mobius out there) pretty much disband and enter that mode of play
Just some thoughts... with no aims other than bringing more diversity and fun to the game....

 

[JosiahD]

You'd need to mode check at every damage routine including those that register damage from ramming (which may be the same, I don't know). When the weapon/object is determined to have impacted the hit box additional checks would need to be made at that point, first the mode, then CZ (if required), then was it received from a player - at that point you can disregard it if required. But if all of that needs changing in multiple places the change/test workload goes up. Very doable but as the workload goes up so does the incidence of bugs normally.

Why a mode check - everyone in an open PvE mode would be in the same mode (and not even instanced with anyone in another mode) - no mode check required so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Check for a PvP flag I could understand but we're talking a separate instancing filter here (which is all the modes are) not a flag. Simple invincibility to any effect from another player (when logged in to an open PvE mode that is) is all that's required. The game already knows what's hitting what and what ships in an instance are player and NPC controlled - hence the different icons on the scanner and changes in hostility status on being attacked by ship A as opposed to ship B for example. Every damage routine would already be recognising who is hitting what within that instance.

 

[Alpha November]

Why a mode check - everyone in an open PvE mode would be in the same mode (and not even instanced with anyone in another mode) - no mode check required so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Check for a PvP flag I could understand but we're talking a separate instancing filter here not a flag. Simple invincibility to any effect from another player is all that's required. The game already knows what's hitting what and what ships in an instance are player and NPC controlled - hence the different icons on the scanner and changes in hostility status on being attacked by ship A as opposed to ship B for example. Every damage routine would already be recognising who is hitting what within that instance.

As you said, the mode is just an instancing filter. It just influences the network stack in the client saying if you'll 'see' other players or not and which other players you'll match with (and then communicating with the server to get those matches). I wouldn't expect any of the damage routines to check the mode setting at the moment because they don't need to. If you take a weapon hit from another ship (NPC or player) then it is registered. If you want to avoid that then the damage check routines will have to become 'mode aware'. Anyway, all of this is for FD to sort out. I just hope that they can provide an Open PvE at some point because I think the game needs it.

I do get the (perhaps unspoken) fear of the advocates of the current Open that it will be emptied but in the end I think that will be better for ED than where we are at the moment.

 

[Connor Caple]

Would love to see a pve only mode.

We would then really see how little pvpers matter in this game and what a small minority they really are. Once that was clear I think Fdev would have a better idea on what their focus should be.

/seconded

/repped

 

[JosiahD]

As you said, the mode is just an instancing filter. It just influences the network stack in the client saying if you'll 'see' other players or not and which other players you'll match with (and then communicating with the server to get those matches). I wouldn't expect any of the damage routines to check the mode setting at the moment because they don't need to. If you take a weapon hit from another ship (NPC or player) then it is registered. If you want to avoid that then the damage check routines will have to become 'mode aware'. Anyway, all of this is for FD to sort out. I just hope that they can provide an Open PvE at some point because I think the game needs it.

If that's the case though then this would already be happening between the existing modes would it not (at least between open and private)? So it would indeed need to be checking the mode already if your logic is correct (I think......).

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

You'd need to mode check at every damage routine including those that register damage from ramming (which may be the same, I don't know). When the weapon/object is determined to have impacted the hit box additional checks would need to be made at that point, first the mode, then CZ (if required), then was it received from a player - at that point you can disregard it if required. But if all of that needs changing in multiple places the change/test workload goes up. Very doable but as the workload goes up so does the incidence of bugs normally.

In short you're saying that if a PvE mode was implemented the most obvious thing to do is ignore damage originating from another player.

That might be possible by FD - and certainly go a long way to implemening a PvE mode - but sadly it's not going to happen. FD have said that they can't justify the coding aspect and subsequent ticket sorting / exploit fixing.

Personally they should just bite the bullet and do it - there's enough demand for one - or perhaps fix the group tools as what we have today is rather pants.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Isn't there a reporting mechanism to weed out such players though, and bans? That's supposedly fine for weeding out combat loggers and griefers in the present open mode so I see no reason why Frontier would not consider it sufficent to support/police an open PvE mode as well.

I don't know how effective the report system in ED is and how strict and how harsh FD punishes violations of their ToS. I just replied with the information I have from FD about this topic.

Speaking of bans and out-of-game punishment, the first thing FD needs to do is to make a crustal clear list of things that are allowed and what is considered "unwanted behavior". Banning players without them knowing that they did something wrong is bad for any game. Punishing some players and others not is equally bad for a game - it feels unfair and humans hate being treated unfairly.
It's not so easy as it might look at first glance - in my opinion.

We can come up with a lot of good ideas how an PvE mode could work, but in the end we don't know how FD works internally and how expensive (resources, time, money) implementing these ideas would be.

I would like a PvE mode. I think it would help the game and almost every player of this game. But that's just my opinion and I have no clue if FD can or how FD could implement something like a PvE mode.

 

[Alpha November]

If that's the case though then this would already be happening between the existing modes would it not (at least between open and private)? So it would indeed need to be checking the mode already if you're logic is correct.

They don't need to check now because instancing filters don't change the client, Mobius is PvE but only in a 'gentleman's agreement' sort of way. Mobius has the same client logic as Open, you can kill a player in Mobius as various naughty PvP players have proved. To make a real PvE mode you need to change the client to not register player-caused damage and not inform other players in the instance of said damage, at that point players are impervious to player-caused damage in the specific mode.

 

[JosiahD]

They don't need to check now because instancing filters don't change the client, Mobius is PvE but only in a 'gentleman's agreement' sort of way. Mobius has the same client logic as Open, you can kill a player in Mobius as various naughty PvP players have proved. To make a real PvE mode you need to change the client to not register player-caused damage and not inform other players in the instance of said damage, at that point players are impervious to player-caused damage in the specific mode.

True - well, as you said earlier, over to Frontier to sort out (if ever).

 

[Connor Caple]

I challenge FDEV to make an open pve, hell I would even be okay if it was on different servers so the moaning about affecting the BGS would be shut up, and let it run in competition to the open pvp we presently have.

Let them take metrics then and see where the money and true population lies and then let them give accordingly.

Ultima Online had an 'open' mode like ED in its early days and they lost lots of players, but the PvPers (gankers, griefers, pkers) insisted that the game was 'fair' with the crime and punishment system (which they all knew how to 'work around'.)

They created a new, parallel world called "Trammel" which was pure PvE only and the playerbase flocked to it so quickly that within 2 months 'Felucca' (the original 'open' mode) was almost completely empty.

I look forward to the same thing happening here.

 

[Alpha November]

In short you're saying that if a PvE mode was implemented the most obvious thing to do is ignore damage originating from another player.

That might be possible by FD - and certainly go a long way to implemening a PvE mode - but sadly it's not going to happen. FD have said that they can't justify the coding aspect and subsequent ticket sorting / exploit fixing.

Personally they should just bite the bullet and do it - there's enough demand for one - or perhaps fix the group tools as what we have today is rather pants.

I have heard (but don't know for sure) that various trainers/cheat tables were produced to alter the client to not propagate damage reports therefore making the player invulnerable (to NPCs as well as players) - this led to a rash of cheat reports and (probably) player bans. So, if a low- level code hack can do it there's no obvious reason FD can't do it as they have the actual source code - it is work for them, I don't know how much. Obviously programmer time costs real money.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In short you're saying that if a PvE mode was implemented the most obvious thing to do is ignore damage originating from another player.

That might be possible by FD - and certainly go a long way to implemening a PvE mode - but sadly it's not going to happen. FD have said that they can't justify the coding aspect and subsequent ticket sorting / exploit fixing.

Personally they should just bite the bullet and do it - there's enough demand for one - or perhaps fix the group tools as what we have today is rather pants.

I'd settle for a PvP-discouraged game mode, something like the following (which would not involve changing the damage model per se):

1) PvP damage / destruction fully reimbursed to the target (including all ship contents that would normally be lost on destruction), i.e. no financial penalty to being attacked / destroyed by another player;
2) PvP attackers kicked to Open on next instance change after the attack took place - length of suspension from Open-PvE dependent on previous transgressions; account based;
3) Heavy Pilots' Federation punitive division response to PvP attacker (near instant) - attacker either destroyed or changes instance - see 2);
4) Players cannot interdict players; if a player interdiction is attempted, interdictor drops to normal space (i.e. changes instance, goto 2)), interdictee sees "Interdiction Won";
5) Players cannot follow player wakes of any kind (unless in a wing);
6) Players cannot use hatch breakers on players - attempt to do so results in 2) and 3).

 

[JosiahD]

Ultima Online had an 'open' mode like ED in its early days and they lost lots of players, but the PvPers (gankers, griefers, pkers) insisted that the game was 'fair' with the crime and punishment system (which they all knew how to 'work around'.)

They created a new, parallel world called "Trammel" which was pure PvE only and the playerbase flocked to it so quickly that within 2 months 'Felucca' (the original 'open' mode) was almost completely empty.

I look forward to the same thing happening here.

I personally suspect this is the real reason Frontier are not keen on an open PvE mode - they know that the same will happen here if they do. Would it really be so bad if it did?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I have heard (but don't know for sure) that various trainers/cheat tables were produced to alter the client to not propagate damage reports therefore making the player invulnerable (to NPCs as well as players) - this led to a rash of cheat reports and (probably) player bans. So, if a low- level code hack can do it there's no obvious reason FD can't do it as they have the actual source code - it is work for them, I don't know how much. Obviously programmer time costs real money.

The reaon for this was that, and please help me contain my laughter here, Frontier thought that it would be a good idea to hold data about your commander client side. People examined the client and found this, produced trainers / hacks / etc and as a result they could fly around with impunity whilst the values in memory were reset or held at certain values. (LOOP --> Check memory location X for value Y --> If not Y reset to Y --> LOOP)

Frontier were informed of their mistake and moved some of the variables server side. (1 step closer to a P2S setup )

 

[Zieman]

I'd settle for a PvP-discouraged game mode, something like the following (which would not involve changing the damage model per se):

1) PvP damage / destruction fully reimbursed to the target (including all ship contents that would normally be lost on destruction), i.e. no financial penalty to being attacked / destroyed by another player;
2) PvP attackers kicked to Open on next instance change after the attack took place - length of suspension from Open-PvE dependent on previous transgressions; account based;
3) Heavy Pilots' Federation punitive division response to PvP attacker (near instant) - attacker either destroyed or changes instance - see 2);
4) Players cannot interdict players; if a player interdiction is attempted, interdictor drops to normal space (i.e. changes instance, goto 2)), interdictee sees "Interdiction Won";
5) Players cannot follow player wakes of any kind (unless in a wing);
6) Players cannot use hatch breakers on players - attempt to do so results in 2) and 3).

Like the idea, expect 6) - sneaky player piracy would spice things nicely, if done right. Oh, nevermind.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I'd settle for a PvP-discouraged game mode, something like the following (which would not involve changing the damage model per se):

1) PvP damage / destruction fully reimbursed to the target (including all ship contents that would normally be lost on destruction), i.e. no financial penalty to being attacked / destroyed by another player;
2) PvP attackers kicked to Open on next instance change after the attack took place - length of suspension from Open-PvE dependent on previous transgressions; account based;
3) Heavy Pilots' Federation punitive division response to PvP attacker (near instant) - attacker either destroyed or changes instance - see 2);
4) Players cannot interdict players; if a player interdiction is attempted, interdictor drops to normal space (i.e. changes instance, goto 2)), interdictee sees "Interdiction Won";
5) Players cannot follow player wakes of any kind (unless in a wing);
6) Players cannot use hatch breakers on players - attempt to do so results in 2) and 3).

Sure, nice ideas ( +1 v.rep - need to spread some about ) but that to me represents a lot of changes / code logic.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Ultima Online had an 'open' mode like ED in its early days and they lost lots of players, but the PvPers (gankers, griefers, pkers) insisted that the game was 'fair' with the crime and punishment system (which they all knew how to 'work around'.)

They created a new, parallel world called "Trammel" which was pure PvE only and the playerbase flocked to it so quickly that within 2 months 'Felucca' (the original 'open' mode) was almost completely empty.

I look forward to the same thing happening here.

That would be a sad thing to happen. Open Mode can be fun and interesting. It needs a lot of fixing and balancing (that would, in my opinion, be beneficial to all players not only those interested in PvP or Open Mode). FD certainly has a lot of work to do in the coming years.

I hope that if FD ever makes a PvE mode it would be an addition to Open Mode and not a substitute.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Like the idea, expect 6) - sneaky player piracy would spice things nicely, if done right. Oh, nevermind.

Sneaky player piracy would be PvP - and the target would be penalised if they retaliated - so, for me, 6) is required.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I hope that if FD ever makes a PvE mode it would be an addition to Open Mode and not a substitute.

I don't think that many have called for Open to be turned into a PvE mode (well, there have been some but usually in reaction to "remove Solo and Private Groups") - I would prefer to see another Open mode (that is permitted by the published design information in the FAQ) implemented for those who eschew PvP.