Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Windscreen Smudge]

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.

By neglecting features that support cooperative play and instead implementing features that divide the player base, you forcefully segregate them because inclusion is not supported by the game itself.

I can play Baseball on a Soccer field, but that doesn't make it a Baseball field. Nor does it make the act of playing Baseball more enjoyable.

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.

Articles quickly approaching 3 and 2 years of age respectively after which his attitude, comments and actions have changed quite dramatically. The escapist article, the most recent one, is quite irrelevant because the interviewer basically asks: "Hey, do you want to copy EvE online?" To which DB's obvious response is "No, I'm making my own game."

And then your take-away from that comment is "Oh, EvE must be all about Executive control, because Dave said Executive Control." It isn't. That's his misconception, you don't need to make the same mistake he did, let alone 2 years later.

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.

Interesting fact: If player groups were more thoroughly supported, the cost would be shared among the group, not the individual.

This is one of the benefits of cooperation.

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" - and there's no need to play in a game mode that is not "fun" in this game.

Supercruise isn't fun either. It's still a part of the game. The problem lies in looking at it as something that isn't supposed to happen. It's not a defective or undesired function, it's part of the game.

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....

No, actually that's non-debatable and something that plagued medicine for millennia leading to the deaths of countless millions of people. Through our inability to correctly diagnose the problem and treating an unrelated, secondary effect of the illness instead of the illness itself you kill the patient or at the very least do absolutely nothing to help them recover from the illness on their own. This is an ongoing problem and one of the leading causes of malpractice lawsuits in modern medicine, which if you're familiar with is so riddled with malpractice lawsuits that many doctors are afraid to sneeze in the wrong direction nowadays.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Wormhole corps, actually. More reliance on each other in that environment, and yeah I often saw null sec corps leave their miners hanging out like a bag of soft, squishy man-parts that're commonly cropped out by the profanity filter.

However, that wasn't because they didn't need the miners. It was often because the PvPers were scary-berries themselves and were afraid of it being a trap. A few barges are cheap in comparison to a couple dozen T2/T3's, and if you're renting.....

Seen all of that. [yesnod]

 

[Ian Skippy]

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

Right. Thats a very useful attitude when trying to deal with other human beings.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Articles quickly approaching 3 and 2 years of age respectively after which his attitude, comments and actions have changed quite dramatically. The escapist article, the most recent one, is quite irrelevant because the interviewer basically asks: "Hey, do you want to copy EvE online?" To which DB's obvious response is "No, I'm making my own game."

And then your take-away from that comment is "Oh, EvE must be all about Executive control, because Dave said Executive Control." It isn't. That's his misconception, you don't need to make the same mistake he did, let alone 2 years later.

Just because something was said a while ago does not mean that it is not still relevant.

Interesting fact: If player groups were more thoroughly supported, the cost would be shared among the group, not the individual.

This is one of the benefits of cooperation.

That'd be an advantage for players who group up over those who do not (or cannot) - implies risk mitigation as well as force of numbers would be benefits - if Frontier were to consider a Guild Bank - and they're not keen on the idea of player-to-player credit transfers either.

Supercruise isn't fun either. It's still a part of the game. The problem lies in looking at it as something that isn't supposed to happen. It's not a defective or undesired function, it's part of the game.

Ganking may be expected to happen in the multi-player modes - however there's no requirement to play in them - so it's not a required part of the game.

No, actually that's non-debatable and something that plagued medicine for millennia leading to the deaths of countless millions of people. Through our inability to correctly diagnose the problem and treating an unrelated, secondary effect of the illness instead of the illness itself you kill the patient or at the very least do absolutely nothing to help them recover from the illness on their own. This is an ongoing problem and one of the leading causes of malpractice lawsuits in modern medicine, which if you're familiar with is so riddled with malpractice lawsuits that many doctors are afraid to sneeze in the wrong direction nowadays.

If we were talking about medicine - indeed.

We're not - it was an analogy you introduced with no detail - which is why I responded in kind. Without clear definition of the "problem", whether it is indeed a "problem" for all players and what, if anything, is proposed to be done, there can be no real discussion on the "solution".

 

[Apos]

Right. Thats a very useful attitude when trying to deal with other human beings.

Doesn't change the fact that this is how the mechanics work unfortunately. There is no way to forfeit your influence on the BGS. And looking at this thread, people don't want to do that either.

Fits right in with the vision of the game as well. This is supposed to be a quite grim galaxy. We can create the sunshine, that's true, but we also have to protect it against those who want a different colour of sunshine or straight up a thunderstorm instead.

People here just want a free umbrella. And in order to get it they are willing to justify that one form of harm is unacceptable, whereas every other form is fine because it doesn't involve looking at the insurance screen.

 

[Mephane]

There is no such thing as PvE and PvP in this game. They intertwine through the BGS, the major factions, etc.

That's just and I believe you are a liar. You may try to define PvP however broadly you want so that it includes any way to indirectly influence any other player's experience (e.g. BGS), but you know very well that what we talk about here is the ability of other players to damage and destroy our personal assets (ship, SRV), not some indirect effect through other mechanics.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Just because something was said a while ago does not mean that it is not still relevant.

It does when it's been more recently contradicted. I know that you avidly pay attention to all of the media in the game so I don't need to supply sources. You already know where the contradictions are. Simply start using the most relevant information that's been given to you instead of the most convenient for your desires.

That'd be an advantage for players who group up over those who do not (or cannot) - implies risk mitigation as well as force of numbers would be benefits - if Frontier were to consider a Guild Bank - and they're not keen on the idea of player-to-player credit transfers either.

No, because individuals have larger personal resources. If you're contributing to a group, those resources are no longer yours. The group then chooses to return resources to attacked players because it is more profitable for the group as an entity to keep them engaged and playing the game than it is to let the individual absorb the blow.

Makes sense? Treat the player group as a separate entity that is choosing to invest in the player for an expected amount of future returns. And safety in numbers is already a part of ED. Even NPC's wing up for safety, doesn't matter if it's a pair of bloody Sidewinders flying with a T9.

Ganking may be expected to happen in the multi-player modes - however there's no requirement to play in them - so it's not a required part of the game.

Risk is a part of the game. There is no reason to distinguish being ganked by a player and being ganked by an NPC, because both are equal elements of risk, thus there is no reason to say that the ability to avoid one type of ganking means that that is not a requirement.

There should be no distinguishing between the two. Risk is mandatory, doesn't matter what that risk in.

If we were talking about medicine - indeed.

We're not - it was an analogy you introduced with no detail - which is why I responded in kind. Without clear definition of the "problem", whether it is indeed a "problem" for all players and what, if anything, is proposed to be done, there can be no real discussion on the "solution".

I'm not sure what part of the world you're from but "Treat the illness, not the symptom" is an anecdote that basically means "get to the root of the problem." I was pointing out that if you want to get to the root of the problem, which is a lack of cooperative play between players, you treat the illness by adding more cooperative features, not the symptom which is the forum whinging by adding Open PvE.

 

[Apos]

That's just and I believe you are a liar. You may try to define PvP however broadly you want so that it includes any way to indirectly influence any other player's experience (e.g. BGS), but you know very well that what we talk about here is the ability of other players to damage and destroy our personal assets (ship, SRV), not some indirect effect through other mechanics.

I've already replied onto that. No, you don't get to play bumper cars.

So I'm currently deconstructing the supporting argument that you people perceive yourselves as victims who only want to go their way harming noone.

And why would I lie? You can just engage in the BGS yourself instead of being a farmer and see for yourself. Unless you were looking for a different accusation there.

I've seen systems that took 2 and 3 months of daily work get deconstructed in a matter of a week(technically a couple days, the week was just the minimum time before everything went pending and resolved, but the damage of 1-2 days was all it needed) because of people farming skimmer missions and you expect me to fill pitty for people paying an insurance screen that can be acquired in a couple hours? Which they don't pay to begin with because they play in Mobius.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Hey Windscreen,

You do realise ED was never sold as a PvP game, don't you?

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Hey Windscreen,

You do realise ED was never sold as a PvP game, don't you?

Hey Genar,

You do realize that 97% of my activity in ED is PvE and I don't really give a damn about the PvP scene, right?

I just want a good game, and good games have functions that cater to human nature.

 

[Shaamaan]

<snip>

Looking at your posts, I'd sort of understand if the fabled PvE on the table were something new in the gaming world. But countless MMOs sport PvE servers, so the concept isn't really new.

You also seem to forget that PvE means "players VERSUS environment", not "players WITH environment" (someone already pointed that out a number of pages back). There's already difficulty in the game. The thing is, FD are the ones in charge of adjusting that difficulty, not the players.

And most players would make for terrible game designers, I'm fine with FD being in charge, just like I'm not fine with PvP-centric people enforcing their style of play upon everyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

I just want a good game, and good games have functions that cater to human nature.

I'm sorry, WHAT human nature? Being a certain "shape"-head? If you want your game to carter to that subset of players, don't be surprised when everyone else is fleeing your game for basically anything else. Take a look at Overwatch - a primarily PvP focused game, and even that game does what it can to stop any form of toxic behaviour.

If you're talking about conflict, then, again, no one's proposing taking away the current PvP-enabled mode. Those who enjoy a bit of pew-pew against each other can stay as they are.

 

[Nemayn]

Wormhole corps, actually. More reliance on each other in that environment, and yeah I often saw null sec corps leave their miners hanging out like a bag of soft, squishy man-parts that're commonly cropped out by the profanity filter.

However, that wasn't because they didn't need the miners. It was often because the PvPers were scary-berries themselves and were afraid of it being a trap. A few barges are cheap in comparison to a couple dozen T2/T3's, and if you're renting.....

Seen all of that. [yesnod]

nope its because we dont need miners or even renters on the whole most of the money for things like srp comes from moon goo, products are then bought in hisec and shipped down.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Looking at your posts, I'd sort of understand if the fabled PvE on the table were something new in the gaming world. But countless MMOs sport PvE servers, so the concept isn't really new.

You also seem to forget that PvE means "players VERSUS environment", not "players WITH environment" (someone already pointed that out a number of pages back). There's already difficulty in the game. The thing is, FD are the ones in charge of adjusting that difficulty, not the players.

And most players would make for terrible game designers, I'm fine with FD being in charge, just like I'm not fine with PvP-centric people enforcing their style of play upon everyone else.

Correct.

I'd also like you to name any interesting gameplay elements those PvE MMO's have over ED that make the PvE only feature an absolute necessity for their experience....

.......
............

Yeah.... There are none. PvE servers on MMO's are the path of least resistance. Get the most players in, keep the gameplay simple, and get the most money out.

No innovation in that side of the industry since 1996. I'll take something that's been improved upon sometime more recent than the last human generation. Thanks.

Also, it seems that a game with an ongoing development cycle and open platform is just the place to experience that.

 

[Nemayn]

also interesting that you felt you had to hide away in wormholes which is sort of the eve equivalent of private groups as they are mass limited and we couldnt bring the big guns in

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

nope its because we dont need miners or even renters on the whole most of the money for things like srp comes from moon goo, products are then bought in hisec and shipped down.

Unless you're one of the smaller corps I'm sure you've got a logistics side that ships the moon goo for you.

Who does your manufacturing?

Where does your ammo come from?

Etc....

PvE isn't just miner carebears. It's everything about Eve that isn't shooting faces. There's a whole lot about Eve that isn't pew.

 

[frostypaw]

I'd also like you to name any interesting gameplay elements those PvE MMO's have over ED that make the PvE only feature an absolute necessity for their experience....

Before we waste our time - who argued necessity? Just wondering who you're arguing against here or if it's just phantoms.

 

[Shaamaan]

Correct.

I'd also like you to name any interesting gameplay elements those PvE MMO's have over ED that make the PvE only feature an absolute necessity for their experience....

.......
............

Yeah.... There are none. PvE servers on MMO's are the path of least resistance. Get the most players in, keep the gameplay simple, and get the most money out.

No innovation in that side of the industry since 1996. I'll take something that's been improved upon sometime more recent than the last human generation. Thanks.

Also, it seems that a game with an ongoing development cycle and open platform is just the place to experience that.

What? Like, literally, what? From this post I feel like you're arguing that there's no game in ED at all. Now, we can discuss its lack of advertised depth, sure, but that's a different topic to be had. But that doesn't change the fact that there IS a game in ED, and no, PvP doesn't make it any more enticing - at least not to me, and apparently, a larger number of other people.

Anyway, from your post I feel like you're craving more PvP in ED. Why not fire up CQC? Or play any of the plethora of PvP-centric games? Or why not just go to EVE, if you need a single shared world with groups and politics (it's free now, I believe)?

About the only thing PvP related I'd like to see is for the CQC to take place in the game-world. Imagine if you could fly to the arena (as well as pick the option from the menu) to play... AND if you could observe matches (via the various "commercial" display) from the other game modes. Or be able to see the fight from afar? Or buy a spectators ticket and get a "debug cam" to see a fight first hand? (Obviously those suggestions are likely impossible due to technical limitations, just giving out ideas...)

Yeah, I'd like that. That's a tying of PvP and PvE I can get behind. It's optional. It fleshes the game world out. It's not invasive.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

also interesting that you felt you had to hide away in wormholes which is sort of the eve equivalent of private groups as they are mass limited and we couldnt bring the big guns in

Hide? I spent most of my time in your backyard looking for targets.

Wormhole corps were fun. I had no interest in being an F1 monkey in a 200 man fleet. Much more compelling to start up 10-20 ship skirmishes and capitals are just boring all around.

Personal preference. I like to have a bigger impact in smaller fights so I can beat my chest and say we won because I have the biggest phallus. Or get shamed and boo'd over TS because I screwed up. Either way it was much more interesting than being a cog.

- - - Updated - - -

Before we waste our time - who argued necessity? Just wondering who you're arguing against here or if it's just phantoms.

Exactly. PvE only modes are not a necessity for PvE players.

I'm glad we're finally seeing eye to eye.

 

[VR Murgle]

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.

In WoW there's a quest where you have to hunt bears, every bear you kill can't be killed by an other player so you'd be actively working against other players who have the same quest no one calls that PvP. You're the one using semantics to try and redefine the meaning of PvP but there's really no need; it was perfectly fine the way it was.

 

[Nemayn]

Yes mostly alts of the pvper, for example I had a jump freighter pilot alt, only pve I ever did though and we rolled plenty of wormhole corps when they got irritating enough but you were protected by mechanics enough that you had to be really irritating. It is tedious taking down a pos at the best of times but when you are limited to sub caps its just an exercise in boredom. Small gang warfare is ok but ultimately pointless pvp to me is a means to an end. obviously to you its an end in itself which tells me all I need to know

 

[Apos]

In WoW there's a quest where you have to hunt bears, every bear you kill can't be killed by an other player so you'd be actively working against other players who have the same quest no one calls that PvP. You're the one using semantics to try and redefine the meaning of PvP but there's really no need; it was perfectly fine the way it was.

In WoW Gold Farming is not considered PvE either.

The only equivalent that could EVER come close as an example from WoW would be World Bosses. Which when killed would become unavailable for every other guild to run them until they respawned. And that's still not good enough. But those were indeed much more fun in PvP servers where you could actually contest instead of having to pray for a wipe and take turns.