Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.
- Thread starter CMDR Generic EventHandler
- Start date
It's a bit more complex than a matchmaking toggle. It would need a new ruleset that turns off player-to-player weapon damage, collision detection (effectively "ghosting" through other players"), player-to-player cargo scanning and being able to land on a pad despite another player ship being there. Plus support and continual developmemt to deal with creative griefers who find loopholes (they will).
And that's why I'm not so hot on the idea.
Ah, but consider this: How much fun is it engaging someone who combat logs? Eh?
If there were two modes, those who have no interest in PvP would have no excuse to be in Vanilla Open since they have Open PvE. So the cop out: there be griefers in them thar mode, so Imma gonna fire ma task killing device apparatus is simply avoided. The issue stops being: do people combat log because of griefers or are they simply greedy or bad sports, since the griefer angle is no longer valid. Leaving only one option. Besides when griefers only can encounter those who don't mind PvP, their whole business model goes down the drain.
The players that would leave Vanilla Open are those who like random encounters but don't like PvP. What good are these players to you? They cause frustration when they log off, or post they've been shot.
Vanilla Open could also become a place were PvP events are held. Let the strength of PvP be the advertisement to draw people in.
Lastly and most importantly, Open PvE will never happen, so this is all just academic
Ah, but consider this: How much fun is it engaging someone who combat logs? Eh?
If there were two modes, those who have no interest in PvP would have no excuse to be in Vanilla Open since they have Open PvE. So the cop out: there be griefers in them thar mode, so Imma gonna fire ma task killing device apparatus is simply avoided. The issue stops being: do people combat log because of griefers or are they simply greedy or bad sports, since the griefer angle is no longer valid. Leaving only one option. Besides when griefers only can encounter those who don't mind PvP, their whole business model goes down the drain.
The players that would leave Vanilla Open are those who like random encounters but don't like PvP. What good are these players to you? They cause frustration when they log off, or post they've been shot.
Vanilla Open could also become a place were PvP events are held. Let the strength of PvP be the advertisement to draw people in.
Lastly and most importantly, Open PvE will never happen, so this is all just academic
Spot on.....except I don't agree open PvE will never happen. I think Frontier is rapidly approaching a point at which they'll have to replace Mobius with something managed by themselves - and the best option for a replacement, given the number of members involved, is undoubtedly an open PvE mode. As great as his efforts have been, I believe the Mobius private group is already untenable as an enduring solution and I believe it is only a matter of time before Frontier twigs to that too and will ultimately have little choice but to act. I could be wrong but I honestly can't see it continuing down the Mobius path forever.
Last edited:
Why spend money and resources on something when a member of the community is doing it for free ?
If he stopped doing it, kicked all members, and asked them to petition FD to sort their game out I can almost guarantee they would do it then ! :O
(That's my cynicism at play here ...)
what I am linking to is an old thread with a poll run some time ago...
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/231081
Towards the end of the thread some interesting ideas began to formulate as to how to best implement and enforce some of the PVE only options...
A lot of points of view where put across, and various arguements for and against debated... some misconceptions shot down etc...
A few highlights...
The misconception of fracturing the player base... The player base IS already fractured... across multiple groups and modes of play... an open PVE mode could actually reunite a significant part of the player base.
The misconception that the current open mode will die - consider it open PVE with PVP mode... There will be some (myself included) who do not mind the risk of PVP and interaction in a hostile way with other players... there will be those that actually seek it out too... will the number of commanders be lower? possibly, but the commanders there will not be shying away if there is an interaction to be had.... This has the benefit of reducing the actual griefing as griefers are typically bullies who like to persue targets that cannot fight back...
Robert Maynard come up with some brilliant ideas for how to manage the PVE mode which would require less in the way of coding and ruleset changes without completely removing the ability for PVP to occur in allowable locations, eg: when in combat zones for example... while giving significant penalties to those who try to do so outside of those zones without penalty to the victims of such acts...
Yes griefers will try to circumvent the rules, they already do anyway AND the game in under constant ongoing development so the arguement I have heard that FDEV put forward regarding not wanting to code such a mode due to the extra effort in coding fixes for griefer exploits seems to me to be pretty moot, the system should be designed to work in such a way that either there are no exploits or the ruleset modifications would not be so difficult to update....
just my opinion...
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/231081
Towards the end of the thread some interesting ideas began to formulate as to how to best implement and enforce some of the PVE only options...
A lot of points of view where put across, and various arguements for and against debated... some misconceptions shot down etc...
A few highlights...
The misconception of fracturing the player base... The player base IS already fractured... across multiple groups and modes of play... an open PVE mode could actually reunite a significant part of the player base.
The misconception that the current open mode will die - consider it open PVE with PVP mode... There will be some (myself included) who do not mind the risk of PVP and interaction in a hostile way with other players... there will be those that actually seek it out too... will the number of commanders be lower? possibly, but the commanders there will not be shying away if there is an interaction to be had.... This has the benefit of reducing the actual griefing as griefers are typically bullies who like to persue targets that cannot fight back...
Robert Maynard come up with some brilliant ideas for how to manage the PVE mode which would require less in the way of coding and ruleset changes without completely removing the ability for PVP to occur in allowable locations, eg: when in combat zones for example... while giving significant penalties to those who try to do so outside of those zones without penalty to the victims of such acts...
Yes griefers will try to circumvent the rules, they already do anyway AND the game in under constant ongoing development so the arguement I have heard that FDEV put forward regarding not wanting to code such a mode due to the extra effort in coding fixes for griefer exploits seems to me to be pretty moot, the system should be designed to work in such a way that either there are no exploits or the ruleset modifications would not be so difficult to update....
just my opinion...
Ah, but consider this: How much fun is it engaging someone who combat logs? Eh?
If there were two modes, those who have no interest in PvP would have no excuse to be in Vanilla Open since they have Open PvE. So the cop out: there be griefers in them thar mode, so Imma gonna fire ma task killing device apparatus is simply avoided. The issue stops being: do people combat log because of griefers or are they simply greedy or bad sports, since the griefer angle is no longer valid. Leaving only one option. Besides when griefers only can encounter those who don't mind PvP, their whole business model goes down the drain.
The players that would leave Vanilla Open are those who like random encounters but don't like PvP. What good are these players to you? They cause frustration when they log off, or post they've been shot.
Vanilla Open could also become a place were PvP events are held. Let the strength of PvP be the advertisement to draw people in.
Lastly and most importantly, Open PvE will never happen, so this is all just academic
I won't speak for anyone else's perspective, but in my anecdotal (I've conducted no formal study), situational (I don't shoot at people who aren't provoking me, though sometimes I have a short fuse), though still extensive (I've blown up, or made credible effort at blowing up, a very large number of CMDRs), most willful disconnectors, or combat loggers, I encounter aren't doing so because they feel forced into a PvP permissible environment against their will, it's because they've willfully chosen to participate in PvP scenarios and then realize that they have bitten off more than they can chew, or that they wish to harass people by wasting their time or 'greifing' without possibility of consequence.
Because a large portion of the combat I engage in is inside CZs, this is where I see most combat loggers. Because a large portion of combat I see outside of CZ is in self-defense this is where I also tend to see combat loggers. These people aren't in Open accidentally, or unwillingly, and cheating because they feel the system has wronged them by not giving them a better option, they're just hypocritical jerks.
For every person I have even shot at without apparent provocation (and this tiny minority usually explodes on the spot if they are in weak vessels, or jumps away otherwise), I have seen ten combat loggers who interdicted and then fired upon me first, or who were fighting in an Open CZ after having declared for the opposite side from the one I was on.
The solution to combat logging is to make the costs of doing so greater than the costs of losing any ship in any situation (I'd wipe the whole account, if a ban isn't practical), though only after an actual investigation, of course.
The solution to people not being able to play in the mode they like to play is to let them play the mode they like to play and I think the easiest, most practical, and most likely to fly with FDev, way for that to happen is to improve the current Private Group mode.
They may not be entirely unrelated problems, but they aren't the same either, and cannot be addressed as such.
Also, I hate PvP events. I don't want to have to climb into a ring to be at risk. I want to have to watch my back were ever I go and never feel safer than my own strength of arms, wit, and situational awareness, can enforce. Taking that fully combat fitted FDL to Sag A* wasn't pure novelty...I wouldn't have felt prepared enough in anything else and removing virtually all risk by switching to a different mode would have ruined the experience for me.
I enjoy having non-combatants around in Open because it fleshes out inhabited space and often leads to combat opportunity, even if I'm not pestering them. Oh, I have no compunctions about podding someone who gives me lip and can't back it up with fisticuffs, but more often than not, I'm helping non-offensive CMDRs, either against other CMDRs, or environmental hazards like crazy robot people in ships.
Last edited:
make Open PvE ONLy please.
Make the PvPers get private groups because they're a minority and ED shouldn't pander to them. No I don't care about their 'playstyle' any more.
I would add something humorous, but apparently that gets reported.
Make the PvPers get private groups because they're a minority and ED shouldn't pander to them. No I don't care about their 'playstyle' any more.
I would add something humorous, but apparently that gets reported.
400 mld of star systems, 200 ly cubic bubble
around 50-80 gankers. They are located on both hemispheres. They have limited time for game, work, school and families
It means around 10 active from 8 to 12 p.m. It means 3 wings.
They are in 2 star systems.
- Shinrarta dehzra
- some CG or some engineers. If they are on CG then they are not at engineer
Really 10 persons terrorised entire galaxy with all parrarel universes? If yes, then did better job than isis. isis terrorised only one planet. Good work CMDR's!
There is completely not needed any pve mode or pve flag. Problem is like a monster in shadow of children room. If you turn lights on, there is no monster.
around 50-80 gankers. They are located on both hemispheres. They have limited time for game, work, school and families
It means around 10 active from 8 to 12 p.m. It means 3 wings.
They are in 2 star systems.
- Shinrarta dehzra
- some CG or some engineers. If they are on CG then they are not at engineer
Really 10 persons terrorised entire galaxy with all parrarel universes? If yes, then did better job than isis. isis terrorised only one planet. Good work CMDR's!
There is completely not needed any pve mode or pve flag. Problem is like a monster in shadow of children room. If you turn lights on, there is no monster.
Last edited:
Your anecdotal evidence is still stronger than my hypothetical non-evidence.
But I feel that FD would have more leeway to crack down on combat logging once a viable alternative to Vanilla Open is presented.
Touchpad snafu resulted in my rant being cut short, but I edited in the rest of my spiel above.
Anyway, I don't disagree that there needs to be a viable alternative, but I feel the most pragmatic path to that is to improve what's already in place.
It's a trinity. The underlying game environment should make more sense, those who violate the rules should actually be punished, and those who want to play in a manner that the game claims to support should be able to do so with less hassle.
Last edited:
Agreed completely.
Only thing I'd add is I believe while inevitable, the timing of when depends and ranges from 'relatively soon' to 'years'. And primary factor to that timing is FD's belief of how much (or lack thereof) that continued sourness of open reduces (or has no impact for devils advocate sake) monetization of current and future revenue (ED and non-ED related releases, store purchases, etc)
The lack of Open as primary mode and popularity of solo if indeed that is the proven case (I assume it, but concede I'd have no way of knowing actual stats), would be trivial for FD themselves to know of course because they have the server stats. And if that is indeed the case, as a revenue driven company, FD would have to believe and/or see actual -linkage- between the popularity of solo/private groups and potential revenue before they are encouraged to act sooner vs later.
Which is why continued voice of threads like this are important. Would I have bought season 2 pass without open pve mode added? Yes, and I did. Will I buy season 3 pass without open pve mode added? ~50% probably not. Will I wait further than season 3? Definitely not.
So while my threshold for stopping revenue to FD has not yet been triggered - the sum of ED still holds more to me than the parts I dislike - the horizon (no pun) is definitely in view when my personal trigger would be pulled. Hopefully FD gets that is a growing sentiment and chooses to act sooner rather than later.
Elite Dangerous:
http://steamcharts.com/app/359320
And for comparison a game that has been pronounced clinicaly dead on May 2016
http://steamcharts.com/app/365590
(both games have steam / dedicated clients)
But yes , let's have 5 separate game modes, and force even more players to quit the game.
I'm sure nothing bad will happen to the game we all love.
If you think, that the change-of-heart in that window of time where Braben said on stream that "oh I don't think ED should be a PVP game, also Yoda should blink and Han Solo should shoot second", and then FD did a full 180 and are now vigorously derailing the entire development team to focus on improving PVP, is not a desperate firefighting attempt to cling to leaving players for dear life, you Sir are naive.
10 year development plan is cool and all that jazz, but in last 3 years statistics do not show a steady growth which any game so desperately needs to survive.
If nothing else, Mobius are the ones to blame, simply for refusing to play the game in the Open, and thus refusing to respect their fellow players and their decisions to be good guys or bad guys if they so desire.
Please, find it in your old crusty hearts to realize that exciting headlines such as "be a bad a** space cowboy" attracts more players than "play Mobius: Space Farmville"
Also do realize that you've been out of the open for so long, living in this ridiculous forum echo-chamber, that you are completely unaware that the boogie-man gankers are hard to come-by these days.
As an example, in the Christmas stream that I did, we made a group and went to CG to patrol and attack griefers, yet in hours of reloging (to force instance switch, which is a barrel of bees in its own right) we managed to have 2 encounters, lol
http://steamcharts.com/app/359320
And for comparison a game that has been pronounced clinicaly dead on May 2016
http://steamcharts.com/app/365590
(both games have steam / dedicated clients)
But yes , let's have 5 separate game modes, and force even more players to quit the game.
I'm sure nothing bad will happen to the game we all love.
If you think, that the change-of-heart in that window of time where Braben said on stream that "oh I don't think ED should be a PVP game, also Yoda should blink and Han Solo should shoot second", and then FD did a full 180 and are now vigorously derailing the entire development team to focus on improving PVP, is not a desperate firefighting attempt to cling to leaving players for dear life, you Sir are naive.
10 year development plan is cool and all that jazz, but in last 3 years statistics do not show a steady growth which any game so desperately needs to survive.
If nothing else, Mobius are the ones to blame, simply for refusing to play the game in the Open, and thus refusing to respect their fellow players and their decisions to be good guys or bad guys if they so desire.
Please, find it in your old crusty hearts to realize that exciting headlines such as "be a bad a** space cowboy" attracts more players than "play Mobius: Space Farmville"
Also do realize that you've been out of the open for so long, living in this ridiculous forum echo-chamber, that you are completely unaware that the boogie-man gankers are hard to come-by these days.
As an example, in the Christmas stream that I did, we made a group and went to CG to patrol and attack griefers, yet in hours of reloging (to force instance switch, which is a barrel of bees in its own right) we managed to have 2 encounters, lol
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Relevance of stats from a platform that disregards players that do not use that platform to launch the game?
Players that choose to attack other players and shout down complaints about the attacks with "git gud or go Solo" should perhaps reflect that this might not have been the best policy to use - as players have indeed gone out of Open - to play in one of the other game modes that Frontier had the foresight to include in the game from the outset.
Blaming players that don't enjoy being targets for the lack of targets is rather amusing (and sad).
If a player is enjoying their gaming in a mode other than Open - what business does anyone else have trying to tell them they're depriving others of content?
When all players start respecting the play-styles of other players then I expect that those players whose play-styles require other players may begin to earn some respect.
You know its funny, on my stream I got killed by a griefer and had to spend 50mil to rebuy a Corvette.
Yet, because I didn't go complain to the forums, nor tell him hes a sub-human scumbag, but instead messaged the player saying "well played, I sucked and you won fair and square"
All he did was message me "thank you".
We both then continued our separate ways, with nothing but upmost respect for one another.
But I assume if I verbally assaulted him, he would have also simply told me to "git gut"
And talking about statistics, show me another verifieble source.
I'm a man of science, therefore I believe only in hard, refutable evidence.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Your choice to stream in Open - them's the breaks when one advertises one's location.
.... also, "killed fair and square" implies that the attacker wasn't a griefer as does your reaction to the attack.
Frontier don't offer player statistics for their game - and players do not require to use Steam to launch the game, indeed XB1 players cannot....
Last edited:
I find your videos informative and entertaining. I won't change my opinion of that before and after my response.
However, aside from your video contributions, your response above is totally whack job crazy. You're blaming the victims instead of the perpetrators.
I agree population is declining. I agree more modes would fracture the existing player base. But what you don't seem to concede or understand is the fracture isn't a new thing, it's already here. Open PVE would simply shift players from the multiple fractures into a larger single fracture --> open pve. In that sense, it would reduce the current fracture. So what you're saying basically isn't that we'd get reduced fracturing overall, it is that we'd get more fracture of ONE current mode - the mode that bizarrely some players insist other players must play in, so they can have their lulz kill 'game content'.
So yes, this will further reduce the current open population, but based on your unhappy players = leaving = bad for game overall (which I completely agree with), that is already happening today based on relatively smaller band of griefers driving unhappy players away who don't know about Mobius as an alternative or declines private mediation when they feel FD should be the ones offering it.
Your base premise I agree with. Your conclusion is totally wrong.
Last note- the scarcity of being griefed, whether real or perceived, is that perceived threat is often as valid as real. Even if I agree that your example of hours of reclogging to only get 2 griefer encounters is the norm for all players, in all instances, in all play sessions, the strong perception that open is a cess pool by the just-often enough instances that keep that perception alive makes perception = reality.