Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I'm aware of instancing and solo. Thing is people are asking to enforce that even further instead of providing a proper Open experience, which yes, it would include that you are in threat by someone who has different interests than you, just like you threaten them.

If people want Utopias so much, then by all means gather together and enforce one in a system(s) through their own volision. But by the looks of it, people instead want FD to enforce that Utopia everywhere by default.

"Enforce even further"? If I wanted these UA things delivered today to your base and saw no way around you in open, I'd go solo or group right now, right today. A PvE mode would change nothing, because you can "go around" already with what we have.

 

[Apos]

How is UA bombing not a BGS procedure? Players affect the BGS, the BGS shuts down elements of the station - players do not directly shut them directly but as a result of selling particular items to the Black Market in the targeted station.

I didn't say that using the BGS is more effective than directly opposing players or would prevent player actions - just that those actions could be countered.

It is not part of the BGS because it is not an automated process that happens within the BGS.

That's like saying that CGs are part of the BGS because they can provide a station as a reward. Sure, the station will affect the BGS after its injection into the game, but it wasn't placed there through algorithms related to the BGS. It was manually put by the Devs and then the BGS started behaving accordingly.

If it's by divine intervention, it's not part of the BGS.

 

[MarkAusten]

It is not part of the BGS because it is not an automated process that happens within the BGS.

That's like saying that CGs are part of the BGS because they can provide a station as a reward.

So moving cargo around and destroying factions ships or any other of the in-game actions are also not part of the BGS?

Well, never mind, they are all inputs to the BGS so the effect is the same, more or less.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is not part of the BGS because it is not an automated process that happens within the BGS.

That's like saying that CGs are part of the BGS because they can provide a station as a reward.

The BGS is experienced and affected by all players - it would seem to be reactive to player actions - just as selling UAs in Black Markets causes atations to lose particular services - the player does not directly cause the station to lose the service, all the player does is sell cargo.

 

[Gunnet]

It is not part of the BGS because it is not an automated process that happens within the BGS.

That's like saying that CGs are part of the BGS because they can provide a station as a reward.

Except UA bombing and repairing with meta-alloys are automated processes which happen within the BGS.

 

[JosiahD]

Ah yes, the boogeyman "PvPers" that magically know where you always are out of the 17000 systems of the inhabited bubble. And they are so many that they make the population of He Bo seem like Liechtenstein compared to China.

The same PvPers that whine about combat logging yet are seemingly unwilling to set up a PvP private group so they can enforce their own rules on such things just as Mobius has rules about when PvP can occur.....you're the one that stated that players could create their own utopias using the tools available (implying use of private groups to do so, for example to meet the need of PvE gameplay), I'm merely pointing out that such a measure is equally available to PvPers if they're not happy about some things in open (like combat logging for example). If your argument applies to PvEers, it applies equally to PvPers my friend, or any demographic in the game for that matter.

 

[Apos]

So moving cargo around and destroying factions ships or any other of the in-game actions are also not part of the BGS?

Well, never mind, they are all inputs to the BGS so the effect is the same, more or less.

They are, but they only cause influence swings, expansions/retreats, change of ownership for stations/planetary assets and temporary modifiers for the system's wealth/security values which are otherwise static.

The day you inject a station in game by moving cargo, without FD having provided a "deal" about it, then it will be part of the BGS.

- - - Updated - - -

The same PvPers that whine about combat logging yet are seemingly unwilling to set up a PvP private group so they can enforce their own rules on such things just as Mobius has rules about when PvP can occur.....you're the one that stated that players could create their own utopias using the tools available (implying use of private groups to do so, for example to meet the need of PvE gameplay), I'm merely pointing out that such a measure is equally available to PvPers if they're not happy about some things in open (like combat logging for example). If your argument applies to PvEers, it applies equally to PvPers my friend, or any demographic in the game for that matter.

Not really any demographic. Any interest that is related to a faction is directly opposed to the other factions by default. But it does apply to any demographic that is bickering about whether it is more fun to shoot at NPCs or at other players, that's true.

 

[MarkAusten]

They are, but they only cause influence swings.

The day you inject a station in game by moving cargo, without FD having provided a "deal" about it, then it will be part of the BGS.

So, what you are saying is that every time someone UA bombs a station, FDev have to manually intervene to get the expected effect?

Could you give some support for that, please. I missed that somewhere along the line.

Or did I miss the point?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The same PvPers that whine about combat logging yet are seemingly unwilling to set up a PvP private group so they can enforce their own rules on such things just as Mobius has rules about when PvP can occur.....you're the one that stated that players could create their own utopias using the tools available (implying use of private groups to do so, for example to meet the need of PvE gameplay), I'm merely pointing out that such a measure is equally available to PvPers if they're not happy about some things in open (like combat logging for example). If your argument applies to PvEers, it applies equally to PvPers my friend, or any demographic in the game for that matter.

indeed... and that is the thing, if the "PvPers" are all being genuine about the things they say, a PvE mode should improve current open as well, because in theory, those players with no interest of direct player conflict and are just feeling "forced into open" for their co-op experience and friendly contact are probably more likely to be the cloggers who are allegedly spoiling open.

on one hand some are saying PvE mode takes time for content which only improves the game for a minority of gamers and so should that time not be wasted on said mode.

on the other hand some are saying FD MUST improve the code to fix players being able to clog.... and yet cloggers are surely only an annoyance for the - confirmed by FD - minority of players who PvP but it seems in that instance, the PvPers are happy to demand FD spend time on a fix which is only a problem for the minority and not work on content which helps everyone..... one way or another there are double standards afoot here.

 

[Apos]

So, what you are saying is that every time someone UA bombs a station, FDev have to manually intervene to get the expected effect?

Could you give some support for that, please. I missed that somewhere along the line.

Or did I miss the point?

That's correct. The proof is that the shutting down always happened in batches instead of individually. For convenience of Galnet reporting.

Although the process might have been automated by now, but I doubt it since Maia is still shut down.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

indeed... and that is the thing, if the "PvPers" are all being genuine about the things they say, a PvE mode should improve current open as well, because in theory, those players with no interest of direct player conflict and are just feeling "forced into open" for their co-op experience and friendly contact are probably more likely to be the cloggers who are allegedly spoiling open.

on one hand some are saying PvE mode takes time for content which only improves the game for a minority of gamers and so should that time not be wasted on said mode.

on the other hand some are saying FD MUST improve the code to fix players being able to clog.... and yet cloggers are surely only an annoyance for the - confirmed by FD - minority of players who PvP but it seems in that instance, the PvPers are happy to demand FD spend time on a fix which is only a problem for the minority and not work on content which helps everyone..... one way or another there are double standards afoot here.

You've three hands!

Totally agree though. It is frustrating that most do not take the time to appreciate the opposition point of view. These discussions might go somewhere then.

 

[sewerratuk]

Well, given those systems are not actually 'yours'......

You can try to defend them as best you can, but the game's design prevents you from blocking access to 'your' systems - whether that be via solo or private, or as simple as the instancing mechanic not matchmaking you with someone entering such systems even if in the same mode as yourself. You don't 'own' any systems though, so.....

Forgive me for calling the minor faction, that we helped take control a few systems, ours. I thought the game was about RL, which means having a sense of belonging. Stop trying to oppress me with your quotients

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

You've three hands!

Totally agree though. It is frustrating that most do not take the time to appreciate the opposition point of view. These discussions might go somewhere then.

LOL not quite as interesting as the lady in Total Recall but 3 is better than 2 i guess.

 

[Vorxian]

Apos you seem to think that a unified OPEN PvE mode will change things, as they are now..

That's just inaccurate and wrong.

Right now players wishing to subscribe to a NON direct confrontational style of play do so via SOLO, their own private group, or via Mobius. The numbers will not change if an open PvE mode was implemented. All it serves to do is defragment the playerbase and gives the freedom to consolidate the numbers to a unified mode. That's not fair on these players, is it?

Let me illustrate. Right now the PvE playerbase looks like this:

All we're asking FDEV to do is make the PvE playerbase more like:

In order for the PvE playerbase to unify, we need a server mode that caters for the prime requirement that makes PvE different from PvP in every other MMO out there. No players pew pewing other players.

We're not asking for the moon on a stick like some believe we are.

 

[MarkAusten]

That's correct. The proof is that the shutting down always happened in batches instead of individually. For convenience of Galnet reporting.

Although the process might have been automated by now, but I doubt it since Maia is still shut down.

Your proof is lacking to my mind. The BGS may include UA bombing but timed in the same way that Power Play occurs at a particular time and not continuously. So I have to say that I'm not yet convinced.

 

[JosiahD]

Forgive me for calling the minor faction, that we helped take control a few systems, ours. I thought the game was about RL, which means having a sense of belonging. Stop trying to oppress me with your quotients

And yet the fact remains that given the game's design, you do not actually control it (or own it) from the point of preventing any players from entering 'your' systems - even if everyone were to remain in the same open mode, you cannot be sure people will get instanced with you. In fact, it is certain that there'd be players transiting 'your' systems in open without you even seeing them or having any chance to....ever. Never mind solo and private group players, so there's little point in anyone spruiking about how their efforts to defend 'their' systems would be any worse affected should an open PvE mode ever be implemented.

 

[Apos]

Apos snip

Actually, I understand where you are coming from.

I'm just saying that this is possible just by expanding the player limit of Mobius, which if what people say is to be believed is already planned, instead of implementing a whole new game mode, which would require more time and work for the same effect. And that time and work could be used to provide a better universal open for everyone, where the PvPers won't be bored out of their skin to the point where they turn to psychopaths and kill those who wish to just do their thing.

However, those who wish to just do their thing also need to understand that what they do has consequences to the game's universe. Consequences that someone else might not like and will want to repel you from doing them completely.

 

[MarkAusten]

And yet the fact remains that given the game's design, you do not actually control it (or own it) from the point of preventing any players from entering 'your' systems - even if everyone were to remain in the same open mode, you cannot be sure people will get instanced with you. In fact, it is certain that there'd be players transiting 'your' systems in open without you even seeing them or having any chance to....ever. Never mind solo and private group players, so there's little point in anyone spruiking about how their efforts to defend 'their' systems would be any worse affected should an open PvE mode ever be implemented.

To say nothing of PC, xbox, Playstation etc.

 

[Apos]

Your proof is lacking to my mind. The BGS may include UA bombing but timed in the same way that Power Play occurs at a particular time and not continuously. So I have to say that I'm not yet convinced.

By all means, I do let people free to entertain themselves with ideas that conform with their point of view, despite being the vastly more complicated scenario and violating Occam's razor.

 

[MarkAusten]

Actually, I understand where you are coming from.

I'm just saying that this is possible just by expanding the player limit of Mobius, which if what people say is to be believed is already planned, instead of implementing a whole new game mode, which would require more time and work for the same effect. And that time and work could be used to provide a better universal open for everyone, where the PvPers won't be bored out of their skin to the point where they turn to psychopaths and kill those who wish to just do their thing.

However, those who wish to just do their thing also need to understand that what they do has consequences to the game's universe. Consequences that someone else might not like and will want to repel you from doing them completely.

And yet they cannot reply them from doing it completely due to the existing game mechanics. Solo, Group and Open in, or soon to be in, PC, xbox and playstation.

- - - Updated - - -

By all means, I do let people free to entertain themselves with ideas that conform with their point of view, despite being the vastly more complicated scenario and violating Occam's razor.

Occams' razor is not an inviolate rule.

You are just as guilty of entertaining yourself with ideas that conform to your point of view as I am. Your point of view is that UA bombing is manual, mine is that is (now) BGS. Both are valid points of view and both are valid arguments from the observed facts. Both may be correct, which is another valid conclusion.

At the end of the day, neither your I nor anyone else outside of FDev know for sure.