Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[frostypaw]

"Play your way" Is being defined by you and others as "Our way is the only right way, so we should receive special treatment." with no room for compromise. The absolute refusal to even consider minor, insignificant compromises that only benefit your gameplay and the game as a whole is a direct indicator of that.

No it's not, and I've not done that at all.

You're just making stuff up now - why do you expect anyone to engage or reply to you seriously if you're going to do that? You've made yourself a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

You think 'the carebear' is equivalent to 'the gibbering uncle nobody really wants to be near with his smell and manners and vague racism'? Anyway, we've now devolved to "he is stupid too!" which is even below my standards for an internet discussion. Have fun guys, see you in a couple dozen pages.

No, and I didn't claim it was. I'm just pointing out the obvious and blatant hypocrisy of jumping to his defence despite the nonsense he's come out with before.

 

[Deadspin]

Forcing any of these things does not benefit everyone - as not everyone bought the game as a multi-player game (although it is a multi-player game among other things).

However, with that being said, were they added in true Frontier fashion, everything would be optional and no single item would be implemented in such a way that would allow it to interfere with a solo player's game (or the games of people who did not with to participate in it).

As always, there is a way to avoid anything a player does already built into the game.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

I expect that it may work as you suggest in a game where players have no option but to play in a single game mode - where the choice is to play among PvP players (who may or may not be friendlies) or to not play at all. There's no need for PvE players to rely on PvP players for protection, in this game, unless they want to, of course.

So instead of splitting the player base irrevocably and creating a permanent divide between the two groups, why don't we instead use that same amount of effort to incentivize their cooperation for more beneficial and genuinely enjoyable interactions between the two communities?

Stop asking for design decisions to be made to segregate players, and start making decisions to bring them together.

Interesting point regarding financial control - why is that?

Because when you have legitimate, functioning and in-depth player group mechanics in a space game finances and logistics become important, and finances and logistics are the parts of the game dominated by PvE players solely because it already fits into their style of gameplay, and PvP players are too busy playing PvP aspects of the game to contribute.

A response that is too late is not meaningful to the casualty. The possibility of PvP is enough to make some players choose not to play among them - regardless of the odds - some players just do not like PvP.

It's a video game. There is no real "casualty". It's just a minor inconvenience that is quickly overcome.

Getting ganked is not a traumatic, life-changing injury that can't be healed.

And for the players who do not want the possibility of PvP at all, there is Solo or another game. It just comes down to the basic reality that you can't please everyone and some decisions, while they may benefit a small number of players in some meaningful way, are largely and painfully detrimental to the game as a whole.

All risk from direct PvP has been able to be removed from this game, in two out of three game modes (in Private Groups that take care as to their membership, of course), since the game launched - to suggest that there will be demands now to remove all risk would seem to be argumentum ad absurdum, in my opinion. I'll agree to disagree with you on that point

Which is why a request for Open PvE does nothing but add redundancy to an already problematic and dysfunctional system. Instead of making the problem worse by treating the symptoms, treat the illness and solve everything

 

[Deadspin]

Because when you have legitimate, functioning and in-depth player group mechanics in a space game finances and logistics become important, and finances and logistics are the parts of the game dominated by PvE players solely because it already fits into their style of gameplay, and PvP players are too busy playing PvP aspects of the game to contribute.

Generalization that applies to no specific aspect of either game as both games require PvE to advance in some way, shape or form.

You have been deducted one credit.

 

[Notwyn]

Sure I do heartily agree with you

Mobius OPEN should be mirrored on what OPEN is now, and endorsed by FDEV. The only difference being in that it can facilitate the whole group, rather than having to work around the group limitations. To have a united playerbase like that would be super in one mode. I love the openness of Mobius, it feels right that mankind has banded together to see the galaxy, it's a great philosophy. I know it's a pain in the for FDEV to administer and keep mole bashing politics on: he did this, he did that, look what he did in the letterbox.. FDEV hate banning people, they'd just get stick.. but if they washed their hands of all the red tape and there's a disclaimer saying 'this is not an officially managed server (and point to Mobius policy) it should be enough.. bah I'm sure they have more pressing things to do than mole bash arguments on griefing vs PvP vs accidentally for the third time in a row ramming a ship trying to take off Create an open version of the limited private mode, let the community decide what kind of philosophy is behind the etiquette of play and let the community manage the affairs and player list.

I think if a good, middle ground and understanding can be achieved it will be a great thing for a lot of players

That's just a guild proposal in disguise. FDEV should never hand over the keys to the "Community" they cannot be trusted.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Forcing any of these things does not benefit everyone - as not everyone bought the game as a multi-player game (although it is a multi-player game among other things).

These people may have wanted to read the back of the box first.

FDev never state that there is a "single player" mode. Anywhere.

And this is a fact. Solo play is still multiplayer, because you're still competing with everyone else in regards to the BGS.

ED only has multiplayer functionality. There is no other mode, only an option to avoid directly meeting the other players that you are playing with.

 

[Deadspin]

Dis gunna be gud.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Generalization that applies to no specific aspect of either game as both games require PvE to advance in some way, shape or form.

You have been deducted one credit.

We're trying to keep it simple here. Eve is complicated and I'm not into beating people with Encyclopedias when they fail to memorize it verbatim by looking at the cover.

 

[Deadspin]

We're trying to keep it simple here. Eve is complicated and I'm not into beating people with Encyclopedias when they fail to memorize it verbatim by looking at the cover.

My point was that your generalization isn't the correct one to use. Using EVE as an example at all is a bad idea as the core philosophies of both games are entirely different. For it to matter, players in ED would need some aspect of control over the market economy, something which FDev is not going to allow. Even expanded player-faction controls wouldn't include anything that could potentially effect the economy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

However, with that being said, were they added in true Frontier fashion, everything would be optional and no single item would be implemented in such a way that would allow it to interfere with a solo player's game (or the games of people who did not with to participate in it).

As always, there is a way to avoid anything a player does already built into the game.

Indeed and available in both multi-player modes, naturally

Usual caveat about the fact that playing in Solo cannot be said to avoid *anything* that other players do (as every player affects the BGS and experiences it) however, yes - avoiding direct player actions is possible there.

 

[frostypaw]

Question: Is EvE ruined by allowing solo play?
Answer: Obviously if you're trying to make a point that requires it. In fact it probably isn't possible in the first place so don't worry about it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

These people may have wanted to read the back of the box first.

FDev never state that there is a "single player" mode. Anywhere.

And this is a fact. Solo play is still multiplayer, because you're still competing with everyone else in regards to the BGS.

ED only has multiplayer functionality. There is no other mode, only an option to avoid directly meeting the other players that you are playing with.

They did describe that mode as single player then, at the start of the kickstarter, and now, on the STEAM game features panel.

From the FAQ here on the forums posted at the start of the Kickstarter:

FAQ- Elite: Dangerous
​

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?

The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.


The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.


Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).​

.... and having the means of to avoid directly meeting other players, regardless of how busy the location might be in another game mode, can reasonably be described as a single player mode - as there is no prospect of ever meeting another player in it.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

My point was that your generalization isn't the correct one to use. Using EVE as an example at all is a bad idea as the core philosophies of both games are entirely different. For it to matter, players in ED would need some aspect of control over the market economy, something which FDev is not going to allow. Even expanded player-faction controls wouldn't include anything that could potentially effect the economy.

God please don't remind me that ED doesn't even have a functioning economy. It's depressing enough just looking at the state of player groups.

Excluding Eve's meta, there are a lot of similarities when you boil both games down to their vary basic core gameplay mechanics of how players interact, and since I'm focusing on player interaction, I am willfully ignoring all of the other things that need work in ED for the time being.

Simple crowd, one subject at a time.

- - - Updated - - -

They did describe that mode as single player then, at the start of the kickstarter, and now, on the STEAM game features panel.

From the FAQ here on the forums posted at the start of the Kickstarter:

And I'd like to point out the Update as being particularly poignant. That promise is so far out of date they were still promising an offline mode.

Things have changed. Time to accept that and move on.

- - - Updated - - -

Question: Is EvE ruined by allowing solo play?
Answer: Obviously if you're trying to make a point that requires it. In fact it probably isn't possible in the first place so don't worry about it.

Holy crap, did you just link a random bloggers clickbait opinion article about something that is not actually relevant to the discussion, let alone EvE or ED as some sort of retort?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So instead of splitting the player base irrevocably and creating a permanent divide between the two groups, why don't we instead use that same amount of effort to incentivize their cooperation for more beneficial and genuinely enjoyable interactions between the two communities?

Stop asking for design decisions to be made to segregate players, and start making decisions to bring them together.

There is no forced segregation of the player-base (apart from XB1 players who do not have XBox Live Gold membership as they can only play in Solo) - each player chooses to play in the game mode that best suits them.

As long as any incentives to play in a multi-player mode apply to both multi-player modes then I doubt that there'd be much complaint - it's when the "Open needs a bonus" proposals start that the resistance starts.

Because when you have legitimate, functioning and in-depth player group mechanics in a space game finances and logistics become important, and finances and logistics are the parts of the game dominated by PvE players solely because it already fits into their style of gameplay, and PvP players are too busy playing PvP aspects of the game to contribute.

DBOBE doesn't seem keen on the behaviours facilitated by large player groups and the usual associated features implemented for them - he expressed reservations to that effect at EGX 2014.

.... and in an article with the Escapist he has expressed the opinion that, unlike EVE, this is not an executive control game.

It's a video game. There is no real "casualty". It's just a minor inconvenience that is quickly overcome.

Getting ganked is not a traumatic, life-changing injury that can't be healed.

And for the players who do not want the possibility of PvP at all, there is Solo or another game. It just comes down to the basic reality that you can't please everyone and some decisions, while they may benefit a small number of players in some meaningful way, are largely and painfully detrimental to the game as a whole.

Indeed, it's a video game - and I would expect that most people play video games to have "fun" - what is characterised as a "minor inconvenience" could be extremely costly to the player in question - and that may not be quickly overcome.

While getting ganked may not be traumatic (although some players will not play in Open due to the possibility of forced interaction with another player - and the adverse reaction that it may cause in them) neither is it "fun", in my opinion - and there's no need to play in a game mode that is not "fun" in this game.

Which is why a request for Open PvE does nothing but add redundancy to an already problematic and dysfunctional system. Instead of making the problem worse by treating the symptoms, treat the illness and solve everything

That depends on the exact diagnosis and proposed course of treatment. Like physicians, I expect that there will be differences of opinion in a complicated case like this....

 

[frostypaw]

Holy crap, did you just link a random bloggers clickbait opinion article about something that is not actually relevant to the discussion, let alone EvE or ED as some sort of retort?

Lol maybe - I just picked a random link that Google returned when asked whether EvE was any good as a solo game. Apparently EvE is a great example of how games should be and having other modes is bad for games. Or not.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And I'd like to point out the Update as being particularly poignant. That promise is so far out of date they were still promising an offline mode.

Things have changed. Time to accept that and move on.

Of course - the proposed Offline mode was added about half way through the Kickstarter and removed from the scope weeks before launch.

The single shared galaxy state (that every player experiences and affects, regardless of game mode or, now, platform), the ability to play Solo, in Private Groups or in the "All Group" (Open) and the ability to change modes at will (on a per session basis) were all part of the game design from the outset and remained so throughout development, past release and remain today - broadly as pitched.

So, while some things may have changed, some things remain as they did from the outset - I'll accept those things gladly.

 

[Nemayn]

Guess who controls things in Eve, the king of PvP space sims?

Carebears. They have the purse strings.

Lol if you believe that then you have never been in a full on null sec corp. PVE people are regarded very much second class in eve and left to dangle in the wind quite happily.

 

[Apos]

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's not really the point of the argument.

The thread is about an Open PvE mode which disables PvP as defined in the most basic sense of the word, direct player-on-player action, not indirect "Oh but you're working against my faction" action. Which, by the way, considering that players were only allowed to name and place factions, not actually run or be a part of them, kind of nullifies your entire argument since the offending player would, in that case, be working against an NPC led faction that is backed by players, not against any single player directly.

We can twist it around all day. The argument, however, is about direct player-on-player action.

That's a load of semantics that don't really mean much. The player A would be working against the interests of player B. Just like griever A is working against the interests of "PvE player" B. It's the same thing and this is all that this game is about, regardless of mode, regardless of activity.

By that logic people shouldn't complain about their ships destroyed, because legally they don't own their accounts, only the ability to use them.

There is no such thing as PvE and PvP in this game. They intertwine through the BGS, the major factions, etc. The sooner people realize that, the better so we can keep going on playing the actual game instead of farming for bigger ships and continuously asking for the big ships to be buffed because people feel entitled to them not being destroyed due to spending credits on them.

 

[Ian Skippy]

That's a load of semantics that don't really mean much. The player A would be working against the interests of player B. Just like griever A is working against the interests of "PvE player" B. It's the same thing and this is all that this game is about, regardless of mode, regardless of activity.

By that logic people shouldn't complain about their ships destroyed, because legally they don't own their accounts, only the ability to use them.

There is no such thing as PvE and PvP in this game. They intertwine through the BGS, the major factions, etc. The sooner people realize that, the better so we can keep going on playing the actual game instead of farming for bigger ships and continuously asking for the big ships to be buffed because people feel entitled to them not being destroyed due to spending credits on them.

Yeah, but some people dont want other people to shoot them. Thats what the topic is about. Not about what you think it should be called, or what your preferred definition of PvP is.

 

[Apos]

Yeah, but some people dont want other people to shoot them. Thats what the topic is about. Not about what you think it should be called, or what your preferred definition of PvP is.

There is only one definition. And by that definition every action in this game has the potential to have a PvP part.

As for the topic, it's not about people not wanting to be shot at. It's about people wanting to be immune to damage when shot at or rammed at. They already have ways to achieve the former.

Oh, and of course in order to spread the Holy Word of our Lord and Saviour Mobius that Open is a terrible place where you will be shot at wherever you go. So join Mobius today so that people can use the player count in order to claim they can speak on your behalf.