Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Robert Maynard]

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.

The fact that the majority of players do not engage in PvP might suggest that the "small minority" you mention is neither.

We'll see - Sandro confirmed that the pin hadn't been pulled on his "hand grenade" in the Collusion Piracy thread regarding an Open-play-bonus (to the Power only) for merits delivered. He also mentioned that hand grenades were dangerous....

DBOBE mentioned in a recent stream that something is in the works regarding encouraging players to play in Open (but it had to undergo further testing for exploit elimination) - this could be the karma system rather than any form of bonus, of course.

 

[Sugarat]

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.

Personally I don't believe the sample size of one poll (especially one on a less emotive subject) is a reasonable indicator either

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

If shame is what they felt - what had they done to feel that way?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Personally I don't believe the sample size of one poll (especially one on a less emotive subject) is a reasonable indicator either

Possibly not - however I'd be prepared to place a reasonable wager that it is.

 

[jasonbarron]

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 - - -



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

No they aren't. Just because a couple PvPers "lite" like myself are still holding on by our fingernails, we don't represent the PvP base. Those guys left and are nowhere to be seen other than the occasional remark here and there. Make no mistake: the forum's obsession with equivocating PvP with psychopathy enjoyed by the community and enforced by moderation has left this forum with no PvP voice other than a few stragglers here and there. And to be honest, I'm not even a PvPer, I'm just a guy who has played every aspect of this game front to back and doesn't believe in denigrating any playstyle, and who has just been willing to take up the PvP gauntlet as a means to improve, as well as defend CG's from the groups like SDC with whom I don't align ideologically but have a deep respect for nonetheless.

To me, the bad attitude towards PvPers on this forum is very disheartening. I can clearly see why top players such as CMDR Nitek followed the path they did.

@Robert, don't get smart with me. I didn't say they "felt" shame and you know it.

 

[MarkAusten]

Possibly not - however I'd be prepared to place a reasonable wager that it is.

I think he is referring to the "Why we hate you this christmas" thread found here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/317689-Why-we-hate-you-this-christmas

I could be wrong however.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To me, the bad attitude towards PvPers on this forum is very disheartening. I can clearly see why top players such as CMDR Nitek followed the path they did.

@Robert, don't get smart with me. I didn't say they "felt" shame and you know it.

If PvP players did not "bother" players who do not want to participate in interactions forced upon them by other players then I doubt that there'd be as much antipathy between the two groups.

If phrasing is ambiguous then it is likely to be interpreted in different ways than it is intended to be.

 

[Sugarat]

I think he is referring to the "Why we hate you this christmas" thread found here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/317689-Why-we-hate-you-this-christmas

I could be wrong however.

If the "he" you refer to is me.. then I have no idea what you are talking about..

 

[Ian Skippy]

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.

I dont think you quite understand the point I made. I am not saying killing other ships is a very effective BGS activity. I am saying any activity in Open is more dangerous, as it is simply identical to Solo but with added humans who may attack you. There is no denying it. So if you want to UA bomb a station, it is easier done in Solo. Espescially if you want to UA bomb a station where many cmdrs are based. You can say you dont like being shot by John who happens to work from that station. Thats cool. But if you want to be fully immune to John by going to Solo/PG, why should you be able to UA bomb his station? Why should you be able to start a civil war in a system John lives by murdering cops, without giving John a chance to stop you? Why should you be allowed to do anything to John without also giving him the chance to blow you up?

Here's why: because this special kind of PvE players want to have the influence others have of them to be minimized at their chosing, but want to stay as impactful on other people as much as they want. Which is being hypocritical. Which is why FD is thinking a lot more on how to reward people in Open, so more risk=more reward, rather than thinking of ways to give a small subset of the community an even weirder advantage.

As for statistics, I am surprised you even bring it up. Mobius has 30k members. Thats a miniscule percentage of the community anyway you look at it, even if 100% of them want whatever you want.

 

[frostypaw]

I have stated several times on the forum that it isn't and it's actually my 3rd. Anyway. Point being is that I am countering your point regarding combat logging rendering PvP being a solution to complex issue is comparatively worse than a PVE mode. But when in actuality FD takes action against combat logging more than it shows willingness to craft a PVE mode. Not to mention CL will be a big aspect of C&P no doubt with its controversial nature.

Indeed - and I have full respect for the efforts made by non English speakers - our language teaching here is terrible. None the less it's important for the non-english speakers to realise they may not have the right words for something or may not understand how something is coming across due to the language issues - I'd hope I'm considerate to others about it.

I would have thought them including a Private Group and Solo mode is a pretty extreme level of willingness to support PvE gameplay. Hoping that player action will solve griefing and c&p issues is cowboys&indians fantasy gameplay however as it assumes sufficient numbers of 'good guys' and a lot of luck with instancing and timing even if combat logging is stopped entirely.

More direct penalties are required.

 

[MarkAusten]

No they aren't. Just because a couple PvPers "lite" like myself are still holding on by our fingernails, we don't represent the PvP base. Those guys left and are nowhere to be seen other than the occasional remark here and there. Make no mistake: the forum's obsession with equivocating PvP with psychopathy enjoyed by the community and enforced by moderation has left this forum with no PvP voice other than a few stragglers here and there. And to be honest, I'm not even a PvPer, I'm just a guy who has played every aspect of this game front to back and doesn't believe in denigrating any playstyle, and who has just been willing to take up the PvP gauntlet as a means to improve, as well as defend CG's from the groups like SDC with whom I don't align ideologically but have a deep respect for nonetheless.

To me, the bad attitude towards PvPers on this forum is very disheartening. I can clearly see why top players such as CMDR Nitek followed the path they did.

@Robert, don't get smart with me. I didn't say they "felt" shame and you know it.

Nevertheless, having equivocally stated that he was going to leave and would encourage his group to leave, he was on the forum a day or two later and even started another thread as I recall. Forgive me for saying so, but I don't really see that as "hanging on by his fingertips".

However, my interpretation of events differs from yours. I don't have a dog in this show in that I don't give a tinkers damn about PvP vs PvE. I see a small, vociferous number of people from the combat PvP camp and a small vociferous number of players from the non-combat PvP camp arguing over stuff that is either around an unwitting different in the definition of PvP and PvE or an argument about something that is just not going to happen like one mode only.

Yes, there are others from both camps that chip in both for and against and there are unnecessary veiled insults levied from both sides as well as name calling, but it seems to be the same few from both sides arguing the same thing over and over and over, both misunderstanding what the other side is saying, either deliberately or otherwise.

As for your comment to RM, you are the one that used the term shamed. Someone who is shamed off the forum must feel shame to do so otherwise they would simply stay. I think you are wrong. There was no shame. He just threw in the towel, said "sod it, I'm leaving" and close the thread.

 

[GluttonyFang]

If PvP players did not "bother" players who do not want to participate in interactions forced upon them by other players then I doubt that there'd be as much antipathy between the two groups.

If phrasing is ambiguous then it is likely to be interpreted in different ways than it is intended to be.

While I will not start on the matter of moderator bias, I will say that the reason why there is close to no PVP voice on this forum is far from PVP players from being a minority.

People tend to get carried away by established moral values and forget what ED permits as a game. That is inevitable but can honestly be better managed.

Recently the forum is getting slightly better. But for any forum veteran like myself, we all know what really happened. It was inevitable due to circumstance, but happened nevertheless.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I dont think you quite understand the point I made. I am not saying killing other ships is a very effective BGS activity. I am saying any activity in Open is more dangerous, as it is simply identical to Solo but with added humans who may attack you. There is no denying it. So if you want to UA bomb a station, it is easier done in Solo. Espescially if you want to UA bomb a station where many cmdrs are based. You can say you dont like being shot by John who happens to work from that station. Thats cool. But if you want to be fully immune to John by going to Solo/PG, why should you be able to UA bomb his station? Why should you be able to start a civil war in a system John lives by murdering cops, without giving John a chance to stop you? Why should you be allowed to do anything to John without also giving him the chance to blow you up?

Taken over the whole galaxy, the average player density in Open is miniscule. Just taken over the bubble, it's still very small. So, while some activities in Open, in particular locations, may indeed be riskier, the average added risk (due to players) to a player in Open is not very much at all.

As to why should players affect the single shared galaxy state in Solo / Private Groups - because that's the way that Frontier designed the game - to be inclusive of all players, not just those who prefer to prefer to oppose every player action directly (and player actions in other modes can be opposed - just not directly).

 

[Ian Skippy]

If PvP players did not "bother" players who do not want to participate in interactions forced upon them by other players then I doubt that there'd be as much antipathy between the two groups.

If I were to tell you "If Muslims didnt bother murdering innocent people all the time, I am sure they wouldnt be discrimated again." would you consider that sound logic? Or would you say:"well, when you look at the number of terrorists versus the number of non-terrorist Muslims, surely its just a small subset who blow things up so we shouldnt' blame the rest for it."

Why is it okay to constantly discriminate 'pvp-players' and pretend they are all shameful, disgusting, noobkilling, 'content-creating' cowardly crumnorgles? Is it really that hard for you to understand pvp is a very valid playstyle, and many fantastic ED pilots had a lot of pvp fun among themselves? Why do you think it is perfectly fine to shame people who've done nothing wrong to nobody?

- - - Updated - - -

Taken over the whole galaxy, the average player density in Open is miniscule. Just taken over the bubble, it's still very small. So, while some activities in Open, in particular locations, may indeed be riskier, the average added risk (due to players) to a player in Open is not very much at all.

As to why should players affect the single shared galaxy state in Solo / Private Groups - because that's the way that Frontier designed the game - to be inclusive of all players, not just those who prefer to prefer to oppose every player action directly (and player actions in other modes can be opposed - just not directly).

Hahahaha!

Right. So these modes are how FD designed the game, and they should not be changed. Except they should change it, as that has been your point all along. And there should not be a reward for Open, because for the overwhelming majority of time there is pretty much no real added risk in Open, as the number of griefers versus number of systems is so small. Yet at the same time it is absolutely vital to have a pve-mode to protect the players against the virtually non-existent danger you dont want to reward people in Open for facing.

nice.

 

[Robert Maynard]

While I will not start on the matter of moderator bias, I will say that the reason why there is close to no PVP voice on this forum is far from PVP players from being a minority.

People tend to get carried away by established moral values and forget what ED permits as a game. That is inevitable but can honestly be better managed.

Recently the forum is getting slightly better. But for any forum veteran like myself, we all know what really happened. It was inevitable due to circumstance, but happened nevertheless.

"Moderator bias" implies bias in Moderation. Participation in threads means requires that the Moderator in question does not Moderate that thread - and is participating on an equal footing with any other user (and Moderators are volunteers drawn from the forum user-base) - and posts should remain compliant with the forum rules, as failure to do so has consequences.

Just becaose the game permits actions against other players does not mean that those targeted will find it "fun" - and when things are not "fun", in a game (and I would expect that most players play games for "fun"), then people may complain about them.

 

[MarkAusten]

I dont think you quite understand the point I made. I am not saying killing other ships is a very effective BGS activity. I am saying any activity in Open is more dangerous, as it is simply identical to Solo but with added humans who may attack you. There is no denying it. So if you want to UA bomb a station, it is easier done in Solo. Espescially if you want to UA bomb a station where many cmdrs are based. You can say you dont like being shot by John who happens to work from that station. Thats cool. But if you want to be fully immune to John by going to Solo/PG, why should you be able to UA bomb his station? Why should you be able to start a civil war in a system John lives by murdering cops, without giving John a chance to stop you? Why should you be allowed to do anything to John without also giving him the chance to blow you up?

Here's why: because this special kind of PvE players want to have the influence others have of them to be minimized at their chosing, but want to stay as impactful on other people as much as they want. Which is being hypocritical. Which is why FD is thinking a lot more on how to reward people in Open, so more risk=more reward, rather than thinking of ways to give a small subset of the community an even weirder advantage.

As for statistics, I am surprised you even bring it up. Mobius has 30k members. Thats a miniscule percentage of the community anyway you look at it, even if 100% of them want whatever you want.

I believe I did understand what you were saying, but I guess we will just have to agree to differ.

As for John, he can't blow me up and I can't blow him up, but he can easily counter whatever I do to affect the BGS by taking the required action in whatever mode in which he plays. So I think your argument about the BGS is moot.

As for the statistics, you have made the unwarranted assumption that it is only the 30k plus Mobius members that as asking for the Open PvE. We do not have the figures for player base and the breakdown by mode or platform. The only things we know for certain are that the majority of players do not indulge in PvP and that there are 30k plus players in Mobius. Just about anything else is heresay, supposition or guesswork.

 

[Ian Skippy]

As for your comment to RM, you are the one that used the term shamed. Someone who is shamed off the forum must feel shame to do so otherwise they would simply stay. I think you are wrong. There was no shame. He just threw in the towel, said "sod it, I'm leaving" and close the thread.

1) People constantly insult and try to shame PvP'ers
2) At some point they are fed up with a community that is thoroughly intollerant of others and leave.

Call it what you want.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I would have thought them including a Private Group and Solo mode is a pretty extreme level of willingness to support PvE gameplay. Hoping that player action will solve griefing and c&p issues is cowboys&indians fantasy gameplay however as it assumes sufficient numbers of 'good guys' and a lot of luck with instancing and timing even if combat logging is stopped entirely.

More direct penalties are required.

I see private and solo mode as the extent ED offers to accommodate pure PVE interests.

The reason why people don't come together to defend a common space is that there is no reason not motivation to do it. There are private and solo mode readily available to avoid the issue. Path of least resistance simply put. But when everyone does it, close to no one tries to maintain order in Open.

 

[MarkAusten]

If the "he" you refer to is me.. then I have no idea what you are talking about..

Sorry, I've got my replies mixed up. Apologies...

I meant to reply to this:

If shame is what they felt - what had they done to feel that way?

 

[Ian Skippy]

I believe I did understand what you were saying, but I guess we will just have to agree to differ.

As for John, he can't blow me up and I can't blow him up, but he can easily counter whatever I do to affect the BGS by taking the required action in whatever mode in which he plays. So I think your argument about the BGS is moot.

As for the statistics, you have made the unwarranted assumption that it is only the 30k plus Mobius members that as asking for the Open PvE. We do not have the figures for player base and the breakdown by mode or platform. The only things we know for certain are that the majority of players do not indulge in PvP and that there are 30k plus players in Mobius. Just about anything else is heresay, supposition or guesswork.

And thats the point: you want to force people to work the BGS in one way: spacetrucking-race with no risk or danger. Thats how some like it, so thats how everyone should do it. I play Open, I dont attack others, but I allow others to attack me to prevent me from whatever I am doing. That way everyone can work the BGS the way they want. Sure, I can be killed, so thats something I will have to deal with myself. Seems a lot more fair than demanding FD takes care of me and force John to start spacetrucking or lose his BGS. I dont want to do that to John, so I wont. And i wont pretend I am Johns content, or that I am helpless, or that I am forced to this or that, because I am not.

And sure. Mobius is currently +-2% of the community, but there has to be a silent majority somewhere hidden that will push it over 50%. You have nothing to back that up, but hey, it can be possible. When the stats are so incredibly clear, you have to come up with something to challenge it.