Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[VR Murgle]

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.

I should have been clearer, it's not about the fines they will be relatively minor; the flight training is where it'll hurt. Besides the normal speed restrictions will still apply.

And yes collisions where no damage was done will only result in a warning. I admit the system isn't perfect but it doesn't have to be it only need to take the fun out off station griefing and the fun in this case comes from knowing you've cost an other player a lot of credits. My system will still sting but not nearly as much which makes it less fun to the griefer and the time investment of the (lengthy) flight training is (hopefully) going to discourage even further.

The point is to make it less attractive because making it impossible is...er... heh impossible.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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

indeed, the "rules" put in place by FD have meant it is possible to play in a busy area and not get griefed by players abusing the station AI.....

but like videogame copy protection of 10 years ago, whilst it certainly DID help with what it tempted to address, it also was a PITA for legitimate users as well. Sometimes the cure is almost as bad as the disease, and for those who enjoy docking at speed, i would say this is an example of it here.

FD imo could dabble with a fix right now imo.

now in beta we have the ability to reboot our shields. this means there is no excuse for a ship docking / flying around the no fire zone with her knickers down (unless smuggling, which in itself is an illegal act). I would suggest a law that all ships must have shields up with 2 pipps in the no fire zone, for personal protection (akin to the seatbelt / motorcycle law in the UK) as well as a law that all ships must be space worthy (>40% hull). Any ship involved in a collision that is not deemed to have been space worthy or not taking suitable protection would not cause "lethal" force to be imparted on a ship who "accidentally" collides with them. (consider it like driving a car without an MOT in the UK).

there would be a very rare edge case where a CMDR who has a very damaged ship after escaping a fight has to dock.... here i would suggest 4 pipps to shields and to not dally around

 

[jasonbarron]

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.

I think his point would be that in order to keep up with the non consensual PvPers in Open one HAS to engineer...which he hates to do, therefore the need for Open PvE where he would not have to. Genar, is that pretty close to the mark?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I think his point would be that in order to keep up with the non consensual PvPers in Open one HAS to engineer...which he hates to do, therefore the need for Open PvE where he would not have to. Genar, is that pretty close to the mark?

ah ok.... fair point then i guess..... thanks for clearing that up.

 

[sewerratuk]

indeed, the "rules" put in place by FD have meant it is possible to play in a busy area and not get griefed by players abusing the station AI.....

but like videogame copy protection of 10 years ago, whilst it certainly DID help with what it tempted to address, it also was a PITA for legitimate users as well. Sometimes the cure is almost as bad as the disease, and for those who enjoy docking at speed, i would say this is an example of it here.

I agree and I like boosting into and out of a station but the way things stand is that if you are going to a popular location then you are best to abide by the rules. If you choose not to and you ram and get destroyed by the station then you can't really complain. The rule was put in place to negate a previous issue, it's not perfect but it is usable and you can't blame Tom--harry for abusing it. The blame is equally apportioned to all, including FD

 

[VR Murgle]

indeed, the "rules" put in place by FD have meant it is possible to play in a busy area and not get griefed by players abusing the station AI.....

but like videogame copy protection of 10 years ago, whilst it certainly DID help with what it tempted to address, it also was a PITA for legitimate users as well. Sometimes the cure is almost as bad as the disease, and for those who enjoy docking at speed, i would say this is an example of it here.

FD imo could dabble with a fix right now imo.

now in beta we have the ability to reboot our shields. this means there is no excuse for a ship docking / flying around the no fire zone with her knickers down (unless smuggling, which in itself is an illegal act). I would suggest a law that all ships must have shields up with 2 pipps in the no fire zone, for personal protection (akin to the seatbelt / motorcycle law in the UK) as well as a law that all ships must be space worthy (>40% hull). Any ship involved in a collision that is not deemed to have been space worthy would not cause "lethal" for to be imparted on a ship who "accidentally" collides with them. (consider it like driving a car without an MOT in the UK).

there would be a very rare edge case where a CMDR who has a very damaged ship after escaping a fight has to dock.... here i would suggest 4 pipps to shields and to not dally around

Ironically the reason suicidwindering into someone docking is so much "fun" is because of the harsh response if all it would get the "offender" was a fine and perhaps the rebuy of the Sidey it wouldn't be nearly as "hilarious"...

 

[Vorxian]

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.

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?

Mengy, I can't help but feel there is no reason why PvE OPEN should not be a thing. I understand the reasons they didn't add it from the offset (in the hopes that it would lean to the diverse game play and spirit they had hoped for), but, human spirit is an equal force, if not greater than the "spirit" of the game and as such, the true asset of ED is the galaxy, not the jamjar combat that EvE prides itself on.

Open PvE is the ultimate game mode for a player aspiring on the concept that human kind is WORKING TOGETHER to better the human race. As a non hero character, and not one that can individually 'save the galaxy', I think it's a perfectly fair thing to role play a character 'doing their part' to help drive humanity forward in a positive way.

PvP for me, counters this concept. Someone interdicting an ASP that has just traversed the galaxy finding suitable earth like worlds is an absolute asset to mankind. Why would I want to destroy such a cornerstone to the survival of humanity? OPEN PvE would be a home to co-operation in the truest sense. I just get a feeling that many hearts are of like mind.

Anarchy will exist in the current PvP home of OPEN, and no one will take anything away from that. All PvE OPEN will do is help de-fragment a huge population of the playerbase. I can't even see it hitting OPEN negatively either.

Simple thing to switch player damage off to other players in this new mode. Done.

 

[Littlerift]

Does the current anti-griefing system around stations take into account which ship was going faster? It seems to me that we could reduce the amount of griefing drastically if all penalties were given to the fastest ship regardless of who suffered the most damage. This would encourage carefulness and watching your speed and would prevent the pinball griefing we see today. It wouldn't quite deal with Corvettes and Cutters blocking people, but that's less of a major problem at the moment.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

but it is usable and you can't blame Tom--harry for abusing it. =

i agree with what you said accept for this. IMO there is no reason why all players should not play in the spirit of the rules, and imo deliberately flying a 1% hull shieldless eagle in front of another ship to cause station griefing is just poor form and there should be no place in the game for it imo.

if a player wants to abuse the game to benefit themselves, well fine, they can fill their boots, but doing it to spoil another gamers day, which there is no other reason at all for it imo, just aint cricket imo.

 

[Mengy]

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.

Sorry, but I’m still not seeing how what I said is biased? Adding a PvE mode gives players more choices, while not adding it prevents said possible choices, and by not putting the PvE mode into the game you are “forcing” players to keep using Mobius or Solo or to go to Open where they don’t want to be. Mobius is a bandaid, not a solution, and it’s breaking under it’s own size and popularity.

It’s not biased, it’s just the truth.

 

[Shaamaan]

Righty then.

As I've said in earlier posts...

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

I've thought about the same thing with regards to player-to-player collisions, but someone in this thread already pointed out that this STILL leaves room for abuse. While you cannot blow someone up as a direct result of ramming (in stations or otherwise), it DOES permit people to push each other into walls / asteroids with sufficient force to be dangerous. Pad loitering and pad blocking isn't the issue. It's people in larger ships ramming smaller ships - the ram itself won't be lethal, but sending the victim flying into a wall might be. And what exactly would you report a person playing "ship-ball" for? This is the kind of grey area you want to avoid.

 

[sewerratuk]

Does the current anti-griefing system around stations take into account which ship was going faster? It seems to me that we could reduce the amount of griefing drastically if all penalties were given to the fastest ship regardless of who suffered the most damage. This would encourage carefulness and watching your speed and would prevent the pinball griefing we see today. It wouldn't quite deal with Corvettes and Cutters blocking people, but that's less of a major problem at the moment.

Sigh, ok once again.
just travel under the speed limit at stations with other players present

- - - Updated - - -

i agree with what you said accept for this. IMO there is no reason why all players should not play in the spirit of the rules, and imo deliberately flying a 1% hull shieldless eagle in front of another ship to cause station griefing is just poor form and there should be no place in the game for it imo.

if a player wants to abuse the game to benefit themselves, well fine, they can fill their boots, but doing it to spoil another gamers day, which there is no other reason at all for it imo, just aint cricket imo.

True, but they are there so don't give them the opportunity

 

[MarkAusten]

Sorry, but I’m still not seeing how what I said is biased? Adding a PvE mode gives players more choices, while not adding it prevents said possible choices, and by not putting the PvE mode into the game you are “forcing” players to keep using Mobius or Solo or to go to Open where they don’t want to be. Mobius is a bandaid, not a solution, and it’s breaking under it’s own size and popularity.

It’s not biased, it’s just the truth.

Okay, perhaps I not explaining myself very well. This is what you said:

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.

Now remove the bit I consider is biased:

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 then you are against a PvE mode.

Says the same thing but without saying that all PvP players want to "force them to play in Open and conform to your own style of play" which they all don't. There are a number who are quite happy not to force them to play in Open nor to make everyone inform to their style of play. That painting every PvP player with the same brush as an evil person is the biased bit and in my opinion, quite wrong.

That isn't to say that there are PvP players that want this, there most certainly are, but not every PvP player. Indeed in my opinion I would go as far to say that it is a minority, perhaps even a small minority of PvP players that want this but I have not figures to back this up which I why I've stated it as an opinion.

Even so, the broad brush approach is going to get PvP player's hackles up. The first half of your summary is all sweetness and light aimed at PvE players and the second half is accusatory and insulting and aimed at PvP players.

Now, before you say "But I never mentioned PvP players" let me remind you that you did say "in Open" and that, by implication, means PvP.

So, biased.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I've thought about the same thing with regards to player-to-player collisions, but someone in this thread already pointed out that this STILL leaves room for abuse. While you cannot blow someone up as a direct result of ramming (in stations or otherwise), it DOES permit people to push each other into walls / asteroids with sufficient force to be dangerous. Pad loitering and pad blocking isn't the issue. It's people in larger ships ramming smaller ships - the ram itself won't be lethal, but sending the victim flying into a wall might be. And what exactly would you report a person playing "ship-ball" for? This is the kind of grey area you want to avoid.

Nah. I understand you think there are lots of complexities involved, but I disagree with that outlook.

Anyone caught in the act of joining an Open-PvE mode and abusing/trying to get around the lack of direct player kiling in the ways you describe, can be banned from joining that mode.

Plenty of players, including myself, record their sessions to video - it would be a trivial matter to get the relevant segment uploaded for FDEV's viewing pleasure.

As stated earlier - there would be an initial 'clearout' workload, but the mere act of preventing one miscreant player from rejoining the game mode prevents any future work, as they're no longer in that game mode and able to bend the rules.

I still don't see any problem with this.

 

[SnowyNI]

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?

Some here hate anyone having any choice though, they want "play our way or nothing!", and thats on both sides of the coin. A great many players here should have front row seats in the westboro baptist church, they'd fit right it!!!

While I dislike pvp with a passion, you don't hear me shouting for open to be closed down (although sometimes I feel it might be a good thing as it would kill off all the bickering (but/and probably the game also - so, can't have that!).

Every time anyone asks for something there is ALWAYS someone that is against it!
The AI is too hard - easy choice... add a difficulty slider giving the players... wait for it... choice! NO NO NO! It would take from the game, it would take up time, it would make the world end!
Add a pve open so some poor player doesn't have to group up 60k+ players... NO NO NO! It would take from the other open (ie. less victims), it would take time (again), or it would give some what they want (can't have that!).

I don't think I've EVER seen this forums all agree about something! You could ask them if they wanted free ED labelled brandy and someone would say they don't drink booze and no one should get it as it's no use to them, even though it would be a collectible and something to pass on to the grandkids or sell...
If mobius ever quits a large part of this game would likely die off or move on (imo - and only imo!). I wonder what his take on it is? Surely, he can't enjoy policing thousands of players?
Who's fault is it all? I'm sorry but it's FDEVs for trying to please us all. Go ask the EvE forums to switch too pve only server, you get told to beat it, and rightfully so. It's sold as a pvp mmo. ED isn't it was sold on the promise of "have it all" or blazing trails as some call it.
IMO a pve server will take nothing from pvpers as they are NEVER going to see the solo/group players in their world anyway, no C&P will ever make pve'ers switch, there is just no trust!
Tis a sad state of affairs all round, and it's like no one see it.

 

[MarkAusten]

Nah. I understand you think there are lots of complexities involved, but I disagree with that outlook.

Anyone caught in the act of joining an Open-PvE mode and abusing/trying to get around the lack of direct player kiling in the ways you describe, can be banned from joining that mode.

Plenty of players, including myself, record their sessions to video - it would be a trivial matter to get the relevant segment uploaded for FDEV's viewing pleasure.

As stated earlier - there would be an initial 'clearout' workload, but the mere act of preventing one miscreant player from rejoining the game mode prevents any future work, as they're no longer in that game mode and able to bend the rules.

I still don't see any problem with this.

I have to say that I like the idea of RM's bounced to open (PvP) mode at next instance change with possibly locked out for increasing amounts of time until banned idea myself.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

As stated earlier - there would be an initial 'clearout' workload, but the mere act of preventing one miscreant player from rejoining the game mode prevents any future work, as they're no longer in that game mode and able to bend the rules.

I still don't see any problem with this.

i agree here too..... FD need to be prepared to put some time in to clear out their house... and, sure, if a player REALLY wanted to go back in and grief in openPve after an account ban, then sure, they could buy another copy of the game, set up a new account and there you go.

but then, that is another sale of the game for FD, so you could argue the insistent griefer is actually paying FD staff to do the community policing, so i am actually fine with that

 

[Mengy]

The first half of your summary is all sweetness and light aimed at PvE players and the second half is accusatory and insulting and aimed at PvP players.

Now, before you say "But I never mentioned PvP players" let me remind you that you did say "in Open" and that, by implication, means PvP.

So, biased.

So your assertion is based on the assumption that Open = PvP players, and PvE mode = non PvP players. That's what's confusing me, as I don't see Open as a strictly PvP player mode. There are plenty of PvE players who play in Open because they like the added danger of PvP happening anytime, even if they aren't fans of PvP gameplay.

Edit: I can see your point though as many people do see Open as a strictly PvP mode, so I've changed my post to remove the "forced" part.

 

[Vorxian]

Nah. I understand you think there are lots of complexities involved, but I disagree with that outlook.

Anyone caught in the act of joining an Open-PvE mode and abusing/trying to get around the lack of direct player kiling in the ways you describe, can be banned from joining that mode.

Plenty of players, including myself, record their sessions to video - it would be a trivial matter to get the relevant segment uploaded for FDEV's viewing pleasure.

As stated earlier - there would be an initial 'clearout' workload, but the mere act of preventing one miscreant player from rejoining the game mode prevents any future work, as they're no longer in that game mode and able to bend the rules.

I still don't see any problem with this.

100% agreed.

I don't see it a problem at all. Someone deliberately being a plonker will stand out very clearly....

 

[SnowyNI]

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?

Well the seasons are already delayed or running slow, so would a few extra months make any difference? The way it's going the 10 years plan may be a 12 year one! Even SC is catching up!