Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Shaamaan]

According to Mobius himself earlier on this thread, the first group is filled to capacity, the second stands at 13.5k and a third group is ready to go if the second fills up.

Thanks for clearing that up. I stand corrected. I still stand by my assessment that this is a lot of people and a lot of administrative overhead that shouldn't be needed.

Alas, they've been somewhat naive in this regard, because this is the first time they've released a multi-player game of this type, I suppose.

That's my thought as well. I always assumed the game developed as a primarily PvE game with PvP possible, but not the default go-to. Sadly it seems David and FD didn't foresee what kind of extremes some PvP players can go to. Perhaps they never played EVE?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I never understood the concept of that mentality. People are "content" of other people every second of their day, it's somehow not okay in a video game?

People don't require to be content for others when gaming - and Frontier, by their design that has player freedom (and inclusion, i.e. every player affects and experiences the single shared galaxy state) at its core, seem to have designed their game around it.

People generally don't have much choice to avoid RL "content" from other people - they certainly do in their choice of game / play-style.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Well let's see now. "Was never sold as a PvP game" is what was stated by David Braben. If that's true - and I don't expect Mr Braben would lie about that - then the implication is surely that "It was sold as a PvE game". Especially as a co-operative multi-player PvE game.

In fact D. Braben then went on to say:



To me this has always been the intent of FDEV.

Alas, they've been somewhat naive in this regard, because this is the first time they've released a multi-player game of this type, I suppose.

They failed to take into account that by trying to convert a game which was always single-player (Elite I, II, and III) into a multi-player game, simultaneously failing to put into place any kind of meaningful Crime & Punishment system, and failing to take into account that there will be a small but potent minority of rabid-PvP players, combined with some very confused messages, and rather dubious marketing to boot ("Or just hunt other players" for example - FDEV may have had the intent that this was meant in some naive and jolly bounty-hunter/pirate gameplay sense - unfortunately this has been used by these rabid-PvP-Pro-Bros as a justification for mindless and meaningless player killing in Open).

I see it as Braben showing a preference for PVE gameplay. But then he alone isn't making the game. Which I always default to the statement of ED being a sandbox of both PVE and PVP, and a proper crime and punishment will make that vision come true in the most pragmatic sense.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I see it as Braben showing a preference for PVE gameplay. But then he alone isn't making the game. Which I always default to the statement of ED being a sandbox of both PVE and PVP, and a proper crime and punishment will make that vision come true in the most pragmatic sense.

Maybe - and it might be that a revised C&P system / karma system may be the salvation of Open - or maybe not.

DBOBE did not rule out the implementation of an Open-PvE mode however.

 

[Shaamaan]

I never understood the concept of that mentality. People are "content" of other people every second of their day, it's somehow not okay in a video game?

Kind of. We use games to escape reality. As such, we want (in a general sense, of course) our gaming experience to be as much fun to us as possible. No one minds "being someones content" when it involves just "being" in the game and it doesn't involve any downsides. But when there's less fun to be had in it (because you're not getting blown up or ganked or whatever), then people want to put a stop to it.

Perhaps the wording is a bit misleading. It's not really about being content - it's always about being able to do fun things while avoiding those things which aren't fun (or are strictly UNfun). The point about being someones content comes with regards to certain subset of people who only have fun when they can cause misery to others (i.e. the proverbial gankers, to a lesser extent legitimate pirates*).

*- I'd wager that successfully pirating someone is likely more fun for the pirate than the one being robbed at gunpoint...

 

[GluttonyFang]

People don't require to be content for others when gaming - and Frontier, by their design that has player freedom (and inclusion, i.e. every player affects and experiences the single shared galaxy state) at its core, seem to have designed their game around it.

People generally don't have much choice to avoid RL "content" from other people - they certainly do in their choice of game / play-style.

I see that more as a single player mind set than a PVE one at large.

Edit:

Cooperation always carry element of competition and competition always lead to cooperation. So I never understood fully what this PVE PVP tension is about from a mentality perspective.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I never understood the concept of that mentality. People are "content" of other people every second of their day, it's somehow not okay in a video game?

Um.

I don't go walking down the street and seeing other human beings as my 'content'. They're just other human beings to me. I may be affected by the things they do inasmuch as having to not bump into them, for example, but treating them as 'content' is not what I think goes on in most people's heads.

The closest analogy I can find to griefing in real life, is I suppose mass shootings - of which there have been a few unfortunate incidences of such recently. But most of the time there's an actual, real-life manhunt. One such miscreant who did something real bad in Germany, was caught and shot in Italy. There was a real life consequence to his actions.

But here we have a game. Not real life. Something which is meant to be removing you from real life and which is meant to be enjoyable. So comparisons with real life and this game are a moot point other than there's meaningful consequences for being a miscreant in real life, and there are laughably little consequences for being a miscreant in this game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I see that more as a single player mind set than a PVE one at large.

Then we disagree - I see the fact that the game design permits more than one Open group (mode) where the rules of each can be different to accommodate different play-styles as a reason to hope that Frontier will implement a co-operative mode that discourages PvP (as the majority of players do not engage in PvP).

Players who don't want to be unwilling participants in adversarial interaction might quite like to be given the chance to play co-operatively with others in a game mode with an unlimited population - sadly, the only mode available to attempt that in is Open (at the moment).

 

[jasonbarron]

Um.

I don't go walking down the street and seeing other human beings as my 'content'. They're just other human beings to me. I may be affected by the things they do inasmuch as having to not bump into them, for example, but treating them as 'content' is not what I think goes on in most people's heads.

The closest analogy I can find to griefing in real life, is I suppose mass shootings - of which there have been a few unfortunate incidences of such recently. But most of the time there's an actual, real-life manhunt. One such miscreant who did something real bad in Germany, was caught and shot in Italy. There was a real life consequence to his actions.

But here we have a game. Not real life. Something which is meant to be removing you from real life and which is meant to be enjoyable. So comparisons with real life and this game are a moot point other than there's meaningful consequences for being a miscreant in real life, and there are laughably little consequences for being a miscreant in this game.

I don't think that is what GF meant, even if he opened the door inadvertently. Personally, this is a big problem for me when people equate ingame ganking/non consensual PvP with real life psychopathy.

 

[MarkAusten]

I never understood the concept of that mentality. People are "content" of other people every second of their day, it's somehow not okay in a video game?

I think that's a bit of an unrealistic argument. You don't do a whole heap of things in real life that you can do in Elite and trying to equate one with the other seems to be a bit nonsensical to me. However I would also point out that in real life people do not enjoy being unwilling content for other people. You can bet your sweet life that I'm going to be most upset if a group of people started bullying me, or adversely affecting me, my family or my property "just for fun", so I guess in that sense it is not so unreasonable after all.

Given the topic under discussion I would say that RM in correct is saying "Given that some players do not enjoy being unwilling content for other players, I can't see an end to it", especially that last bit.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't think that is what GG meant, even if he opened the door inadvertently. Personally, this is a big problem for me when people equate ingame ganking/non consensual PvP with real life psychopathy.

I expect that it stems from the perception by the targets that the attackers do not seem to care whether the targets want to enter into any form of interaction or whether the targets have any "fun" in the encounter - which can be perceived as the attackers having as a lack of empathy - which is a characteristic trait of the aforementioned condition.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I think that's a bit of an unrealistic argument. You don't do a whole heap of things in real life that you can do in Elite and trying to equate one with the other seems to be a bit nonsensical to me. However I would also point out that in real life people do not enjoy being unwilling content for other people. You can bet your sweet life that I'm going to be most upset if a group of people started bullying me, or adversely affecting me, my family or my property "just for fun", so I guess in that sense it is not so unreasonable after all.

Given the topic under discussion I would say that RM is correct is saying "Given that some players do not enjoy being unwilling content for other players, I can't see an end to it", especially that last bit.

But in the real world said risks are distributed and hidden behind the facade of civilization and morals which none of that are intrinsic. If I were to borrow Rousseau's words, it's just a giant trap. Nothing stops people from getting shot in plain daylight. Natural disasters aren't reversed because it killed people.

The parallel is there, just a matter of degree.

- - - Updated - - -

Then we disagree - I see the fact that the game design permits more than one Open group (mode) where the rules of each can be different to accommodate different play-styles as a reason to hope that Frontier will implement a co-operative mode that discourages PvP (as the majority of players do not engage in PvP).

Players who don't want to be unwilling participants in adversarial interaction might quite like to be given the chance to play co-operatively with others in a game mode with an unlimited population - sadly, the only mode available to attempt that in is Open (at the moment).

Very well.

 

[MarkAusten]

But in the real world said risks are distributed and hidden behind the facade of civilization and morals which none of that are intrinsic. If I were to borrow Rousseau's words, it's just a giant trap. Nothing stops people from getting shot in plain daylight. Natural disasters aren't reversed because it killed people.

The parallel is there, just a matter of degree.

Indeed so, but the point that was being made for this computer game is that "...some players do not enjoy..." and I think you can say that for real life as well. However, I think we are just a tad off topic at the moment.

 

[VR Lucian Arkright]

I think the "don't want to be other people's content" also comes as a response to certain players favourite euphemism "emergent content"

 

[Ian Skippy]

I've always found the "I dont want to be your content!" claim a bit of a dramaqueen thing. Its not as if you're being chained to a wall and tickled with ostrich feathers for a forthnight or anything. ED is inherently multiplayer. Even in Solo. No matter what or how you do it, you'll provide 'content' for other people. That can happen in many ways, some of them direct, some indirect. FD has given a very broad range of playstyles an impact, which means that everyone can fully disable 'direct content' while still influencing everyone else. And that something many here dont like to discuss very much. Suppose you dont want to be blown up by John for whatever reason you can go to solo. Fair enough. But why should you then be allowed to disable the services in Johns homestation?

Basically a small minority here demands FD to put a lot of effort into making sure they are not 'direct content' to others, while still reserving the right to influence others in their preferred way as much as they want. That strikes me as a bit unfair. If you dont want John to do something to you, leave John alone. In other words, get your own BGS. Which wont happen. Which in turn is why FD has been playing with a few different ways to reward players in Open more than PG/Solo. What that tells you? That Open is what the devs had in mind primarily, and that any catering to non-Open is fundamentally unfair because you dodge the risk and take the reward as much as you please. While clearly they wont disable Solo/PG ever (nor do I want them to), I dont quite see why non-Open players feel entitled to even more.

If I were you guys, I'd mentally prepare for the inevitable "Why do Open players get more impact on the BGS, so unfair!!!!" discussions, rather than "how to make Open-PvE mode". Because the first will happen, and the second wont.

 

[Sugarat]

You must have missed Mark Allen's recent confirmation of the oft speculated:

Mark Allen stating " we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP." doesn't necessarily equate to the majority of players wanting an open PvE mode tbf..

 

[jasonbarron]

I've always found the "I dont want to be your content!" claim a bit of a dramaqueen thing. Its not as if you're being chained to a wall and tickled with ostrich feathers for a forthnight or anything. ED is inherently multiplayer. Even in Solo. No matter what or how you do it, you'll provide 'content' for other people. That can happen in many ways, some of them direct, some indirect. FD has given a very broad range of playstyles an impact, which means that everyone can fully disable 'direct content' while still influencing everyone else. And that something many here dont like to discuss very much. Suppose you dont want to be blown up by John for whatever reason you can go to solo. Fair enough. But why should you then be allowed to disable the services in Johns homestation?

Basically a small minority here demands FD to put a lot of effort into making sure they are not 'direct content' to others, while still reserving the right to influence others in their preferred way as much as they want. That strikes me as a bit unfair. If you dont want John to do something to you, leave John alone. In other words, get your own BGS. Which wont happen. Which in turn is why FD has been playing with a few different ways to reward players in Open more than PG/Solo. What that tells you? That Open is what the devs had in mind primarily, and that any catering to non-Open is fundamentally unfair because you dodge the risk and take the reward as much as you please. While clearly they wont disable Solo/PG ever (nor do I want them to), I dont quite see why non-Open players feel entitled to even more.

If I were you guys, I'd mentally prepare for the inevitable "Why do Open players get more impact on the BGS, so unfair!!!!" discussions, rather than "how to make Open-PvE mode". Because the first will happen, and the second wont.

That sounds pretty fun, actually; where do I sign up for my ostrich feather tickle???

The rest of your post was pretty solid, too. Really, I feel like I don't even have to go to work on the forum today, you're doing all the heavy lifting. Sorry I can't give you more rep.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Mark Allen stating " we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP." doesn't necessarily equate to the majority of players wanting an open PvE mode tbf..

Not by itself - however any Forum poll on the topic suggests that a majority of those who voted would want an Open-PvE mode - and the forum polls regarding Instant vs. Delayed transfer were an accurate prediction of the result of the official off-site poll on the same topic.

 

[jasonbarron]

Not by itself - however any Forum poll on the topic suggests that a majority of those who voted would want an Open-PvE mode - and the forum polls regarding Instant vs. Delayed transfer were an accurate prediction of the result of the official off-site poll on the same topic.

Hmm, I think you guys did a pretty good job shaming the PvPers away from the forum, so no, I think I'll disagree on this point.

 

[MarkAusten]

I've always found the "I dont want to be your content!" claim a bit of a dramaqueen thing. Its not as if you're being chained to a wall and tickled with ostrich feathers for a forthnight or anything. ED is inherently multiplayer. Even in Solo. No matter what or how you do it, you'll provide 'content' for other people. That can happen in many ways, some of them direct, some indirect. FD has given a very broad range of playstyles an impact, which means that everyone can fully disable 'direct content' while still influencing everyone else. And that something many here dont like to discuss very much. Suppose you dont want to be blown up by John for whatever reason you can go to solo. Fair enough. But why should you then be allowed to disable the services in Johns homestation?

Basically a small minority here demands FD to put a lot of effort into making sure they are not 'direct content' to others, while still reserving the right to influence others in their preferred way as much as they want. That strikes me as a bit unfair. If you dont want John to do something to you, leave John alone. In other words, get your own BGS. Which wont happen. Which in turn is why FD has been playing with a few different ways to reward players in Open more than PG/Solo. What that tells you? That Open is what the devs had in mind primarily, and that any catering to non-Open is fundamentally unfair because you dodge the risk and take the reward as much as you please. While clearly they wont disable Solo/PG ever (nor do I want them to), I dont quite see why non-Open players feel entitled to even more.

If I were you guys, I'd mentally prepare for the inevitable "Why do Open players get more impact on the BGS, so unfair!!!!" discussions, rather than "how to make Open-PvE mode". Because the first will happen, and the second wont.

If I understand what has been said about the BGS and how to affect it, then combat PvP has the least effect on the BGS compared to PvE so that last bit of yours seems a bit odd. Granted that Combateers get to use combat as well as PvE methods to affect the BGS but since they cannot do both simultaneously they do not get to have more impact on the BGS just either the same or less.

You are fond of throwing out unsupported statistics and I'm going to question this time as well noting that you didn't reply to my last question on the use of unsupported statistics. Please justify the use of the term 'a small minority here demands...' . That seems to be an unwarranted assumption.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, I think you guys did a pretty good job shaming the PvPers away from the forum, so no, I think I'll disagree on this point.

Except that those PvPers are still on the forum and posting, so I didn't think they did.