Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
More efficient in what sense - other than to attempt to keep as many PvE players as possible in the only game mode with an unlimited population?
Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.
- Thread starter CMDR Generic EventHandler
- Start date
More efficient in what sense - other than to attempt to keep as many PvE players as possible in the only game mode with an unlimited population?
I don't necessarily disagree with your points, and I always have respect for the way in which you argue your stance, but I don't see a problem with giving the 40,000+ players that have already chosen the nearest they can get to "Open PVE" an official alternative to it. They have already chosen not to play in Open, either for lack of desire to do so, or lack of a C&P system. Some of those may be tempted to engage in open if meaningful C&P changes were made, but I suspect the vast majority would stay.
There would most likely (in my opinion) be little change in the current open mode... you are only able to get steam stats and as such that means little, because those stats will not tell you what mode those players are in, furthermore those stats do not include people like myself on PC through the main client not steam nor does it include the mac users who are still on pre-horizons steam game modes... nor does it include xbox players although I will grant you that the console players are unable to interact with us PC / MAC players anyway.
So lets go with your 50 / 50 figure out of thin air... that would be equal to about 16K players in game, and of all the players, there would be a percentage in open, a percentage in solo and a percentage in PG...
The ones already in PG and solo would not be coming to open play anyway so an open PVE mode would not cause any issues for you with those players... It won't cause any issues on the consoles either if it was implemented across the board as we cannot interact with each other either... So then it will only be the current people who are playing in open who would prefer to play in a multiplayer PVE only environment but currently don't because either they do not know about the various PVE only private groups, or they do not know how to join groups like Mobius and don't want to play in solo so as a result end up playing in the current open mode under sufferance... Is that what you really want for the player base? For them to have to play under sufferance of forced PVP? How long before those players simply leave the game? How many 'negative' experiences do they suffer until they just up and quit?
Adding an open PVE mode is not segregation, as was clearly explained earlier in this thread on the use of the term segregation vs migration... It is not a lawsuit waiting to happen for false advertising, if anything it would be completely reinforcing the advertising of "playing your own way"
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
On the same page:
"FLY ALONE, OR WITH FRIENDS
Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous' vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy."
.... and, clicking the link:
"WINGS
FLY ALONE, OR WITH FRIENDS AS PART OF A WING
Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous' vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.
Whether you experience the open multi-player galaxy on your own or in a Wing where you can stay connected to a group of your buddies as you share in jointly-earned spoils, the connected galaxy delivers a constant source of new opportunities and people to play with and against.
In Solo play you can choose never meet another human player, yet the results of your actions still contribute to economy, politics and conflicts of the connected galaxy, and you experience the echoes of their activity."
I very much doubt that there would be grounds (IANAL) due to the simple fact that there has been the option for each player to self-segregate since the game was released.
Players who prey on other players (to spoil the latter's "fun") threaten Open - and have done so since the beginning.
Efficient in dealing with the need of both PvE and PvP.
PvP needs balanced mechanics and proper reward for player conflict.
PvE needs a varying and dynamic amount of environments to keep the interests of the player.
If we split them up into two modes, here's what going to happen:
PvP mode will require very strict balancing specifically for adversarial play between players, whereas PvE mode will look for interesting weapons with more one-sided effects since NPCs don't complain when players are OP without earning it.
PvP mode player will have even stronger cause to argue for a separate universe due to the competitive nature of PvP. PvE will likely ask the same as the two don't want to enter each others' modes.
PvP mode crime and punishment will be aimed at creating dynamics between players. PvE mode crime and punishment will be aimed at getting rid of "griefers."
PvP content will rely on exquisite mechanic balance and structured play, whereas PvE content will rely on constant new update to the environment (for other games it's mobs, dungeons, raids, etc).
Before I go any further, I think it's pretty obvious that it will literally double FD's work.
- - - Updated - - -
The problem is a PvE mode isn't the optimal solution as I've pointed out in this thread of the numerous exploits likely for "griefers" to take that is even more difficult to track and manage than combat logging. And even without griefing intentions, can cause player resentment toward one another. This includes and is not limited to (dev advocated) kill stealing, mission target stealing/disrupting, and so on.
I would rather work FD work on something that benefits PvP and PvE like crime and punishment.
Last edited:
Eh? I don't think it's that complicated. At all.
Leave Open in exactly the abysmal state it's in now - implementing a new C&P/Karma system would cover all modes...
A PvE-Open would just be like the Solo PvE game but with all game clients in that mode being able to connect to each other (geographical differences aside), but the players won't be able to shoot/destroy the other players - obviously there'll be things like ramming to take into account - but you could 'just' have a bit of code which says "IF in Open-PvE THEN <ramming/shooting/etc against some other player> has zero damage to hull/weapons/shield" - there's no really big set of new and complex rules to comprehend there - Player 1 could simply not do any damage to Player 2, only to NPC's. NPC's could do damage to a Player ship - exactly the same as in all modes anyway.
Remember - any new C&P/Karma system affects all modes (the modes merely being client connectivity levels) - so it doesn't matter if a proper C&P system is implemented, the game client doesn't care what mode you're in, in that case - the rules are all there. You could quite happily add a conditional in the game client whereby zero damage is caused by one player's ship to another player's ship - the game would tick on regardless.
Last edited:
Your bias in this argument isn't showing whatsoever.
And I already explained how the C&P system would be different. At least read the last few pages of this thread before replying.
Ugh... you just proved me right assuming that you didn't read the last few pages of this thread...
Omg... just flipping read the last few pages about why that wouldn't work.
It's not bias my friend. "Abysmal" in this context simply means the lack of any meaningful C&P and/or Karma system. Subtlety and context is lost on some people...
All I see is very much overthinking about this subject.
If Player 1 (and 2 and 3 and 4) are ramming and shooting at player N in an Open-PvE client connectivity mode, there will be zero damage to ship - simple as that.
This might be infuriating to those who would prefer there to be damage done, but they wouldn't be in the Open-PvE client connectivity mode in the first place, they'd be in bog standard Open connectivity mode.
What's the difference between that and everyone else being in Group or Solo in the first place? The rabid-PvP'ers are in Open and they already don't see those in Solo or Group client connectivity mode.
I don't think the game would need any changes to the damage model. Just the clearly defined rules for participation and consequences, both in game and out of game. So in game Crime and Punishment do need to be established, and can be implemented across game modes, and the out of game consequence for engaging in play styles against the spirit of the game mode also need to be established and followed through.
Any power discrepancy between ships in PVE really isn't an issue. It's not been in Mobius from what I can tell, so I don't see why it would suddenly become one now. The only issues would be other Troll players (pad hogging, etc. that Gluttony Fang has already suggested). I feel that those will tend towards annoyances, but some people will always find ways to grief others.
So when FD designs a C&P system who should it be for then since it clearly can't work for both PvP and PvE?
Oh, and try to remember that you were the one who said Open would be perfectly fine for PvEers once a proper C&P system was implemented..
For you it is to a challenge, that is a fair point, but not everyone has or desires your level of combat skill. Some of us, due to age and slowing reactions, will never have the level of skill you have and therefore to me and people like me, the AI in the game is a challenge and, I'm sad to say, that as I grow older and my reactions slow every more, the AI is set to become a lot more challenging.
Such is life.
You're talking about yourself, right?
Please re-read your own sentence over again.
Edit:
In case you don't get it and want to keep derailing the thread:
Logically the sentence contradicts itself.
Hah... I give up on believing people are willing to read without being coerced into doing it.
Stop jumping into the middle of a conversation without at least reading up the relevant context.
It's like attending a conference without reading the materials being presented at first, no wonder people get lost and start steering the conversation into the gutter.
You're lucky I'm sympathetic to a reasonable degree.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...to-this-game?p=4954002&viewfull=1#post4954002
Last edited:
Population is already segmented - merging Mobius groups into an official PVE mode/group would be only a "quality of life" change. If FD can remove the group size limitation, add some more administration tools and merge the groups, it would be probably the easiest solution.
I hope that FD will be able to create gradual PvP-PvE transition in a single mode with Crime&Punishment (+Insurance) changes. FD should promote player interaction, the tricky part is making all players want to interact...
Major part of the problem is marketing/perception - there is no believable middle ground with "warring galactic superpowers", we have "DayZ" and "Euro Truck Simulator".
I hope that FD will be able to create gradual PvP-PvE transition in a single mode with Crime&Punishment (+Insurance) changes. FD should promote player interaction, the tricky part is making all players want to interact...
Once again you miss the point and bring up your repetitive "you must use engineering" argument which, as has been mentioned before, does not satisfy the needs of many PvE players not to engage in any form of combat-PvP.
Hah... it's not that it wouldn't work, it's that when designed specifically for PvP and PvE, they take up too much resources than what FD has to spare. Please read my post again.
Edit:
And I've already explained why a PvE mode's specific C&P is an enormous investment that requires a lot of automated and manual work to maintain to keep "griefers" out.
Yes, I stand by that.
Last edited:
And what is dangerous to you is vastly different to what is dangerous for me. You are not me so how we rate the game is different. And your comments about a lawsuit is, to quote your own words, a straw man argument.
- - - Updated - - -
And you have also missed the point. Whilst you are correct in what you say, it does not address the desire of some PvE players not to engage ins any form of combat-PvP.
Hah... please drop the sniping, it's not helping. Read the context of my replies.
Here's the start of that conversation:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?p=4955660&viewfull=1#post4955660
Already got sniped once, it's a snipe within a snipe.
Last edited:
Calm yourself down - you'll give yourself a hernia
Y'know what? I couldn't care less about these issues you have highlighted.
Why? Because they happen in Open anyway.
By removing the ability for one or more Meta-De-Lances to directly blow up a non-apex-PvP-engineered ship, in a proposed Open-PvE client connectivity mode, that alone would be a vast improvement in the game. But let's examine the issues one by one anyway...
"Kill stealing" : goes on in Open client connectivity mode anyway.
"Cargo ramming/mineral ramming." : goes on in Open client connectivity mode anyway.
"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." : goes on in Open client connectivity mode anyway.
"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." : not entirely sure about this one and what you mean by it - are you saying that busy starports can get clogged with players? Happens in Open client connectivity mode anyway.
In a proposed Open-PvE client connectivity mode, someone's kill stealing your stuff, or pad blocking, or trying to cause the station to blow you up due to pad infractions - you'd simply go somewhere else - it's a big bubble out there. Anyone following you around the galaxy and constantly harassing you like that should in theory fall victim to the game's ToS.
In terms of Powerplay - which amounts to tokens being moved from A to B - well you could make Powerplay not playable in Open-PvE mode. I don't give a fig about Powerplay anyway so for me not being able to play something I don't play in the first place is no biggie.
Like I said - way too much over-thinking going on, when people forget that the different modes are basically nothing more than the same base game being played by the same game client, except with different degrees of client connectivity.
I have followed and read the entire thread, contrary to your opinion. And my comment is in context of your words in the post to which I replied and to the general tenor of your posts in this thread.
As for your snipping comment, check the source post to which I replied, there is no snipping, it is all in your imagination.
Last edited: