Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.
- Thread starter CMDR Generic EventHandler
- Start date
Gambling with a spin of the wheel, Robert.. The risk is in the gamble
http://images.techtimes.com/data/im...n-wednesday-night-at-10-pm-et-on-fx.gif?w=760
I'll gonna stay quiet here lol
The game will look at your combat rating and the ship you're in, and spawn NPCs appropriately - for example, I've never been attacked by a wing of NPC Deadly corvettes when I'm joyriding in my eagle, but I get pulled over by anacondas pretty often when I'm doing trading in my cutter. That is not the case with players, in fact some players will go out of their way to attack much weaker ships.
It actually depends, is the more correct answer. You're not wrong per se, just not including the entire context.
All true-random NPC spawns are based on your combat rank - and to what appears reasonable degree - your ship type. e.g. higher combat rank, higher chance of Deadly rank NPCs. Smaller ships generally get smaller npc opponents. Keyword is generally, not guaranteed but fairly consistent. In Python and Anaconda, you get Anaconda NPCs often enough ,but very rare even if your combat rank is high, when in an Asp.
However, mission specific NPCs are based upon the tier rank of the mission you took. Some missions only have random change NPC interdictions, but some missions - most notoriously the 'bring me back X item to this station' types - spawn pre-set NPCs. In the prior updates, the missions offered were hard tied to your mission type rank (e.g combat, trade, and explore missions were offered that matched or lower than your rank. You could not take an Elite trade delivery mission if you were lower Trade rank).
But with current game mechanic, all mission rank types are offered, it is up to the player to take on the harder level mission if they so choose. If you take the higher level missions on, and you get a mission type that spawns the email spam of 'hello player, NPC Bob has been sent against you, watch out' or the 'hello player, (2) NPC ships have been sent against you...' - then those NPCs are of the level range the mission rank is.
Which is where you get some players complaining where they have no basis to complain because they took the much higher level mission on but didn't realize it. They will take a high pilot rank mission, get the mission generated NPCs which also have the special super power that random NPCs don't - they auto follow you everywhere, infinite range. If you get one from Sothis while traveling 300 LY back, tough - you will have that Deadly npc forever until you kill him or evade each system you encounter him in.
These are the 'cheat' NPCs people sometimes talk about. The NPC in a ship that at max should jump half your LY range, yet somehow you high wake escaped away from him in your 40+ LY ship, arrive in the new system, and be greeted with the 'oh, there's the ship I was looking for evil laugh villain message from NPC Bob - the guy you just jumped away from with double the FSD range he should have - yet here he is, arrived ahead of you'.
Far as I am aware, some mission types never generate this mission-NPCs. Some always, and some fairly often. The ones that I know always generate them are the 'bring X back to here' types. You stack 5-10 of them, it is really good odds you'll have at least half that number spawn NPCs. So for 10 missions of that you could have a constant spam interdiction of 5 NPCs hounding you across all the systems you travel till you kill or arrive at your destination.
Yes, I was referring to randomly generated NPCs as opposed to mission specific ones, which as you say are tied to mission rank. However, for the point of discussion (open vs solo) "random encounter" NPCs are the closest type of NPC to other players. If the game had competing missions on the board, where if I take a mission then the game immediately spawns a competing mission using my rank, that would make open player encounters closer to mission-spawned encounters. And it would probably be amazing, but from comments by Sandro I suspect the ED mission system is not flexible enough to be able to generate those.
Depends if you ask a PvP or a PvE player!
"Come into my parlour" said the spider to the fly..
G
I dont think there should be an open pve mode. I'm sure this has been brought up before and refuted but on the slim chance it hasn't:
Wouldn't open pve subvert protection services? If I'm not mistaken, there's entire groups dedicated to protecting differently equipped players. I play mostly in solo but my goal has always been to get my Icourier into a position where I felt confident enough in open to go out and protect traders/miners/explorers (I'm no use to anyone dead) from npcs and other players alike (I don't suppose I'd do too hot against other players but I'd be happy to hold up an attacker long enough so others can make an escape).
I suppose instancing issues and a lack of in game mechanics supporting/rewarding this type of play tends to stifle this at the moment. Even still, I'd prefer to see the issues worked out rather than the advent of an entirely new mode which would absolutely kill an opportunity for different segments of the community to come together in a deep and collaborative way.
Wouldn't open pve subvert protection services? If I'm not mistaken, there's entire groups dedicated to protecting differently equipped players. I play mostly in solo but my goal has always been to get my Icourier into a position where I felt confident enough in open to go out and protect traders/miners/explorers (I'm no use to anyone dead) from npcs and other players alike (I don't suppose I'd do too hot against other players but I'd be happy to hold up an attacker long enough so others can make an escape).
I suppose instancing issues and a lack of in game mechanics supporting/rewarding this type of play tends to stifle this at the moment. Even still, I'd prefer to see the issues worked out rather than the advent of an entirely new mode which would absolutely kill an opportunity for different segments of the community to come together in a deep and collaborative way.
Last edited:
No more than group and solo affect those services now. Traders, miners and explorers who want to play with the possibility of PvP would presumably continue to play in Open PvP. In turn, traders et al who would enjoy open PvE are probably not currently playing in open.
I suppose that's true. I'm not presently involved in anything like I described, and therefore unable to have an educated discussion. Truthfully, I haven't put much thought into this beyond what I've already stated, but my knee jerk reaction is that an open pve would ultimately be bad for the game (don't kill me everyone please, I've more than disqualified my opinion).
On the other hand, if there were a proposal where open pve mode kept mostly the same game mechanics and regular open gained access to microjumps in supercruise, I'd be on the front lines fighting for the change.
The proposal has been made - first post on this thread. Basically the same thing as Solo, but with other people.
It's the stipulation in the part that comes after "and" that I'd actually be fighting for. I don't know if you saw through or ignored my ruse.
I am interested to hear thoughts on the full proposal though.
Last edited:
Not for those who want PvE without PvP.
the key arguments against an OPEN PVE mode have historically been based around misconceptions and ultimately fear...
Fear of less targets in the current OPEN mode
Fear of griefers infiltrating and circumventing a PVE mode
Fear of fracturing the player base further
Misconceptions of how easy it is to just increase the private group size threshold, something that FDEV has stated is hard capped at 20K and cannot be lifted due to technical issues on the back end infrastructure.
Misconceptions of how difficult it would be do code the rule set which in my opinion is a cop out because from the kickstarter FDEV claimed that there would be multiple modes where each could have completely different rule sets...
The whole way instancing works was brilliant in its simplicity and design on paper IMHO, but I do not think it has worked out quite as well in practice... The P2P nature of the networking does limit the number of people in the instance depending on the network speeds of those people connected to the instance... In the DWE, at Sag A* there was a massive number of players in a private groups instance, I think upwards of 100 players in the same instance... 2 factors come to mind there, the overall NPC traffic in the system (none) and the number of additional stellar bodies the client has to manage (also none) made this possible...
The way I see it, the key things that need working on are
1. better group management tools which include the ability to set and have the client enforce rule sets... (something that by design should have already be in the game)
2. A more granular approach to crime and punishment, with both good and bad deeds actually manipulating a players criminal status, with feedback for the player when they are manipulating this status. This will allow for a significant varying of the responses to a players actions depending on the situation where the actions are being performed.
3. Implement a system that allows for rule sets that where mentioned in the kickstarter to be possible.
On a side note, something that sticks in my head ever since the poll and discussion I proposed on this topic way back, that no one has mentioned here yet but is just as relevant now as it was then...
There are players who under no circumstances want to engage in hostilities with other players... wether it be due to mental health (PTSD for one comes to mine), to an inability to deal with the stress of 'killing' another player, to simply family friendly gameplay... (something frontier targetted when they went for their ESRB rating)
For those people wanting that type of game or suffering from those sorts of problems but want to fully enjoy the multiplayer aspect of the game, they are seriously missing out, those I have spoken with who have PTSD, are relegated to solo because of the fear that (as has happened previously) if they play in a PVE private group, the group will get infiltrated by griefers and they will then be forced to suffer the stresses associated with that... For some, it is not a question of fear of playing in open it is a fear of having to engage in hostility with other real human beings instead of just shooting up NPC's.
A lot of those I have spoken with, clearly miss the companionship and fun of actually being able to play with other people without that fear...
Just one other aspect for us all to consider...
Fear of less targets in the current OPEN mode
Fear of griefers infiltrating and circumventing a PVE mode
Fear of fracturing the player base further
Misconceptions of how easy it is to just increase the private group size threshold, something that FDEV has stated is hard capped at 20K and cannot be lifted due to technical issues on the back end infrastructure.
Misconceptions of how difficult it would be do code the rule set which in my opinion is a cop out because from the kickstarter FDEV claimed that there would be multiple modes where each could have completely different rule sets...
The whole way instancing works was brilliant in its simplicity and design on paper IMHO, but I do not think it has worked out quite as well in practice... The P2P nature of the networking does limit the number of people in the instance depending on the network speeds of those people connected to the instance... In the DWE, at Sag A* there was a massive number of players in a private groups instance, I think upwards of 100 players in the same instance... 2 factors come to mind there, the overall NPC traffic in the system (none) and the number of additional stellar bodies the client has to manage (also none) made this possible...
The way I see it, the key things that need working on are
1. better group management tools which include the ability to set and have the client enforce rule sets... (something that by design should have already be in the game)
2. A more granular approach to crime and punishment, with both good and bad deeds actually manipulating a players criminal status, with feedback for the player when they are manipulating this status. This will allow for a significant varying of the responses to a players actions depending on the situation where the actions are being performed.
3. Implement a system that allows for rule sets that where mentioned in the kickstarter to be possible.
On a side note, something that sticks in my head ever since the poll and discussion I proposed on this topic way back, that no one has mentioned here yet but is just as relevant now as it was then...
There are players who under no circumstances want to engage in hostilities with other players... wether it be due to mental health (PTSD for one comes to mine), to an inability to deal with the stress of 'killing' another player, to simply family friendly gameplay... (something frontier targetted when they went for their ESRB rating)
For those people wanting that type of game or suffering from those sorts of problems but want to fully enjoy the multiplayer aspect of the game, they are seriously missing out, those I have spoken with who have PTSD, are relegated to solo because of the fear that (as has happened previously) if they play in a PVE private group, the group will get infiltrated by griefers and they will then be forced to suffer the stresses associated with that... For some, it is not a question of fear of playing in open it is a fear of having to engage in hostility with other real human beings instead of just shooting up NPC's.
A lot of those I have spoken with, clearly miss the companionship and fun of actually being able to play with other people without that fear...
Just one other aspect for us all to consider...
Bollox my dear thread ignoring friend.
Being a part of Mobius or wanting an Open PvE has nothing to do with telling people who do like PvP they're wrong. They are just as right in choosing a mode that suits them. Forcing people who don't care about PvP to be exposed to PvP if they want to participate in an Open mode is telling those people they are wrong for not wanting PvP.
See what I did there? I made a statement and supported it with argumentation. Try it some time. It really helps your argument
Last edited:
I just don't see the point in an Open PVE mode. You've already got Mobius and Solo play. There really is zero point to adding a new mode.
I've seen several arguments for, and against it. I still don't see any point.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Then it does not sound like it would benefit you and, as there's no requirement to play in any mode, it could be safely ignored on the mode selection screen - however there are many others who would benefit from the existence of such a mode.
If the tables were turned and people who wanted pure PvE had open, while people who wanted the possibility of PvP were split among a few large and countless smaller groups, would you still not see any point in adding an open mode with the possibility of PvP?
