Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is possible not to encounter other players who may seek to interdict / attack the player in Open - but not guaranteed. Simple, really.
Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.
- Thread starter CMDR Generic EventHandler
- Start date
It is possible not to encounter other players who may seek to interdict / attack the player in Open - but not guaranteed. Simple, really.
It is also possible to get bitten by a shark in the ocean. It is however exceedingly unlikely. Statistically, you are more likely to be killed by a bear or a pile of Sand.
Then you are playing a different game from me.
Go in open in a CG which involves trading and you'll have your pvp encounter.
I think Han_Zen asked for a proposal without new mechanics.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Doesn't really matter - for some it's too much.
That's where the water has been chummed.
To anyone arguing that a PvE mode would take a lot of development time here are the bare-bones rules for a PvE mode:
- weapons fire does not affect other players - this is already possible with Friend or Foe lasers, so minimal development effort required
- players "phase through" each other to avoid collisions - not in the game, but should hardly be a problem
Yes, the second point is bad for immersion, that's why it's a "bare-bones" proposal. Also both rules could optionally be lifted for CZ. I don't think implementing such a rule-set would require a lot of coding... A more "complete" PvE-mode experience would just see that the second point (i.e. collisions) being handled normally (as they are now) but without damage. This is about the only thing which isn't currently implemented in some other way.
- weapons fire does not affect other players - this is already possible with Friend or Foe lasers, so minimal development effort required
- players "phase through" each other to avoid collisions - not in the game, but should hardly be a problem
Yes, the second point is bad for immersion, that's why it's a "bare-bones" proposal. Also both rules could optionally be lifted for CZ. I don't think implementing such a rule-set would require a lot of coding... A more "complete" PvE-mode experience would just see that the second point (i.e. collisions) being handled normally (as they are now) but without damage. This is about the only thing which isn't currently implemented in some other way.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That he may have - I don't think that attempting to manually moderate such a mode would be a kind thing to suggest for volunteer moderators - the rule-handling could be automated:
Failed interdictions are nothing new - other than the fact that every player interdiction attempt on another player would fail - not a huge addition. Same with wake following / drops.
Yes, the suspension from the mode would be a new feature - however it was spoken of in the earliest design information - and as it would start at the next instance change, it would require a change to the matchmaking system to permit a mode change to Open when either dropping to normal space after attempting to interdict a player or jumping to SuperCruise / HyperDrive to avoid destruction after attacking a player.
Hatch breakers failing on player ships (if sent by players) is not a huge change either.
I suppose the only major change would be the "encouragement" to instance change / visit the rebuy screen (the heavy PF response to PvP attack).
Again, this is my opinion - other opinions will vary.
The 'forced mode change' would be a new mechanic. The 'get all your stuff back after dying' would be a new mechanic. The new 'super heavy PF response' is a new mechanic. Your entire idea is based around FD adding a bunch of new mechanics. I'm not judging, but when someone specifically asks for a proposal without new mechanics, you probably better of suggesting something that isnt fully dependent on new mechanics.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The 'forced mode change' would be a new mechanic. The 'get all your stuff back after dying' would be a new mechanic. The new 'super heavy PF response' is a new mechanic. Your entire idea is based around FD adding a bunch of new mechanics. I'm not judging, but when someone specifically asks for a proposal without new mechanics, you probably better of suggesting something that isnt fully dependent on new mechanics.
I explained previously that the fact that the game must store our ship state on every instance change must mean that the bare rebuy is based on the last stored state - with items that get lost on destruction removed. This means that the rebuy on PvP destruction would simply need to not remove those items and set the cost to zero.
Yes, the forced mode change would be "new" - but we instance change regularly - the only change would be that the target instance would be in a different mode (and the modes are merely filters as to which players one might meet).
I'm also fairly sure that a "heavy PF response" would not be too taxing an addition to the suite of Security response routines.
Again, just my opinion.
I would be fine with that solution too as long as it is official (FD backed) and visible and palyer unlimited and with at least a minimum active management the way that you can report players breaking the rules and action happens.
But I know that there are others who think it has to be made sure through the game mechanics.
I can get along with both solution. For my playstyle the rulest I almost like better because it gives more freedom and I do not Need 100% PvE safety but creating a distinct Open-PvE mode with 100% safe PvE mechanics in the menu is the more clean and proper solution to go which I asume will please more PvE Players and in the longer run will give less work and/or trouble for FD.
It would actually be interesting to know which one is more prefered by the most that call for an Open-PvE.
But it is also the question which one is better to do and maintain for FD.
But the OP was asking specifically for a PVE mode, which is quantifyably trolling Open since it's 99.997% PVE already. People who play Open looking for PVP have such a tough time finding any action, it's basically an insult to frustrated PVP people even to claim Open has "too much PVP" when it is almost impossible to find anyone to fight. You have to haunt CGs at the right hours and attack random people for no reason to have even a chance of a nightly brawl. So for me PVP doesn't even exist in Open.
The players who want to engage in PvP will stay, though, which means that finding a battle in Open PvP would be exactly as difficult as it is now unless you count killing an unwilling victim/new player as a battle.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
You've explained it perfectly: "You have to haunt CGs at the right hours and attack random people for no reason to have even a chance of a nightly brawl." - that confirms that there's a chance of PvP - therefore there's a chance that unwilling targets are chosen - targets that may benefit from an Open-PvE mode.
The point of Open isn't to be a gravestone to PVP. It's so that random people can have the possiblity to meet other random people who are likely but not guaranteed to be awesome. A few psychopath paths a year sprinkled in are like adding salt to the broth, bringing out the flavor. No psychos = tasteless gruel. And 100% psychos would just be a pile of salt.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In your opinion, of course - other opinions naturally vary.
It's not. You wouldn't cry wolf if that were the case. 99.997% you might have on mobius where the 0.003% are the ones that think it is cool to go in PG and break rules.
I see it this way Mobius is closer to the RL world. You can accidently and unlucky meet a Terrorist breakin the rule set not to kill humans. Where as in the Open Mode when you you to a public place CG you have an extrem unrealistic high chace much contrary to the RL that you will meet a large Group of psychopaths killing you for the lol or because that is the game as they see it which in a way is even true because thats how FD made the game.
It confirms only that Frontier hasn't figured C&P nor how to motivate healthy competition in centralized well advertised locations between willing participants. Both of these are vital to the future of the game, regardless of which mofe you play: PvE, PvP, Open, PG, and Solo.
And I already said there was a "chance". Calculated from my own PVP encounters with roughly 2000 hours in Open: it's 0.003%
Last edited:
Hmm, let me walk that back a little, because it wasn't non combat players and content that I was really speaking to, but rather the development time for a whole new mode, which I think is a crap idea.
No, bring on the non combat content says I; I would be happy as a clam to go back to Beagle Point if there were more meaningful exploration content & mechanics, for instance. Don't forget boys, in your rush to paint me with the bad 'ol PvPer who can't think past the pew pew because of his OCD, I'm Elite in Trade and Exploration as well as a member of the 65k LY's from Sol Club, so obviously I have a deep love for all aspects of the game
This "whole new mode" was mentioned in the ks info as was the fact that the various open modes could have different rules.
Thats the sort of promise that gets pve players to invest in the development rather than in a steam sale, wanna talk about risk?
What about the real money people risked to make this game a reality.
Im gonna get flamed but they made cqc for the pvpers to have balanced pvp without the rebuy and then they say its carp as there is nothing to lose.
I will back the addition of a cqc mode where you can take your big ships and have ten times the rebuy if pvpers stop objecting to a pve filter.
Shame dbobe already said in the 2.1 livestream a pve mode would be too much work as gankers would try to break it at every turn and it would be too much work.
Maybe run the pve mode like mobius, if someone gets reported for pvp they are flagged to be monitered if its shown to be deliberate by video evidence then shadow ban.
They said in the same ks info if enough complaints were made against a player they would/could be shadow banned.
All info thats been available for 4+ years s couple of years pre launch.
I still dont understand why people buy a gam with so many things they dont like in it.
Did eve close or something?