Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[MarkAusten]

The truth of the matter is simply this: an official PvE mode incorporated into the game would just be one more option for players to play the way they want to. It wouldn’t ruin the game any more than Mobius existing has, it won’t break it, it doesn’t make current Open any less of whatever it is now, it’s just quite simply one more option to allow players to play the way they want to. It would be quite literally an official Mobius mode but enforced by the game code itself and easily available at the start menu when logging in, and far less susceptible to griefing than Mobius currently is.

The positives of any official PvE mode far, FAR outweigh any negatives. But then this argument has never been about that: it’s about player choices. Any and every argument against a possible PvE mode is an argument against player choices. Period. Whether it stems from a selfishness to keep players in Open, or whether it comes from fear of change, or if it comes from a hatred of Mobius and the playstyle it allows, the entire crux of the debate is one of player choices.

All 70+ pages of this thread can be summarized in one sentence: If you like players having choices to play the way they want to then you are for the PvE mode; but if you don’t want players to have choices and want to force them to play in Open and conform to your own style of play, then you are against a PvE mode.


So the real question of the debate is this: are you for playstyle choices, or against playstyle choices?

Your one sentence summary is too broad and utterly biased again PvP. Your last sentence, whilst completely true misses the point of the OP as far as I understand it which could be very limited.

Nevertheless saying "If you like players having choices to play the way they want to then you are for the PvE mode; but if you don’t want players to have choices and want to force them to play in Open and conform to your own style of play, then you are against a PvE mode." is just so biased.

Sorry. Try calming down and finding a neutral, balanced way to say it that isn't going to get up the nose of every PvP player.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, we've already had the obligatory "git gud" in one form or another...

I ignored that one as being without meaning.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Choice is nice, but the devil is in the details. The details in this case are 'enforced by the game code itself'.

Currently all modes use the same game mechanics. This type of Open-PvE requires a hole new set of rules. To make it 100% grief proof, without making it silly is quite a lot of work.

I doubt FD would allow a game mode where player ships are allowed to just pass through each other. It would look very unappealing.
Other grief prof collision mechanics are complex. They will have to be developed and tested at the expense of something else. Not just once, but at every release.

The question is really, is it worth it for something we in reality already have with private groups. We already have a multiplayer environment with little to no risk of griefing.

Do we really need this 'official acceptance' of PvE multiplayer?

Nonsense. I've detailed how some very simple rules could be used in such an Open-PvE mode in earlier posts using already-existing mechanics - too much over-thinking going on here.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

And if it isn't 100% grief proof, or at least 99.99%, the players who desire the protections afforded by this kind of mode aren't going to be happy and they'll probably just play in PG or Solo anyway.

you make a good point..... its annoying really. 9 out of 10 gamers **** would be happy to play in the "spirit" of the game and just not take advantages of flaws in the ai/game code just on an honour system - at least in so far as not using them to grief other players.

sadly it does not take many of the itchynipple types who will use every exploit in the book, gaming the system just to ruin other players, forcing the station to open fire on other ships, spamming rockets, same team killing in CZs, ramming to blow up ships knowing players cant fight back, jumping in and out of SC to recharge shields, abusing the wing system to get more than 4 in an instance on your side, sitting on a pad blocking other players from landing etc etc etc......

No matter what FD do, a small subset of players WILL go out of their way to exploit the system, and even when FD do find a way to stop an exploit, a lot of the time it is spoiling a game for 95% just to stop the 5% (look at the speeding restrictions now... docking is far less fun now if you dont want to fall foul of the 1% eagles ramming players rule)

Which is why the block list that FD 1st promised should still be a thing.

Its not just ED its a problem for, i cant remember the last time I played a battlefield game without multiple nitwits getting banned for cheating, BF hardline was a great idea in principle, cops and robbers type game, and look how badly that went... Humans just cant be trusted to play in the "spirit" of a game..... which is why I like AI. Well made AI will fill their role perfectly, if they do something "out of character" that is on FD and it can be fixed..... they are not entertained by harvesting tears, they do not need to have a laugh themselves..... they exist purely for our pleasure.

that is only part of it however...... the "Environment" has been continually nerfed thanks to players complaining about getting blown up so often.. for me this is a sad thing. I used to love it when speed docking was a really risky proposition. now with full pipps to shields i can ram station almost at full tilt and as long as a half dead ship is not in my way, i have no fear of destruction.

for my play style ED is a far better game without other players in it!....... But that said, the kind of players i meet in mobius have been great.... not like the toxic types i met at hutton in open. 90mins in SC only to have some twerp typing abuse whilst sitting on the 1 docking bay to stop anyone from landing whilst having his mates ramming people and opening fire on them for laughs.

***** made up statistic with no facts to back up

 

[Han_Zen]

Nonsense. I've detailed how some very simple rules could be used in such an Open-PvE mode in earlier posts using already-existing mechanics - too much over-thinking going on here.

I read your rules. They aren't grief prof. No damage from hitting other ships will lead to pinball mode inside stations. You can freely ram other people into the wall, without taking damage. The station want even shoot you.

Ghost ships work, but it will look horrible.

 

[Shaamaan]

sadly it does not take many of the itchynipple types who will use every exploit in the book, gaming the system just to ruin other players, forcing the station to open fire on other ships, spamming rockets, same team killing in CZs, ramming to blow up ships knowing players cant fight back, jumping in and out of SC to recharge shields, abusing the wing system to get more than 4 in an instance on your side, sitting on a pad blocking other players from landing etc etc etc......

Dammit, I can't rep you again.

I don't even mind players who game the system for their own gains (I don't care if someone finds a credit exploit or if they cheat in solo). It's the ones who purely want to cause grief that I have a beef with...

- - - Updated - - -

Ghost ships work, but it will look horrible.

At least that works.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I read your rules. They aren't grief prof. No damage from hitting other ships will lead to pinball mode inside stations. You can freely ram other people into the wall, without taking damage. The station want even shoot you.

Ghost ships work, but it will look horrible.

Forget the ghost ships. I'd hate those myself.

Introduce strict rules for playing in the Open-PvE mode, in the Terms Of Service - which FDEV can alter any time they want, such that any of that type of behaviour will result in being banned from joining that game mode. Sure, maybe some additional work required at FDEV Towers initially, but once the main miscreants have been weeded out, and word gets around that they are being dealt with, then this sort of stupidity would be stamped down on and any initial cleaning-up workload would be reduced.

My point stands - it would take less work to introduce an Open-PvE mode than some on this thread would try to lead you to believe.

 

[Shaamaan]

Forget the ghost ships. I'd hate those myself.

Introduce strict rules for playing in the Open-PvE mode, in the Terms Of Service - which FDEV can alter any time they want, such that any of that type of behaviour will result in being banned from joining that game mode. Sure, maybe some additional work required at FDEV Towers initially, but once the main miscreants have been weeded out, and word gets around that they are being dealt with, then this sort of stupidity would be stamped down on and any initial cleaning-up workload would be reduced.

My point stands - it would take less work to introduce an Open-PvE mode than some on this thread would try to lead you to believe.

Ugh... As much as I'd like that to be a possibility, it won't fly. FD would never enforce such TOS. For one, it might be a case of "he said she said" whenever a conflict arises. The potential for abuse is plentiful.

And if I'm wrong and FD would enforce such a TOS then this would require manpower to actually handle disputes. While this could work eventually, the road up to that "eventually" would be a really bumpy one. But FD DID put CL as part of their TOS (which I also find insane, but that's a different matter), so perhaps they would actually do this?

I don't like the idea of ghost ships either, mind you (and I was the one to propose it). It's just a bare-bones example of a fix. I'm all open to suggestions for a possible improvement. I do agree that simply disabling collision damage between players might not be enough, as it still makes it possible to ram people into station walls / asteroids. Possibly reduce the inertia from such a collision as well?

 

[Littlerift]

Forget the ghost ships. I'd hate those myself.

Introduce strict rules for playing in the Open-PvE mode, in the Terms Of Service - which FDEV can alter any time they want, such that any of that type of behaviour will result in being banned from joining that game mode. Sure, maybe some additional work required at FDEV Towers initially, but once the main miscreants have been weeded out, and word gets around that they are being dealt with, then this sort of stupidity would be stamped down on and any initial cleaning-up workload would be reduced.

My point stands - it would take less work to introduce an Open-PvE mode than some on this thread would try to lead you to believe.

This was proposed earlier and was vehemently opposed by the anti-OpenPvE side as it would require 'babysitting', which is slightly ironic given that at the moment FD is having to babysit open to prevent combat logging.

 

[Mengy]

Actually, even though I really like Mengy and respect him in general, I completely disagree with a bunch of what you quoted there. Go figure.

Please elaborate on your disagreements, I’d love to hear them. In all of these threads and debates I have yet to hear a genuine, reasonable, fair reason why an official PvE mode should not exist. Maybe yours could be the first?

Your one sentence summary is too broad and utterly biased again PvP. Your last sentence, whilst completely true misses the point of the OP as far as I understand it which could be very limited.

Nevertheless saying "If you like players having choices to play the way they want to then you are for the PvE mode; but if you don’t want players to have choices and want to force them to play in Open and conform to your own style of play, then you are against a PvE mode." is just so biased.

Sorry. Try calming down and finding a neutral, balanced way to say it that isn't going to get up the nose of every PvP player.

I’m not against PvP in Elite, I’ve taken part in CZ’s and PvP action. I am against the imbalance which greifers currently abuse but that’s a C&P issue with the game overall. And I certainly don’t want Open changed to prevent PvP from happening, in fact I'd love for piracy (without killing clean CMDR's!) and PvP bounty hunting to become better and more common. What I DO think is reasonable is for Mobius to be made an official option, for a PvE mode to exist. There is no bias on my part, I just see the huge demand for it and think it’s a great idea, and I do not see how having the option breaks the game or gives anybody less choices, only more. Open isn't going anywhere, it will still be there.

I’ve read all of these threads and I’ve followed all of the debates and I just don’t see the opposition’s rationale against a PvE mode. Every counterpoint stems from either denying player choices or forcing people into Open where they can be coerced into playing someone else’s way instead of how they truly want to.

Some players just don’t want PvP, it’s a truth, and it’s why Mobius is so immensely popular. What is the harm in giving those players an official mode to play in?

 

[Roybe]

We did testing, if you submit immediately and high-wake while FA boosting , the entire encounter is barely 15 seconds long.

And as long as you have modified thrusters and shields, you are able to dodge those interdictions like a boss, be it NPC or player, so as I've mentioned before, yet again it boils down to players refusing to engineer a bit :/

So now 'engineered ships' ARE required to play in Open.

 

[VR Murgle]

Just to show how easy sollutions can be:

If you run in to someone in or around the station and cause damage you get a fine, run into someone again the fine will be higher. If the ship you run into blows up your fine will be even higher. Run into people a lot you ship will be impounded and you will have pay a hefty fine and successfully complete flight training before you can get it back. Please note that this system punishes both the runnerintoer and the runintoee. This should work fairly well methinks and you can even make the fine dependant on the ship size.With this in place you can do away with the station blowing people up for simple traffic violations.

 

[RagingxPenguin]

So now 'engineered ships' ARE required to play in Open.

No they aren't.
It helps but is far from required.

 

[Shaamaan]

Just to show how easy sollutions can be:

If you run in to someone in or around the station and cause damage you get a fine, run into someone again the fine will be higher. If the ship you run into blows up your fine will be even higher. Run into people a lot you ship will be impounded and you will have pay a hefty fine and successfully complete flight training before you can get it back. Please note that this system punishes both the runnerintoer and the runintoee. This should work fairly well methinks and you can even make the fine dependant on the ship size.With this in place you can do away with the station blowing people up for simple traffic violations.

Sounds simple, but it's not. If you punish both players with the fine then the griefers won't care, while the person on the receiving end is ending up with an ever bigger fine for repeated collisions (which the griefers will certainly do). Finally, griefers already suicide frail ships into others to make the station open fire, so now they'll do this to rack rack up fines for their targets. Your suggestion shifts the current station response from being lethal to a "fine + flying course" (whatever "flying course" means is yet to be determined). It by no means stops griefers at stations.

Going on, your specific idea requires implementing a new fines system, keeping track of the number of collisions (I take it there's a fallback for the fines as well? I mean, non-griefers will occasionally bump into each other as well...) and whatever you meant by the "flying course". I'm sorry, but this is neither a good solution, nor an easy to implement one.

 

[MarkAusten]

Please elaborate on your disagreements, I’d love to hear them. In all of these threads and debates I have yet to hear a genuine, reasonable, fair reason why an official PvE mode should not exist. Maybe yours could be the first?




I’m not against PvP in Elite, I’ve taken part in CZ’s and PvP action. I am against the imbalance which greifers currently abuse but that’s a C&P issue with the game overall. And I certainly don’t want Open changed to prevent PvP from happening, in fact I'd love for piracy (without killing clean CMDR's!) and PvP bounty hunting to become better and more common. What I DO think is reasonable is for Mobius to be made an official option, for a PvE mode to exist. There is no bias on my part, I just see the huge demand for it and think it’s a great idea, and I do not see how having the option breaks the game or gives anybody less choices, only more. Open isn't going anywhere, it will still be there.

I’ve read all of these threads and I’ve followed all of the debates and I just don’t see the opposition’s rationale against a PvE mode. Every counterpoint stems from either denying player choices or forcing people into Open where they can be coerced into playing someone else’s way instead of how they truly want to.

Some players just don’t want PvP, it’s a truth, and it’s why Mobius is so immensely popular. What is the harm in giving those players an official mode to play in?

I don't believe I said you were. I said effectively that the language you used was very biased. You posit two alternatives one that you support choice and play as you wish and the other support no choice and force them to play in open and to play their way. That last bit starting with the word forced is the biased part. That is not going to calm people down but will be perceived as insulting. Hence the call for you to restate your 'summary' in neutral and unbiased language. Say that in a way the the PvP players can accept and you might get somewhere. As it stands they will dig their heels in as JB already has.

Sorry I wasn't more clear in my post.

 

[RagingxPenguin]

Like the idea, expect 6) - sneaky player piracy would spice things nicely, if done right. Oh, nevermind.

Piracy is PVP. You want PVE only... Means no Piracy.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Sounds simple, but it's not. If you punish both players with the fine then the griefers won't care, while the person on the receiving end is ending up with an ever bigger fine for repeated collisions (which the griefers will certainly do). Finally, griefers already suicide frail ships into others to make the station open fire, so now they'll do this to rack rack up fines for their targets. Your suggestion shifts the current station response from being lethal to a "fine + flying course" (whatever "flying course" means is yet to be determined). It by no means stops griefers at stations.

Going on, your specific idea requires implementing a new fines system, keeping track of the number of collisions (I take it there's a fallback for the fines as well? I mean, non-griefers will occasionally bump into each other as well...) and whatever you meant by the "flying course". I'm sorry, but this is neither a good solution, nor an easy to implement one.

Righty then.

As I've said in earlier posts...

Between Player-Player collisions : No damage. Negates any need to worry about fines etc.

Between Player-NPC collisions : Business as usual. You're playing the PvE game after all.

"Griefers in Open-PvE will then play a game of ship-ball around the station!!111!111!onetyone" - deal with that in the same way as the PvE game does - pad loitering should lead to the loiterer being quickly destroyed. The player assigned a pad will be left alone, for example. Report the players playing ship-ball.

A reminder : pad blocking already happens in Open, where a miscreant gets between another player's ship and their assigned pad.

Honestly not seeing the difficulty here.

- - - Updated - - -

Piracy is PVP. You want PVE only... Means no Piracy.

There would still be PvE piracy, just not between players, which is the whole point of asking for this mode.

 

[Roybe]

It shows the essential lack of effort PvEers are willing to put into the game when a lot of them complain about the self imposed workload Mobius puts himself through and yet no one thinks to start another massive pve group....

Rather, they'd like the game to do everything for them, while not being prepared to learn essential game systems and tactics. This isn't 'git gud' it's more of a heartfelt l2p and get off your butt.

The point of Mobius isn't 'just PvE' at this point. Everyone has their own small group of friends they play with, in their own private group....if they desire. Mobius represents the desire for massive co-op PVE. The community, from the start, decided Mobius was the place to do this....and advertised for him...from both the PVE side AND the PVP side. I think this game brings out a players desire to see 'a hundred players in an instance'...for some, it's the concept of large scale battles...for others it's a concept of being together doing something, exclusive of fighting each other. Different reasons for the same desire...with mutually exclusive activities defining each others idea of 'fun'.

And here's the problem a lot PVE'ers have whith your suggestions of 'putting effort in', Open has proven, time and again, that effort expended cannot be protected against a player that wants to eliminate the reward for the effort:

https://moviepilot.com/posts/3421657

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

It shows the essential lack of effort PvEers are willing to put into the game when a lot of them complain about the self imposed workload Mobius puts himself through and yet no one thinks to start another massive pve group....

Rather, they'd like the game to do everything for them, while not being prepared to learn essential game systems and tactics. This isn't 'git gud' it's more of a heartfelt l2p and get off your butt.

Most of my Exploration Cutter has been RNGineered over many, many weeks of awful grind - 'Armed and protected Explorer'

I'm in the process of RNGineering my new Anaconda as well for the same purpose. Hating the grind.

 

[sewerratuk]

Sounds simple, but it's not. If you punish both players with the fine then the griefers won't care, while the person on the receiving end is ending up with an ever bigger fine for repeated collisions (which the griefers will certainly do). Finally, griefers already suicide frail ships into others to make the station open fire, so now they'll do this to rack rack up fines for their targets. Your suggestion shifts the current station response from being lethal to a "fine + flying course" (whatever "flying course" means is yet to be determined). It by no means stops griefers at stations.

Going on, your specific idea requires implementing a new fines system, keeping track of the number of collisions (I take it there's a fallback for the fines as well? I mean, non-griefers will occasionally bump into each other as well...) and whatever you meant by the "flying course". I'm sorry, but this is neither a good solution, nor an easy to implement one.

Don't know how many times this needs to be mentioned but anyway..

Station 'griefing' can be avoided if you follow the rules of the game and adjust your speed. It's not a hard concept to grasp

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Most of my Exploration Cutter has been RNGineered over many, many weeks of awful grind - 'Armed and protected Explorer'

I'm in the process of RNGineering my new Anaconda as well for the same purpose. Hating the grind.

to each their own of course, but i will never understand why you would do something you hate in a game... ok... i guess i can see why a pvper may put themselves through it once to get their pvp ship, after all its the only way to be competitive i suppose, but, unless you enjoy the engineer grind, there is no need to engineer the hell out of an exploraconda imo.

I actually enjoy the engineer "grind" in small doses. it gives me something to do when i am playing on my own - as i am a goal oriented player, having "tasks" to do is important for my gameplay.... but as soon as i feel it becoming grindy, that is my time to down tools and do something else.

As i said tho, to each their own.