Indeed. For some reason opponents of an open PvE mode often seem to be 'afraid' of losing players from the current open (to said open PvE) who have already left. Bizarre.
Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.
- Thread starter CMDR Generic EventHandler
- Start date
Indeed. For some reason opponents of an open PvE mode often seem to be 'afraid' of losing players from the current open (to said open PvE) who have already left. Bizarre.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That's actually a very good point - healing lasers have been around for a while....
My point: Either it's a real galaxy, complete with real danger and real intrigue, or it's a bubble bath with rubber duckies and floating baby blocks. There really is no middle ground here. Some people may be fine stealing candy from NPCs all day long, but that doesn't do it for me. I prefer having the potential for opponents that can actually do more than scratch my paint.
If there would actual scary NPCs in the game, fine. But we had those NPCs when 2.1 first rolled out, and a loud minority of people cried foul, or is it crying fowl? Idk. Either way, all that is left now in the way of a challenge is other humans. I don't seek them out. But simply knowing they exist and can actually threaten my ship is enough reason for me to believe the galaxy is "real". Without that element of reality, the whole illusion of being in a futuristic space-faring galaxy falls apart like a house of cards.
Last edited:
The first thread starts off with someone stating they don't like getting blown up by players (pirates included). No insults are made, except in the direction of the proverbial "psycho killers". The literal first response is for the OP to "stay <ahem> away from open". That's... Not a good example of your point, now is it?
The second is about CODE, a group which, AFAIK, tries to justify blowing everything in sight by claiming its for RP purposes (the old "I'm role-playing a psycho" argument with a twist). So, it's aimed at people who seek anyone as their target, not just other PvPers. Again, it seems like there's a group of PvPers who seek out the challenge of fighting other PvPers, and no one minds those people. But CODE aren't that group.
Again, friend-or-foe weapons exist in game. No significant dev time is required. Players phasing through each other, the simplest way MMOs deal with player collisions, is likely very simple to implement (yes, I'm aware that's ugly, but if people feel it's a feature that would waste precious dev time then I need to point out that the simplest mechanical solutions would work just as well for this purpose).
Last edited by a moderator:
Currently dying on ED has low impact with a 95% insurance, so what about lowering that figure if you are a wanted target? So these possibilites come to mind:
- You get killed by a pirate: Bad luck, but you have a 95% insurance
- You are a Wanted target and get killed, no one wants to "insure" you, 0-10% insurance range maybe?
- Pay your debt with the society! It says it all, you get killed, you have low insurance as the previous point and also authorities get paid (a seizure on your funds), no more "dormant bounty". Also some of this money could go to the victims.
So if you are a baddas <ahem> with 300 millions on bountys you are going to bite the dust when you are caught, start a new life (clean) with your sidey...
This could be balanced in some way, maybe not 100% of bounty are collected, or your credit can go below a certain percentage or fixed amount (10 or 20 millions? don't know)
- You get killed by a pirate: Bad luck, but you have a 95% insurance
- You are a Wanted target and get killed, no one wants to "insure" you, 0-10% insurance range maybe?
- Pay your debt with the society! It says it all, you get killed, you have low insurance as the previous point and also authorities get paid (a seizure on your funds), no more "dormant bounty". Also some of this money could go to the victims.
So if you are a baddas <ahem> with 300 millions on bountys you are going to bite the dust when you are caught, start a new life (clean) with your sidey...
This could be balanced in some way, maybe not 100% of bounty are collected, or your credit can go below a certain percentage or fixed amount (10 or 20 millions? don't know)
Last edited by a moderator:
You should be, I am a werecarebear.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The only way this would ever come is if the modes are restricted to the ones who play it.
You want PvE? Fine, but you can't log in PvP with your PvE earned stuff.
Different servers would be needed, PvE people shouldn't influence the PvP server and vice-versa.
Different servers were a solution for other games aswell. Sure, this would mean a segregation for players and i'm not sure if Fdevs wants it.
You want PvE? Fine, but you can't log in PvP with your PvE earned stuff.
Different servers would be needed, PvE people shouldn't influence the PvP server and vice-versa.
Different servers were a solution for other games aswell. Sure, this would mean a segregation for players and i'm not sure if Fdevs wants it.
Okay, your game played your way. Fine with that since I play my game my way.
Agreed about the NPC, however, they are just a tad tame and since I rarely combat and can beat NPCs I'll bet for you they are tedious beyond belief.
"Shareholders" is an irrelevant argument - DBOBE holds 51%+ to be able to dictate the direction.
It's also obvious that EVA / Atmos Landing will take priority (sadly) as it will be chargeable DLC and thus income/profit, and not a freebie that PvE-mode would be.
It would be most helpful though if FD actually stated what ED was trying to be and the direction they wanted to take the game as a "jack of all trades" is indeed master of none !
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That's not the way that Frontier designed the game - they consciously implemented the single shared galaxy state such that every player experiences and affects it, regardless of game mode or platform.
Michael gave a simple, unqualified, "no" in response to the suggestion that Open should have a separate galaxy state all of its own.
.... and, with the advent of the XB1 (and pending PS4) release, that would be two more Open modes that would share a galaxy state dedicated to Open - unless the suggestion is that each platform should have its own Open galaxy state?
Save your breath, wolfie. There's none so blind as won't see.
And before anyone else jumps on me, GF himself can tell you I'm NOT a PvPer, unless somebody decides they are going to make me one, then its time to deploy the hardpoints.
But seriously, GF. Aint you got better things to do? There's 400 billion star systems out there and most of them have planets.. and those planets have a LOT of satellites to howl at...
It's what I've been doing actually .-.
I feel more like an explorer than a pirate most of these days...
Sad state of affairs if you ask me ...
Lmao, first post piracy was equated directly with griefing.
Second post is baseless accusation and group name and shame which is against forum rules.
Hah, bring evidence for your accusation against The Code then we'll talk, I'm the Ambassador, I know my stuff, but it appears you don't.
Ah ignoring what I said, okay.
This topic has been ongoing throughout the development cycle of the game (at least since I joined back a couple of months prior to release) so noo I do not think the PVE players have shamed the PVP players away from the forums at all.. I am sure there are many from both play styles that have come and gone Heck I took about a 9 month break from the forums due to discontent with how the forums appeared to me to be going downhill from what they used to be when I first joined them, you can read that as I got sick and tired of the belittling and so forth that was occuring when trying to have a rational discussion...
That is a fair statement, it is also equally fair to take away from that statement, that the majority of players are PVE centric and may well appreciate the ability to play in a readily accessible multiplayer PVE mode with other PVE centric players...
Personally I don't believe the sample size of one poll (especially one on a less emotive subject) is a reasonable indicator either
Granted, but there have been many many polls on this particular subject and every time it has ended in indicating those who participated where favour of PVE MODE. I ran a poll that was open for a month, over 1100 respondants... and 55% in favour to 45% not in favour, that was over a year ago now... and that was simply a poll and thread to discuss the OPTION of an OPEN PVE mode on the desktop client.
And there is NO PVP without the PVP player engaging in PVE, this is one fact I know we can agree on/ So it stands to reason that in your example situation, the PVP player would do things in his mode to affect the BGS... Infliltrating the PVE players mode to exact PVP justice (such as happened in Mobius by SDC) is simply something that should not be able to happen... Due to the fact that for the PVP player to keep his system in the state he wants, he/she typically will need the play the BGS anyway even if there is no other players actively competing with him in another mode... There is no avoiding that and it is indeed intended gameplay...
Except that as part of the actual kickstarter, they stated that there would be different open modes of play with different rule sets being possible to cater for different play styles, as well as the ability to play solo or in small groups with your friends...
I think it is safe to state that Mobius is not a small group in so far as the original intent of group mode , and in fact has not been a small group for some time... Wouldn't you agree? I mean the US group (if I am not mistaken) is full to capacity for a second time, and the EU group is at 13.5K memebership, I am going to guess that new players who want to join Mobius will be simply added to the EU group until that reaches capacity and then the third group will get utilised...
Some minor issues with this (the reason the them creating 2 country based groups on the capacity first split) is that there will be issues with players from say the US not seeing many others in the EU group due to time zone differences... Further to that, the group as a whole can not play together, in the one 'group' due to the hard cap built into the group system.
Of course the reverse is never true is it... I mean no one ever insults a PVE player do they, PVE players don't get sick and tired of stupid names like rainbow mode, safe zone, etc etc, of course not... For some, the NPCS are dangerous enough to make their game a challenge whilst still being fun, and not without risks... But of course 'git gud' is never meant as a relative term is it, perhaps they did 'git gud' and do continue to 'git gud' against the NPC's whilst still not wanting to play against other players but DO want to play with other players...
I'm willing to bet both of you guys are the majority. Honestly, I think this whole discussion about Open PvE is silly. Not only isn't it necasarry for what I believe is the majority of players, it would be a fabulous waste of the developers time. I have other problems with it besides that, but as far as I'm concerned wasting dev tim is a pretty big issue.
What needs to be under serious discussion is a proper C&P system that adds to gameplay, giving non confrontational types some much needed relief while at the same time giving the PvPers something better to do; in other words, a system that ADDS to the game, as opposed to something being taken away. If you look at 99% of the ganker/griefer complaints re: PvP it's always at either a CG or an engineering base--simply denying docking privilidges to murderers in those systems for a set amount of time by itself would ameliorate most of the pressure being felt.
And a news flash for all of you Open PvE proponents (not aimed at the two of you I quoted
And i think the whole we are PVP, we are uber, engineer up or die, sort of statements that some PVP players put forward as rationales are a total waste of time. We can both agree that the C&P system needs a total overhaul, there needs to be significant work done both to make it more dynamic and responsive as well as somewhat more realistic in the responses (within the lore of the game) and needs to actually be based on a commanders actions and a history of their actions taken into account...
So yes much discussion needs to be had on that for sure and I think all players will benefit from it, I do not believe however it will give those that want to play in a PVE only environment the incentive to come out of solo or the current private groups dedicated to PVE and back into the current mixed mode open...
Unless you live where I live, in which case, going for a swim means there is an exceedingly high risk of shark attack...
The Australian Shark Attack File (ASAF) investigated 33 reported incidents of shark-human interaction within Australian waters occurring between 1st Jan to 31st Dec 2015. Upon review, 22 of these incidents represent confirmed cases of unprovoked shark attacks. The number of unprovoked cases in 2015 is above the 11 unprovoked encounters recorded in 2014 and is above the decadal average of 13 unprovoked cases per year.
And when you consider our population size, and the fact there are no bears here (besides drop bears and koala bears) hiding in the sand, I think your analogy is quite flawed... The chances are definitley below 1 in a million, maybe 1 in 600,000 or so, and that is with active shark defenses, and patrol planes etc, this of course does not include the beach closures due to shark presence etc... here in the town I live, typically up to 1/8th of the public beaches get closed for a few days either side of shark sightings each year, let alone the other beaches around the country, we even have actively patrolled shark proof netted bays that sharks sometimes get through... usually they get shot by the patrols pretty quickly and so most people feel comfortable with going into the water with those nets in place... Kind of akin to an OPEN PVE OPEN mode where the game could kick PVP players out should they break the rules and eventually ban them from re-entering that mode if they continue to attempt to engage in PVP in a PVE mode
Achilles7
Banned
Did you mean weird carebear? If so, I concur!
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.
For FDEV to develop a decent crime and punishment system, they will have to create an authority response system as part of that, so by that line of thought, it would be a tweak for the mode to the authority response when the combat involves 2 players... not a major feature implementation by itself if done as part of the overhaul to the crime and punishment system...
The rebuy system currently exists, and they will introduce the cargo insurance system at some point that much is certain if they want to keep the game in line with the rest of the franchise, all that would really be needed here is if the player is killed by another player
the rebuy goes to zero
have the cargo insurance replace the credits value of the cargo at the galactic average
and set a flag for the player that is checked on the back end as to weather or not their exploration data and missions automatically fail...
again I do not think these are major implementation changes myself...
apart from the addition of a boolean flag on the player data and the necessary checking code on the back end for if the player dies to another player...
I do not know if the zero damage model for ship ramming is the ideal solution and actually may possible cause some serious problems for the graphics engine - ships passing through each other 2 objects occupying the same 3D coordinates etc... could cause confusion for the engine, so instead it could simply be an infinite shield scenerio, both ships shields remain at their normal strengths... what this will do is force the griefer to 'RAM" the victim with enough force to damage the hull in which case the greifer would need to probably be travelling at more than the station speeds, and in that case, the intent would be clear for an automatic response from the station on said griefer... Shields would not be infinite against NPC's a they are not infinite against NPC's now...
Or course this would still give the griefer the option of being in an unshielded ship and trying to get in front of a player coming it faster than the speed limit to get rammed and the victim falling foul of the system and then being determined as the aggressor, that happens now with no real solution anyway so as long as the victim stays under the station speed limit or is using a docking computer they are then not going to run foul of the system...
Still I will agree yes there would need to be some coding, no one is disputing that, but to state how immense of a development task it would be without quantifying yourself ( not you specifically sluetelbos, but for anyone stating it will be too hard / take ridiculous amounts of development time etc)
Except there was no name calling or anything of the sort. Yes, the OP stated they don't like being blown up by players, pirates included, but there was no open hostility other than the wish that they were left alone. It was the first response that's hostile.
Did you flag it for shaming and being against the rules? I mean, if it deals with CODE and you're the ambassador, you should have, no? Anyway I wrote "AFAIK". I did not have any experience with CODE, given that my play-style avoids Open except for the occasional Fuel-Rat run. Would it be that some gankers would pose as CODE and thus give the group a bad name? Needless to say, you're not helping - you're just saying I don't know what I'm talking about with an air of superiority without clearing anything up.
Again - there seem to be two kinds of PvP groups - one, which seeks the challenge of fighting other PvPers, and one which seeks to blow everything up regardless of what they are flying. Which of these groups does CODE belong to then? I have a lot of respect for the first group but far less for the second. I'd wager a lot of people share my views on this.
What? The argument that dev time needs to be prioritized? Well, if the dev time required for something is significant, then sure. But the time required for this would be INsignificant, so, no, not really. Or do you not agree that it could be easily implemented? If not, care to elaborate why?
Last edited:
You wanted examples of where PvP was shamed for PvP, guess what happens in PvP? Sometimes ships get blown up... Oh wow .-.
And funnily enough piracy focuses on minimizing that, but nope, people are still hostile toward the concept of PvP and jam piracy into griefing.
Of course, but it got ignored, as expected.
Guess what happens when you go around believing in rumors? And guess why I have to spend so much time on this forum just to keep an eye on rampant defamation of The Code's name? The only reason it died down is because of SDC, and SDC came into being because of parts of the Code got fed up with the bull on this forum.
You're not helping, by taking rumor for the truth.
There's no air of superiority, there's frustration from being fed up with people throwing random accusations at The Code and others using them as basis to judge the organization.
Hah... why can't people read the thread before jumping into a conversation...
Page 40-50, have fun.
Last edited: