Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Han_Zen]

Constantly balancing and rebalancing weapons is delaying other features; adding passenger missions delayed other features; adding CQC delayed other features.

If it improves the game then fine, and a lot of the features that are most needed don't rely on the kind of expertise that would be required to modify the game rules for a specific server, unless FD's team is so poorly built that they have a load of people who all do the same job rather than hiring sub-teams of specialists.

Thast's exactly the point. If you split the game in two different sets of mechanics, you esentally have to ballance every existing and new feature for each of them. Split the game in two and everything will take longer.

By all means add a a public mode where player killing isn't allowed, but don't split the game in two.

 

[thirstyfish]

So Mobius has approximately 1.5 groups. How long has Mobius been a thing? Seems like all these cries for an Open PvE mode based on PG's inability to serve the current PvE crowd is a bit premature.

Mobius has been around for a while. I started playing shortly before Horizons preorder started, and I still had to join the second mobius group. Leads be to believe that mobius has been around almost as long as the game itself.

Consider that console players can't have mobius, PGs have member limits, and that no PvP isn't certain (See the SDC invasion). Now consider the number of players who don't know about mobius, but would probably join. The only real way to find out about mobius is here, and a significant number of players aren't on the forums.

 

[Han_Zen]

Console players can't mobius. They're players too

- - - Updated - - -



All opinion. Not an argument.

The part about people complaining about the mechanics is not an opinion.

 

[Anopheles]

Mobius has been around for a while. I started playing shortly before Horizons preorder started, and I still had to join the second mobius group. Leads be to believe that mobius has been around almost as long as the game itself.

Consider that console players can't have mobius, PGs have member limits, and that no PvP isn't certain (See the SDC invasion). Now consider the number of players who don't know about mobius, but would probably join. The only real way to find out about mobius is here, and a significant number of players aren't on the forums.

Mode invasions will still happen (even if only by singletons) and unless you have different mechanics in play (like no shooty hollow squares), FD are going to have to pay someone to investigate every complaint of mode invasion or griefing. If there are changes like No Hollow Box Shooting, then that is further complicated by some PVEers wanting shooting each other to be OK as part of certain CGs or in Conflict Zones, which further complicates the programming.

And this will, inevitably weigh the BGS one way or another 'if all players affect the BGS'.

 

[Littlerift]

I fail to follow your reasoning, CMDR. Fdev handily supplied PG mode just so like minded people could play together in this manner; that was the whole point of of PG in the first place. If you want to talk about "shouldn't have to" I think Fdev "shouldn't have to" create a new separate mode because some of you are now too good for the modes that were originally supplied for you in the first place

Also, think of our friend Mobius: he's eating this crap up with a spoon. If it weren't for his group providing a sanctuary for all you guys he'd be just another nobody. As it stands he gets to be like a cult figure for a big demographic, and I'm sure that suits him just like the cat's pajamas.

As far as I can tell, PG is really designed for small groups of friends to effectively play in Solo in a Wing. The way the instancing works would imply that really large numbers of players using the same group was never the goal.

And the entire reason Mobius exists is because of Frontier's failure to provide an official Open PvE mode, so yes, they really "shouldn't have to" do anything, FD just need to start fixing their . We've had multiple patches settled on fixing combat based on complaints from the PvP community, I fail to see how a sub-team spending a tiny amount of time creating a new server with a few tiny modifications to the ruleset is going to ruin the game.

Thast's exactly the point. If you split the game in two different sets of mechanics, you esentally have to ballance every existing and new feature for each of them. Split the game in two and everything will take longer.

By all means add a a public mode where player killing isn't allowed, but don't split the game in two.

What on Earth are you talking about? There would be no balance differences between the two game-modes. Open PvE would be identical to the current Open but players wouldn't be able to damage one another. That's it... Y'know, like in every other PvE mode in every other game that has both?

 

[Anopheles]

What on Earth are you talking about? There would be no balance differences between the two game-modes. Open PvE would be identical to the current Open but players wouldn't be able to damage one another. That's it... Y'know, like in every other PvE mode in every other game that has both?

Every action affects the BGS. You'd have to factor in player focussed modules like Limpets into any balancing too. The game is more complicated than people are giving it credit for. (probably from self limiting themselves to the less complicated bits).

 

[Littlerift]

Every action affects the BGS. You'd have to factor in player focussed modules like Limpets into any balancing too. The game is more complicated than people are giving it credit for. (probably from self limiting themselves to the less complicated bits).

I don't see why people affecting the BGS is relevant at all. And any improvements that can be made to Limpets is needed for all game modes, so nobody is losing out on anything. The same goes for pad blocking.

There are going to be minor issues, of course, but saying "No, don't implement this game mode because some people might cargo ram" is absurd.

Oh, and if you could stop ending your posts with a pathetic "Lol PvErs don't even play the whole game" mic-drop it might help the flow of the conversation.

 

[thirstyfish]

Mode invasions will still happen (even if only by singletons) and unless you have different mechanics in play (like no shooty hollow squares), FD are going to have to pay someone to investigate every complaint of mode invasion or griefing. If there are changes like No Hollow Box Shooting, then that is further complicated by some PVEers wanting shooting each other to be OK as part of certain CGs or in Conflict Zones, which further complicates the programming.

And this will, inevitably weigh the BGS one way or another 'if all players affect the BGS'.

The BGS argument is pretty much null. Solo and PG effect the BGS as it is now. This wouldn't change anything there.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Every action affects the BGS. You'd have to factor in player focussed modules like Limpets into any balancing too. The game is more complicated than people are giving it credit for. (probably from self limiting themselves to the less complicated bits).

Complete tosh.

You are ignoring the fact that the modes are just client connectivity modes, all are playing the same game in the same galaxy with the same data.

You are also ignoring that Xbox players also share the same galaxy data, have the same individual effect on the BGS, and have the same current modes.

And you are ignoring the future PS4 players who also will be affecting the same BGS with the same data.

And lastly, you are ignoring the fact that PS4 players will not be seeing XBox players or PC players, that Xbox players will not be seeing PC or PS4 players, or that PC players will not bee seeing PS4 or Xbox players - yet each player on each platform in whatever mode still individually affect the same BGS in the same galaxy.

And that is exactly why any argument about additional mechanics or modules or whatever, falls flat on its face. It is misdirection to claim otherwise.

 

[Vorxian]

It would be good at least to test it out. See if it really as good, or as bad as folks suggest it may be.

Love a beta platform to try it out. My guess it will be exactly the same as Mobius, but with players unable to damage other players... and that's about it.

I'm sure someone in FDEV could whip something up then say.. hey guys.. here's that server.. knock yourselves out. Be back in 3 weeks to see what you think.

[praise]

 

[Han_Zen]

What on Earth are you talking about? There would be no balance differences between the two game-modes. Open PvE would be identical to the current Open but players wouldn't be able to damage one another. That's it... Y'know, like in every other PvE mode in every other game that has both?

That works well in games where collisions aren't an important part of the damage mechanics.

If collisions are involved you have to resort to ghost ships that can fly inside each other.

It's realy ugly.

 

[Littlerift]

That works well in games where collisions aren't an important part of the damage mechanics.

If collisions are involved you have to resort to ghost ships that can fly inside each other.

It's realy ugly.

Or simply have ships not inflict damage and not move one another. Even if ghost ships is the only answer, so what?

 

[jasonbarron]

OT, but I thought I'd share: I just spent the last half hour at Jameson's. The instance was packed with CMDR's, including the one mentioned in Genar's video earlier. He rammed me just outside of the nofire zone and I opened up on him; I made him low wake and I chased him into SC, but he dropped back into Jameson's and got docked before I could prosecute; my new all fixed FdL is nothing short of scary

 

[JosiahD]

Ahahahahaha! Apparently someone, out of spite, reported that post for "naming and shaming" - duping the mods to believe that to be the case, and I got an 'advisory' for it - Well played whoever reported it.

You have successfully managed to lie to the moderators, who now believe that was a 'naming and shaming' post where it was nothing of the sort.

I have PM'ed a community leader about it, and hope to see the 'advisory' removed, because neither the video, nor the Reddit post, was anything to do with 'naming and shaming' - and whoever reported that post knows that full well, and have abused the reporting feature in order to stymie my points.


Someone accused me of lying and not knowing what I'm talking about - I posted proof using a video I had made of starport camping/griefing and how the starports didn't have the power to prevent that - a change was made as a direct result of that video - and someone has the gall to report it as 'naming and shaming' - which was entirely NOT the point of the video and the fact you can see the attacking CMDR was irrelevant to the point of the video! A video I have posted quite a few times on here, and had posted on Reddit, without any infractions.

To the person who reported it - If that's the way you're going to try to win your argument - shame on you for abusing forum reporting in that way!!

Well said that man. That is the type of person we're dealing with here though - and exactly the sort of person many don't want to even play with in any mode......a fine example of the type of person who has already driven people away from open, if not the game entirely, and now doesn't want them to even have a more effective and efficient option than the Mobius private group.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

OT, but I though I'd share: I just spent the last half hour at Jameson's. The instance was packed with CMDR's, including the one mentioned in Genar's video earlier. He rammed me just outside of the nofire zone and I opened up on him; I made him low wake and I chased him into SC, but he dropped back into Jameson's and got docked before I could prosecute; my new all fixed FdL is nothing short of scary

Very nice! Congrats!

 

[Han_Zen]

Or simply have ships not inflict damage and not move one another. Even if ghost ships is the only answer, so what?

Has to be ghost ships, if you don't want a Sidey stopping a T9 from getting out of the toaster rack.

I don't think FD wants videos of ships flying inside each other on YouTube.

Even ghost ships are open for exploits. You are entering a station in a big ship. I fire at the station and hide inside you. Now the rules start to get complex.

This is not trivial to make and the morons usually find a way.

Lets not give them a new playgrond.

 

[Littlerift]

Has to be ghost ships, if you don't want a Sidey stopping a T9 from getting out of the toaster rack.

I don't think FD wants videos of ships flying inside each other on YouTube.

Even ghost ships are open for exploits. You are entering a station in a big ship. I fire at the station and hide inside you. Now the rules start to get complex.

This is not trivial to make and the morons usually find a way.

Lets not give them a new playgrond.

I'm happy to give the village moron a new playground if it means the rest of the village's kids get to go on the swings.

I don't see what's complex about the example exploit, though, just stop station damage from being applied through LoS and apply it directly. This would help prevent similar exploits that are currently used to grief (hiding under and Anaconda in an Eagle and firing at the station will get practically the same result).

Edit: People are always going to find a way to be a , if we were only going to do things that had no opportunity for griefing then Open should be removed entirely.

 

[MarkAusten]

OT, but I though I'd share: I just spent the last half hour at Jameson's. The instance was packed with CMDR's, including the one mentioned in Genar's video earlier. He rammed me just outside of the nofire zone and I opened up on him; I made him low wake and I chased him into SC, but he dropped back into Jameson's and got docked before I could prosecute; my new all fixed FdL is nothing short of scary

Nice!

 

[TKensington]

Turn off friendly fire. I'm sure it's a toggle. All players are friendlies, all NPCs are not friendlies.

 

[MarkAusten]

Ahahahahaha! Apparently someone, out of spite, reported that post for "naming and shaming" - duping the mods to believe that to be the case, and I got an 'advisory' for it - Well played whoever reported it.

You have successfully managed to lie to the moderators, who now believe that was a 'naming and shaming' post where it was nothing of the sort.

I have PM'ed a community leader about it, and hope to see the 'advisory' removed, because neither the video, nor the Reddit post, was anything to do with 'naming and shaming' - and whoever reported that post knows that full well, and have abused the reporting feature in order to stymie my points.


Someone accused me of lying and not knowing what I'm talking about - I posted proof using a video I had made of starport camping/griefing and how the starports didn't have the power to prevent that - a change was made as a direct result of that video - and someone has the gall to report it as 'naming and shaming' - which was entirely NOT the point of the video and the fact you can see the attacking CMDR was irrelevant to the point of the video! A video I have posted quite a few times on here, and had posted on Reddit, without any infractions.

To the person who reported it - If that's the way you're going to try to win your argument - shame on you for abusing forum reporting in that way!!

That was and still is a great video. thanks for making it.