Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[VR Murgle]

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.

Dear Fang, you are far to clever by half; except nobody asked for a specific C&P for that PvE mode and doubt the people in the PvE mode will be more creative in finding ways to "grief" than the people in open so the solutions that work in Open should work just as well in a PvE mode. Unless of course you suggest a "free for all" Open to complement the PvE mode and if that's what you want I'm sure the PvPers can arrange their own punishment. (Someone blocking the mail slot? Open fire: problem solved. Pad hogging? Blow him up once he or she leaves the hangar.)


As for investment, the constant balancing that PvP will require is going to be a far bigger drain on developement time and will take away from the developement of PvE content.

 

[Weps]

Segregating at this point would be lawsuit for false advertising waiting to happen.

I think you are wrong on this one. The game creators cannot guarantee that their game will be successful and that a certain mode of play will have a population large enough to sustain mechanics, and a game world feeling, which themselves result from that population.

The lack of players in Open at this time is as much a consequence of FDEV's inability to create balanced PvP game mechanics, as it is a consequence of other game mode being in existence. You cannot prove, in an objective manner, that people are choosing a different game mode, because either a) that different game mode exists or b) because the game mode they are leaving sucks so bad.

I too used to believe that game modes were a bad idea... back in beta, when there were poll wars on the issue much like now... At this point I have simply stopped caring. FDEV needed the support of PvE players to get traction for the game back in the day, and we now have to live with the result: mechanics intended for an multiplayer-only game banging heads against a single player architecture. It is what it is, and I don't think it's ever going to change, unless Braben decides to screw everyone with a LEP and release Elite: Dangerous 2 lol.

So if a PvE only mode means that Mobius can finally play the game instead of managing group members, if it means some satisfied PvE players posting positive reviews on Steam for a change, then yeah.. why not? Who cares anymore. Back in Open, scumbags as you call them, will still be instanced with poor traders blowing their knickers off, while you're trying to find the same instance but the matchmaking server has other plans for you...

 

[Han_Zen]

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..

Open is perfectly fine for PvEers now. I play mostly in Open and have no issues with other commanders there. I does take a bit of situational awareness to avoid getting killed, but to me that is part of the fun.

Not all PvEers like this. That is perfectly fine and understandable. FD has made Private groups and and Solo for those that want limited or no interaction with other players.

The only problem I can see at the moment, is that Mobius is full. If FD raised the member limit, everyone should be happy.

I can't really see why people complain about being killed in open or complain about people choosing not to play in open.

C&P could use some love, but I hope it will make sense in game and not be some strange meta-C&P system for players only.

 

[VR Murgle]

Open is perfectly fine for PvEers now. I play mostly in Open and have no issues with other commanders there. I does take a bit of situational awareness to avoid getting killed, but to me that is part of the fun.

Not all PvEers like this. That is perfectly fine and understandable. FD has made Private groups and and Solo for those that want limited or no interaction with other players.

The only problem I can see at the moment, is that Mobius is full. If FD raised the member limit, everyone should be happy.

I can't really see why people complain about being killed in open or complain about people choosing not to play in open.

C&P could use some love, but I hope it will make sense in game and not be some strange meta-C&P system for players only.

No interaction? The whole idea of a PvE mode is to provide people with a way to interact without PvP and when you get right down to it PvP isn't all that different from the "interaction" you have with an NPC.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Either this:

Open is perfectly fine for PvEers now.

or this:

Not all PvEers like this.

.... not both.

Any polls on the topic of whether players want an Open-PvE mode suggest that more players want it than don't.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

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.

Just like Open, then?

Most of the "unwanted PvP" complaints in Open are for systems like Shinrarta, Deciat or the CGs where "go somewhere else" means missing out on something, so an Open-PvE mode which only kept you "safe" in systems without other players wouldn't have many advantages over the existing Open.

The advantage of a group like Mobius - or the other PvE private groups - over an "official PvE mode" is that the curator of the private group can very easily remove someone who is keeping to the technical letter of "no PvP" while utterly trashing the spirit of it, while Frontier cannot produce an automatable set of PvE rules with no loopholes outside of Solo. I think better group management tools for Mobius and groups like it - especially including delegation of membership editing to stop it being so much work for one person - would be a far more productive use of development time than making an attempt which will ultimately satisfy no-one except the more creative griefers.

 

[Han_Zen]

No interaction? The whole idea of a PvE mode is to provide people with a way to interact without PvP and when you get right down to it PvP isn't all that different from the "interaction" you have with an NPC.

Some people want no interaction. They play Solo.

Some people want interaction within certain limits(like not being killed by other commanders). They find or create a suitable private group to play in.

The system is dam near perfect. Anyone can make a group with exactly the rules they like. It does not take coding or balancing. It's every game mode you can think of for free.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

The only problem I can see at the moment, is that Mobius is full. If FD raised the member limit, everyone should be happy.

I think there's a technical limitation to the size of a group. Also, why should it be down to one single customer of FDEV's to run what is basically a limited form of Open-PvE? This is inherently unfair to the poor blighter who's having to arrange all of this.

I can't really see why people complain about being killed in open or complain about people choosing not to play in open.

The issue is that David Braben has repeatedly stated that his intention is more towards co-operative play in this game, and very much not towards competitive PvP shoot-em-up play in the main game. The frustration is because FDEV have, after more than two years since release, utterly failed to encourage the former and discourage the latter - whether that's by way of implementing a meaningful Crime & Punishment/Karma system, or otherwise.

Remember, David Braben is on record as saying "This game was never sold as a PvP game" - direct quote and I can give you the actual video of that if you wish.

Nevertheless, we have a vocal minority of FDEV's customers who want this game to be a PvP game.

C&P could use some love, but I hope it will make sense in game and not be some strange meta-C&P system for players only.

I'm waiting to see what convoluted and eccentric mess of a C&P/Karma system will arise, which tries in vain to cater for every play style in one Open connectivity mode. The game world in Elite: Dangerous and the way it's implemented so far makes for what must be a complete and utter programming nightmare.

 

[Han_Zen]

Either this:



or this:



.... not both.

Any polls on the topic of whether players want an Open-PvE mode suggest that more players want it than don't.

I don't mind Open-PvE mode, as long as it works like Mobius, where PKers are simply banned. What I worry about is an Open-PvE mode that introduces new game mechanics. That would take huge resources to balance. Everyone would have their own opinion on how it should work and every ganker in the galaxy would be there to find exploits.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't mind Open-PvE mode, as long as it works like Mobius, where PKers are simply banned. What I worry about is an Open-PvE mode that introduces new game mechanics. That would take huge resources to balance. Everyone would have their own opinion on how it should work and every ganker in the galaxy would be there to find exploits.

My preference would actually be along the same lines - a mode where PvP was possible but had no adverse effect on the target (i.e. full reimbursement of ship, cargo, data, etc.) - that would not necessitate any changes to the damage model - but would automatically suspend players who engaged in PvP (for a period determined by the "offence" and any previous offences, account based).

Simple changes could be made to the interdiction feature and wake dropping / following, i.e. all three would fail when attempted against players and would constitute an attempt to PvP).

I posted a more complete proposal previously - I'll need to dig it out again.

 

[excalibus]

Open is perfectly fine for PvEers now. I play mostly in Open and have no issues with other commanders there. I does take a bit of situational awareness to avoid getting killed, but to me that is part of the fun.

Not all PvEers like this. That is perfectly fine and understandable. FD has made Private groups and and Solo for those that want limited or no interaction with other players.

The only problem I can see at the moment, is that Mobius is full. If FD raised the member limit, everyone should be happy.

I can't really see why people complain about being killed in open or complain about people choosing not to play in open.

C&P could use some love, but I hope it will make sense in game and not be some strange meta-C&P system for players only.

Umm no FDEV cannot actually raise the limit of the number of members of a private group, it is a hard coded limit on the background architecture that the PG system uses... They have stated as much... What they did do was allow MOBIUS to be able to split into 2 groups and now from what I understand one of the two groups is full to capacity again, as the group has grown to >30K members and the single group max cap is 20K... this suggests that one of the 2 mobius groups has reached capacity again...


There are a myriad of reasons why some commanders cannot / will not enter open and the real and in some cases serious effects that PVP can have on some individuals suffering from certain issues should not be taken lightly either...

Remember something please, everyone, ED was never put forward as only a PVP game... for some, iteracting in a violent way with NPC's is perfectly acceptable while doing the same with another player can cause them some significant mental health problems... And those people who I have spoken with that are that way affected do want to be able to play with other people, just not in a way that enables PVP combat...

They either have to play in quite exclusive private groups or they have to play in solo only at this time and the majority do not trust PG because there is no hard coded ability to stop PVP in the modes...

If the PG system was modified to allow the group owners to select which types of interactions between players where possible and that system then forced the game clients to obey the selected groups options / rules then maybe we would have something for those players

- - - Updated - - -

Some people want no interaction. They play Solo.

Some people want interaction within certain limits(like not being killed by other commanders). They find or create a suitable private group to play in.

The system is dam near perfect. Anyone can make a group with exactly the rules they like. It does not take coding or balancing. It's every game mode you can think of for free.

actually it is not, because the group rules cannot and will not be enforced by the game client or by frontier

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Just like Open, then?

Just exactly like Open connectivity mode, because it's the same game. Note: each mode only differs in its connectivity to other game clients.

Most of the "unwanted PvP" complaints in Open

Hits the nail on the head - this is not meant to be a PvP-oriented game, it was never sold as a PvP-oriented game, yet there's a vocal minority of players who want it to be a PvP-oriented game, despite what we are being told by David Braben.

are for systems like Shinrarta, Deciat or the CGs where "go somewhere else" means missing out on something, so an Open-PvE mode which only kept you "safe" in systems without other players wouldn't have many advantages over the existing Open.

The fact that "unwanted PvP" goes on at Shinrarta Dezhra - a system where only those who have reached Elite in one of the three main careers can reach - goes on in the first place, seems utterly bizarre to me. A supposedly High Security system where there are suppose dto be lots of Elite pilots buzzing around, yet where station griefing, camping, and PvP interdictions go on unhindered, on a daily basis? Come on FDEV!

Deciat - where there's an RNGineer, and where players will go to play the Awesome RNGineer Wheel Of Fortune; it's another player choke point, which will of course attract the salt-mining players. It's nothing more than camping.

Every CG - yet another player choke point; station camping/griefing, pad blocking nonsense. 100% guaranteed to have.

The advantage of a group like Mobius - or the other PvE private groups - over an "official PvE mode" is that the curator of the private group can very easily remove someone who is keeping to the technical letter of "no PvP"

Why should one player have to administer a group with a membership of 20,000 players? Do you not see something very odd in FDEV not taking responsibility for the desires of those 20,000 players to want to be able to meet up with each other but without the boring predictability of a small group of rabid-PvP'ers trying to turn the game into some awful PvP shoot-em-up?

while utterly trashing the spirit of it, while Frontier cannot produce an automatable set of PvE rules with no loopholes outside of Solo.

Another one who doesn't understand the architecture of this game. Allow me to explain; it doesn't matter in which of the three client connectivity modes you start the game in - your game client is playing the exact same base game. With the same set of in-game rules (or currently sorely lacking, thereof).

"Solo", "Group", and "Open" are just names for three client connectivity modes.

I think better group management tools for Mobius and groups like it - especially including delegation of membership editing to stop it being so much work for one person - would be a far more productive use of development time than making an attempt which will ultimately satisfy no-one except the more creative griefers.

I think FDEV taking responsibility for their customers rather than leaving it up to one guy to handle not one but two groups each with 20,000 members, would be a far better thing to happen.

 

[GluttonyFang]

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.

Hah, ever came to your mind that current Open issue can be dealt with brute PvP if any of these issues arise? When we have automated system and manual inspection of report instead, imagine the workload. That's just for PVE mode.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Look, we both know what's going on here. You think you're being germane, I do too. I will let the readers judge instead of derailing.

 

[frostypaw]

lol sure brute force will work

we know this because we never see threads about how combat logging stops PvPer's from fighting the 'bad' PvPers and they're always saying how well their vigilante actions work in stopping all the trouble.

lol!

I think FDEV taking responsibility for their customers rather than leaving it up to one guy to handle not one but two groups each with 20,000 members, would be a far better thing to happen.

Frontier should worry about what happens when he has had enough and stops/leaves. They need an answer for that before it happens

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The fact that "unwanted PvP" goes on at Shinrarta Dezhra - a system where only those who have reached Elite in one of the three main careers can reach - goes on in the first place, seems utterly bizarre to me. A supposedly High Security system where there are suppose dto be lots of Elite pilots buzzing around, yet where station griefing, camping, and PvP interdictions go on unhindered, on a daily basis? Come on FDEV!

Deciat - where there's an RNGineer, and where players will go to play the Awesome RNGineer Wheel Of Fortune; it's another player choke point, which will of course attract the salt-mining players. It's nothing more than camping.

Every CG - yet another player choke point; station camping/griefing, pad blocking nonsense. 100% guaranteed to have.

Right - and your "open PvE" proposal (which allows all sorts of loopholes about station ramming, etc.) would solve these cases how?

Station griefing, incidentally, is a great illustration of why an automated PvE mode won't work - after all, from the game's point of view, it is responding entirely correctly and with full force to that bully of an Anaconda pilot who just rammed a shieldless Eagle to death in the no-fire-zone - and the current station ramming rules were brought in to stop just that sort of thing happening, of course. (And if you can propose a way that correctly and completely automates determination of fault in collisions, don't tell me - patent it and make real-world millions from selling it to insurance companies and the courts)

"Solo", "Group", and "Open" are just names for three client connectivity modes.

I think you're responding to a point entirely unrelated to the one I made there.

Or is your suggestion that "Open PvE" would be exactly like the current "Open" in that you can shoot/ram/etc other players to death (it's just a "client connectivity mode" and "same set of in-game rules"), but it would be Frontier Support rather than Mobius or another PG administrator who banned you from using that mode afterwards if you did?

I think FDEV taking responsibility for their customers rather than leaving it up to one guy to handle not one but two groups each with 20,000 members, would be a far better thing to happen.

What part of "better group management - especially including delegation of membership editing to stop it being so much work for one person" did you read as "Yes, it's great! Mobius having this massive membership hassle which only he can do is perfect."? Absolutely it shouldn't be on one person's shoulders!

I just think that letting Mobius get a team, and putting proper functionality for private group editing, would be both more straightforward in terms of limited development time and more likely to give satisfactory results than trying to automate the process through Frontier itself.

 

[excalibus]

Hah, ever came to your mind that current Open issue can be dealt with brute PvP if any of these issues arise? When we have automated system and manual inspection of report instead, imagine the workload. That's just for PVE mode.

yes it would add to support work load - if the pve players report the player 'griefing' them by push ramming etc... and indeed fdev would look at the telemetries.. and if they enforced the rules by very publicly permablocking a repeat offending griefer from the PVE mode, with a 6 month shadowban to the shadowban server, what affect do you consider that would have on the others considering doing the same thing?

Seriously though there needs to be some damning repercussions for those wanting to grief others in such a mode that completely removes the desire to do so in the first place... account banned to shadow server only... yes you can still technically play multiplayer with other shadowbanned players so therefore there is no potential lawsuits there... or simply have a very harsh TOS for that mode that can result in an account permaban from all modes... I would bet the first time a player gets completely banned from all modes except solo that will pretty much end most griefer aspirations...

 

[GluttonyFang]

Dear Fang, you are far to clever by half; except nobody asked for a specific C&P for that PvE mode and doubt the people in the PvE mode will be more creative in finding ways to "grief" than the people in open so the solutions that work in Open should work just as well in a PvE mode. Unless of course you suggest a "free for all" Open to complement the PvE mode and if that's what you want I'm sure the PvPers can arrange their own punishment. (Someone blocking the mail slot? Open fire: problem solved. Pad hogging? Blow him up once he or she leaves the hangar.)


As for investment, the constant balancing that PvP will require is going to be a far bigger drain on developement time and will take away from the developement of PvE content.

I already explained with my reply to Robert a few pages back. So you will have to understand that I won't repeat myself here.

- - - Updated - - -

yes it would add to support work load - if the pve players report the player 'griefing' them by push ramming etc... and indeed fdev would look at the telemetries.. and if they enforced the rules by very publicly permablocking a repeat offending griefer from the PVE mode, with a 6 month shadowban to the shadowban server, what affect do you consider that would have on the others considering doing the same thing?

Seriously though there needs to be some damning repercussions for those wanting to grief others in such a mode that completely removes the desire to do so in the first place... account banned to shadow server only... yes you can still technically play multiplayer with other shadowbanned players so therefore there is no potential lawsuits there... or simply have a very harsh TOS for that mode that can result in an account permaban from all modes... I would bet the first time a player gets completely banned from all modes except solo that will pretty much end most griefer aspirations...

While I have no mastery over computer network, I do have introductory knowledge. I don't think FD can do that for station griefing when damage is disabled.

 

[GluttonyFang]

lol sure brute force will work

we know this because we never see threads about how combat logging stops PvPer's from fighting the 'bad' PvPers and they're always saying how well their vigilante actions work in stopping all the trouble.

lol!

Funny enough FD take more action against CL than for PVE mode. Quite funny, and that CL is no doubt a giant item on C&P.

 

[Ian Skippy]

yes it would add to support work load - if the pve players report the player 'griefing' them by push ramming etc... and indeed fdev would look at the telemetries.. and if they enforced the rules by very publicly permablocking a repeat offending griefer from the PVE mode, with a 6 month shadowban to the shadowban server, what affect do you consider that would have on the others considering doing the same thing?

Seriously though there needs to be some damning repercussions for those wanting to grief others in such a mode that completely removes the desire to do so in the first place... account banned to shadow server only... yes you can still technically play multiplayer with other shadowbanned players so therefore there is no potential lawsuits there... or simply have a very harsh TOS for that mode that can result in an account permaban from all modes... I would bet the first time a player gets completely banned from all modes except solo that will pretty much end most griefer aspirations...

Fantastic idea, its basically how we got rid of combat logging! Hang on...

Small tip for the daydreamers: FD is not going to spend an outrageous amount of resources babysitting cmdrs in their little bubble. If there will ever be an Open PvE, which most likely will never happen, it needs to be automated. Which means all kinds of semi-griefing is possible. Which means Open PvE will become the default mode for griefers, because you know the plz-dont-grief-me-cmdrs always go ape when they got griefed.

As for 'what happens when Möbius stops?'

Someone will take over, or the small percentage of players in Möbius will have to find a different mode or group. Some part of that small percentage may quit, which is perfectly fine.

 

[frostypaw]

Funny enough FD take more action against CL than for PVE mode. Quite funny, and that CL is no doubt a giant item on C&P.

You're going to have to take a second shot at that fella, that's not parse-able English.