Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Apos]

@Windscreen Smudge

Name one mmo that has failed because of PvE modes. WoW has had PvE servers since the beginning, and they have some of the highest populations. Virtually every successful mmo has PvE servers. Everquest had a hundred PvE servers at one point, and 2 PvP servers. It's still around today.

Cite an example of a game that has failed because of a PvE server. Tie a direct link to that being the cause, as well.

That's supposed to be to Windscreen Smudge, but my phone keeps quoting frostypaw for some reason.

This is not a traditional PvE game either. We neither kill bosses or have such strict cooperational activities. And those servers on those games are not connected to each other either. They are separate entities.

So if you get a separate Galaxy, sure, go ahead.

And the argument of the person that you quote wasn't strictly about PvE servers, but about fragmenting the community too much. And indeed all of those MMOs have taken actions when that happened and closed down/merged servers, especially WoW. Warhammer also suffered from this, but Warhammer suffered from a lot of things. (what a pity that was)

This game neither has strictly PvE/PvP activities, nor the same population for the community to be fragmented into different communities so much.`

Also, in WoW, transferring from a PvE to a PvP server wasn't a big deal if you were a PvE player. All that mattered was the guilds available or about to accept/recruit you. This is obviously not the case here.

 

[Rafe Zetter]

Nah. It's just like the 'formal communications' from EvE players - all worded to sound like people are more official and important than they are, hence assigning titles like ambassador etc. It's a very easy trick to play seen from teenagers up

No - I'm pretty sure having read quite a few of Gluttony's posts that's it's a better education, and or being required to use "big words, with more than 2 syllables" on a professional basis.

It's often the mistake of the general population who think that those who use "big words with more than 2 syllables" are doing so for attention or otherwise trying to make some form of statement.

We don't. We do it because we know how to, and make no apologies if you struggle with it. The skill of good writing is just as valid as knowing how to fix a car; no-one ever said "oooh look at you with your fancy spanners, what are you trying to prove?"

As far as Eve "formal communications" goes, the majority of inter corp / alliance diplomacy is indeed done by people with a brain, corporations are run like a business, a profitable, well run busniess ( I hate to say it but even the Goons could teach a few RL corporations a thing or two) - Eve is renowned for having a playerbase of "higher than average" IQ, by the games very nature it weeds out a good portion of the less than capable gamers. One only has to read some of the disseminations of the game mechanics to realise EVe gamers are not your average idiot.

It's also a very sad endictment of todays society that one feels one must explain or otherwise justify a better education and intellect, so the lesser endowed don't feel threatened.

 

[frostypaw]

We don't. We do it because we know how to, and make no apologies if you struggle with it. The skill of good writing is just as valid as knowing how to fix a car; no-one ever said "oooh look at you with your fancy spanners, what are you trying to prove?"

You significantly underestimate the level of my education. The trouble is I'm very aware of how people try to use language to bolster their point because I've had to spend so long filtering out people who are faking clever. There's a difference between actually knowing your stuff and just turning up with the fancy spanners and a nice uniform and expecting everyone to assume you are therefore brilliant and right.

 

[bootsam]

I find a well written post illuminating. Especially whereby they use their verbosity to state the ridiculous and support the inane. It tells you so much. Yes, Ive read a book but I never understood it.

"farts in the background"

 

[Lianachan]

I can't see FD doing a PVE mode. They seem to be more interested in making the game they think everybody should be playing than in listening to what kind of game people want.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'd be 100% happy with the current three-mode system if the population of Private Groups was unlimited (like Open's) and if the administrative burden of large Private Group management could be shared.

indeed and ultimately i think this would be the best solution if its possible.
I am stubborn, and for the longest of times have been part of the "official" pro PvE mode bandwagon, however i gotta admit, I am seeing a lot of sense in the arguments against one..

mainly from the practicality stand point of how you stop people from trying to exploit it to harvest tears, just like some do in open.Sadly it seems obvious FD have no interest, or simply no manpower to physically police a mode.

mobius works because it is policed by the players........ the reason why it fails is due to the number limit combined with the fact it puts it all on mobius,

ultimately tho, i am beginning to feel what Robert is saying - and probably many others in this thread - that expanding PGs is the only workable solution.. IF its doable. in a way it takes some of the positives of a guild, without the added baggage of it, because its in its own mode so it does not force players into "joining" if they do not want.

and hell, even if its not, and if mobius did fold, well, personally i wont stop playing the game if it is only with a handful of real life friends. I would have backed ED if it was single player only, i wouldnt have backed it - at least to the level I did - if it was 1 mode only, so ultimately, in this part of the game at least its currently far closer right now to my ideal than it is to me walking away.

and whilst it is not 100% what was promised in the kickstarter (forgetting offlinegate) its not a million miles away either.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

Still haven't been able to join Mobius on the Xbox. I post this because that is the point that the OP is making and it is a pertinent point that appears to be getting lost.

The in's out of how the BGS is affected by having multiple modes. instances and platforms is irrelevant as far as I can see. And such argument seems pointless since it cannot change.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

One only has to read some of the disseminations of the game mechanics to realise EVe gamers are not your average idiot.

Are they professional idiots instead ?

(sorry - couldn't resist)

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Or it could be he is educated to a better standard of english than you, has a larger vocabulary than you, with a better than average grasp of grammar than seemingly 90% of the english speaking population, and furthermore, what you perceive as "1800's toffeenosed talk"; my paraphrase of your post sentiment, is his natural mode of writing and speech. It might surprise you to know that there are people in the world for whom writing "properly" is a professional requirement, apart from most journalists it seems nowadays, and for yet others, simply a matter of personal pride; a skill that once learned, is all but impossible to not utilise to it's fullest extent.

It would be akin to having one particular gait whilst walking during the day, and an entirely different gait used for the evenings.

Some things you just CANNOT turn off.

Jesus Christ!, way to go, turn a friendly banter reply into toxicity!. My grasp of the English language is fine thanks..... (though my typing on here if on my phone leaves a lot to be desired).


- - - Updated - - -

I think its called 'an education' Mike. Didn't they have any round your way? Being erudite and verbose is also picked up by playing old fashioned role play games i.e. literature. You may know it as 'reading books'. Sorry but 2nd hand copies of Razzle will not help you here.

cheeky git..... i was Mayfair all the way oh and playboy... only for the stories of course

when i was a kid, around 12, i had an agreement with my folks, for every 1 book they chose me to read, i read one of my choosing (i was a real book worm). I remember buying Moby at the same time as "Crabs The Human Sacrifice" (I loved Guy N Smith, such quality trash). The woman refused to serve me so my mum had to buy it - i don’t think she realised quite how graphic the crabs books were - as if the name and the cover didn’t give it away

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Friendly fire is part of gameplay, so it very much does change it. I'm seriously astonished how someone can make these claims together.

I am looking at it from a PvE point of view. And fact is that even when people are cooperating, mistakes exist. And those mistakes take a toll, minor or major, in the form of damage. How is removing that not a change in gameplay? Not to mention how I can now make up for accidentally boosting by just smashing to a friend's Corvette that is big enough to stop me.

Those are very much concrete gameplay advantages.

And I don't want players getting such power over other players, so the Mobius idea would never get support from me. It would either need to be something from FD and consistent or nothing for me.

i agree with this... the reason why PvE possibly would not work is because a small number of players cant just read the rules and go into a group and accept them.

ideally a PvE mode would change absolutely nothing at all, no coding, no nothing , and just have a tick box before going in that, this is a PvE mode please do not attack other players. FF would still happen, accidents would still happen, but i think most would accept the odd v rare genuine accident.

what a wonderful game it would be if players would just stick to the rules and not go out of the way to screw around.

truth is, i like having to police my fire when in a furball.

I can only speak for myself but the reason I left open was not because of player pirates or BHers, but because some players were acting out of character for the game as I perceive it....... As soon as i saw players doing stuff which made no sense in the context of the game, I left

simple as that really for me. Mobius fixes that. i have never seen some of what i saw in open. admittedly some of what went on has been fixed now.... but Mobius is just geared up better for what to me (only speaking for me) is the spirit of the game.

 

[excalibus]

I wonder how many people actually play in wings, because the argument that a PvE mode would not change how the game functions is being thrown around so effortlessly.

Let's assume you are using rail guns and your wingmate passes by and you hit him/her instead. Or a wingmate or you yourself by mistake boosts into someone else's torpedo or mines.

Or if you want a much more common scenario, the wingmate is really close to the target when your Plasma Accelerator connects.

What happens then? They take no damage?

That would mean an inherent advantage over the other modes, where there is no friendly fire. Thus, fighting in wars and bounty hunting has even less risks, yet once again all of the rewards? Not only do you remove the risk of a hostile player, but also the risk of accidental friendly fire, a feature inherent to the core gameplay regardless of game mode. Yes, even solo, you can damage yourself with collateral damage.

Whatever alternative (aka band aid fix) you can find to counter this example will be available to the griefers to use against you. So that's not even a consideration, since it removes your main goal: A mode where they have no ways of hurting you.

This is why I claim that such a request is so egocentric that it shows from which subsets of players it stems from.

the simplest solution would be to not remove friendly fire bounties... just the damage... another equally simple solution would be the pilots license idea where once you lose all your license points due to attempted PVP you are essentially banned from the mode unless you can petition frontier support to allow you back in with proof your transgressions where not on purpose etc...

this would allow all the aspects of firing weapons to not be impacted, but would, over time, see those repeatedly engaging other players removed from the mode permanently...

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Agreed, and I've said the same. Certain decisions and choices in wording are made intentionally though and have been defended when questioned. I'm all for benefit of the doubt - it's been given and answered.

indeed and just to reiterate, i was not being snarky and if i came across as such i apologise.

 

[T'Kitr]

I'm 100% happy with the current three-mode system.

I apologise. My phrasing was careless and based on an unwarranted generalisation. I should have been more precise.

I intended to make reference to the fact, evident from the forums here, that the three-mode system appears to create a considerable amount of apparently irreconcilable conflict between the ideals of a significant number of users on all sides. Players dedicated to the use of Open mode, for example, often express concern about the ability of other players to effectively avoid conflict by using either Private or Solo modes. This renders players in Open unable to mount strategic blockades or influence changes to system control by intercepting other players working against their interests. It is also cause for complaint for players wishing to engage in a criminal play style by interdicting and attacking traders; or those wishing to hunt other players for some other reason.

It also creates a general dissatisfaction amongst players in Private and Solo modes who, rightly or wrongly, have come to perceive the Open mode as essentially a 'griefer's paradise' - regardless of the continuing debate over what constitutes 'griefing', this is a powerful perception and one which leads players to exclude themselves from the opportunities of Open play.

I believe that if FDev had simply chosen a mode for ED and said, "This is what the game is", it would have attracted a clear player base and been able to cater fully and completely to that player base, while others, whose tastes do not include the chosen style of play, would merely have passed the game by with no harm done. If, for example, it had been created and marketed as a single-player game from the start, players looking for PVP space combat would not have been drawn to it in the first place. Conversely, if ED had drawn from EVE Online's model and said simply, "This is a multiplayer PVP game, it's dangerous out there", it could have gone all-out to create the best space combat experience out there, without having to confuse matter with different modes all affecting the same universe.

The only saving grace I can see is that ED doesn't really have a very sophisticated economic or strategic model - mostly these depend on players being willing to use their imaginations - so there isn't a great deal for the different modes to affect apart from how we interact with each other - but the tensions there are clear from the forums and have been so since day one.

As a Solo player myself I might have been disappointed if FDev had created a dedicated PVP game, because it would've been the first Elite game I felt wasn't for me. But I'd have got over it, and found something else, and ED could've been made into an absolute heaven for the PVP fans. But by trying to be all things to all people, ED has, in my view, severely limited its potential.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I believe that if FDev had simply chosen a mode for ED and said, "This is what the game is", it would have attracted a clear player base and been able to cater fully and completely to that player base, while others, whose tastes do not include the chosen style of play, would merely have passed the game by with no harm done. If, for example, it had been created and marketed as a single-player game from the start, players looking for PVP space combat would not have been drawn to it in the first place. Conversely, if ED had drawn from EVE Online's model and said simply, "This is a multiplayer PVP game, it's dangerous out there", it could have gone all-out to create the best space combat experience out there, without having to confuse matter with different modes all affecting the same universe.

Frontier made their choice over four years ago - and decided to offer players the choice on a per session basis rather than limit players to one of the three options. It has attracted players - some for Open, some for Solo, some for Private Groups and some because of two or more modes. DBOBE recently agreed in a stream that the game has not been sold as a PvP game (but is a game where players can be destroyed by players). The single shared galaxy state is the background that all players experience and affect - by design - and now encompasses both, soon to be three, discrete platforms that do not offer the opportunity to cross-play.

We'll never know what could have been - as the game was developed following successful funding based on the published design - and there's no guarantee that the game would have been funded if that design had been fundamentally different.

 

[Shaamaan]

@Windscreen Smudge

Name one mmo that has failed because of PvE modes. WoW has had PvE servers since the beginning, and they have some of the highest populations. Virtually every successful mmo has PvE servers. Everquest had a hundred PvE servers at one point, and 2 PvP servers. It's still around today.

Cite an example of a game that has failed because of a PvE server. Tie a direct link to that being the cause, as well.

That's supposed to be to Windscreen Smudge, but my phone keeps quoting frostypaw for some reason.

Smudge wants ED to be like EvE - i.e. player-controlled systems and economy. That's his premise.

Sure, EvE is unique in its own way. But that's also why so many people, myself included, have no interest in playing it (I did play it, BTW, so it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about). Needless to say, we're way too far into the development of ED to make anything of this work.

The BGS is shared - not just between modes (Solo, Open, PGs) but also platforms. There are limits as to how many people can play in a single instance at a given time (plus there are often connection issues when more people start to connect). The architecture is P2P. All of this prevents having just Open. BUT it doesn't prevent having Open PvE...

So his entire line of reasoning is pointless. I'm willing to bet that Frontier won't go back to the drawing board and redesign the game with just Open in mind. It'd be way too expensive, if nothing else. Plus it wouldn't really be popular either.

What Smudge also forgets is that PvPers are a minority - a statistic FD confirmed themselves.

 

[Shaamaan]

I intended to make reference to the fact, evident from the forums here, that the three-mode system appears to create a considerable amount of apparently irreconcilable conflict between the ideals of a significant number of users on all sides. Players dedicated to the use of Open mode, for example, often express concern about the ability of other players to effectively avoid conflict by using either Private or Solo modes. This renders players in Open unable to mount strategic blockades or influence changes to system control by intercepting other players working against their interests. It is also cause for complaint for players wishing to engage in a criminal play style by interdicting and attacking traders; or those wishing to hunt other players for some other reason.

Just to point out... players who want to claim systems as their own or mount blockades are free to do so, but they should not expect their efforts to work. That, I believe, was laid out from the start. You can't form in-game groups / guilds / corporations (outside a small wing). You can try to game the BGS, but you can't really claim anything (for better or for worse).

Until there are official player-controlled sectors (which I doubt will ever happen, due to the nature of the game), these things simply don't exist. It's like playing pretend. You can pretend you're blockading a system, but that won't really stop anyone not interested in playing pretend with you.

 

[JosiahD]

Frontier made their choice over four years ago - and decided to offer players the choice on a per session basis rather than limit players to one of the three options. It has attracted players - some for Open, some for Solo, some for Private Groups and some because of two or more modes. DBOBE recently agreed in a stream that the game has not been sold as a PvP game (but is a game where players can be destroyed by players). The single shared galaxy state is the background that all players experience and affect - by design - and now encompasses both, soon to be three, discrete platforms that do not offer the opportunity to cross-play.

We'll never know what could have been - as the game was developed following successful funding based on the published design - and there's no guarantee that the game would have been funded if that design had been fundamentally different.

Agreed. I think one thing we could be certain of is that had the Kickstarter proposed a different game - say, only a single mode, or PvP or PvE only - the player demographic would be very different, that's for certain. We'll never know whether that demographic would be for the better or worse. And I'm inclined to think that the Kickstarter may not have even been successful had it been, say, a single 'anything goes' open mode or PvP only - the Kickstarter very much played on the nostalgia of previous Elite game players to succeed, a playerbase that was clearly very PvE-focused I think. Personally I think the two best things about E: D are the galaxy simulation and the ability to change play 'modes' pretty much on a whim (great flexibility in adjusting one's play style from one session to another while maintaining continuity of CMDR progression). The worst is that open should have had far better consequences in place from the start for things like player killing in secure systems, but didn't and still doesn't two years after release.

 

[T'Kitr]

Frontier made their choice over four years ago - and decided to offer players the choice on a per session basis rather than limit players to one of the three options. It has attracted players - some for Open, some for Solo, some for Private Groups and some because of two or more modes.

Without doubt. But there's attracting players, there's keeping players, and there's keeping players enthusiastic. I imagine someone who's never played the game would be drawn by the theoretical appeal of 'play your way' - the ability to choose whether to allow interaction or not, but everyone plays in the same universe anyway. That does sound pretty great. And I've no doubt there's a substantial number of people - and obviously enough people for Frontier's needs - that're happy enough to keep playing.

But it's objectively true that there is a lot of conflict amongst players over the interface between the modes: a casual glance over the forums demonstrates that. And as far as I'm aware it's been like this at least since beta, and certainly since release. My perception - for that's all it can be, without access to solid user data - is that the inherent conflicts between the different play styles that ED is trying to accommodate make it more difficult for the game to truly excel at being one specific thing. It's a jack-of-all-modes.

DBOBE recently agreed in a stream that the game has not been sold as a PvP game (but is a game where players can be destroyed by players). The single shared galaxy state is the background that all players experience and affect - by design - and now encompasses both, soon to be three, discrete platforms that do not offer the opportunity to cross-play.

I didn't see that stream. But I wouldn't disagree: the game hasn't been marketed as PVP, which is at least partly the problem. It's been built and marketed as a multiplayer game - on the back of a franchise that built popularity and a 'cult status' without ever having previously offered multiplayer - and a space combat game. So whether or not DBOBE ever actually said "This is a PVP game", that assumption is going to be there. It is a game where players can be destroyed by others. That means it will attract players whose preference is to fight other players (I make no moral judgement here - it's just a statement).

At the same time, players who heard the game not being sold as a PVP game, but were drawn in by the promise of peaceful or constructive interaction with other players are... well, they're probably in large part the population of Mobius, and those supporting an optional Open PVE mode. Because to them, even though it's not been marketed, designed or intended as one, ED is a PVP game to all intents and purposes.

As you say, we'll never know what could've been. And I can't know how many people have dropped off playing or wandered away from ED entirely, and how many more have started up. This isn't an 'ED is dying' post, it really isn't. I have no way to know how well the game's doing, and I hope it's doing well. But still, my strong feeling remains that had Frontier chosen one thing or the other right at the start, if ED had been specialised towards PVP, or Open PVE, or Solo play (or even the notorious yet mythical offline version), it could have forged a clearer path for itself and catered better to its chosen player base.

 

[excalibus]

@Windscreen Smudge

I am not going to bother to quote your various posts... As for your point of view on the servers of other games... WOW, has had PVE servers for many years, and no shortage of players... (Oh wait you think it's just cos it's WOW that's right) So lets see, an old classic - Runescape, both PVP and PVE servers, both still running and having no serious issues with their player bases... D&D Online, PVE and PVP modes for instances... again not really struggling for both PVE and PVP interactions and I played DDO a lot before ED and still do enjoy it from time to time...

So there are 3 older MMO's that have PVP, PVE modes / servers that are not 'dead'... I find it funny that you mention Ultima Online, given that the view (at the time) by the devs was if they did not stop the player bleed, and the damage being done by the gankers / griefers, then they would have been looking at bankrupcy, and in fact the decision to split the servers and have a PVE and PVP server actually saved them from said bankrupcy at the time... If you doubt that, feel free to google it, I did...

As to some of the other aspects - fragmenting the player base, this has been addressed by myself and others throughout this thread, and no one expects ALL players from either the PG or SOLO modes would join an open PVE mode, but it would give the 'majority' of ED players, who as it happens, have do not engaged in PVP, the option to do play with other like minded individuals...

There are a variety of ways the mode could be implemented, with or without changes to the main gameplay mechanics that exist across all modes of play... Implementation would of course be up to frontier to decide what they wanted... We can only offer suggestions on how to implement it...

I'm not being silly, I'm being direct. You want to have special benefits compared to other players and use a moral highground standpoint as an argument and I'm saying that I don't agree with it and that it provides imbalances that even the current modes do not.

And you still have not replied about ramming damage. So I assume you also want to play bumper cars. If not, then people will still be able to ram you instead of shoot you, so you will be griefed just as much and the sum benefit is still zero.

And that's why I don't care about people's wishful thinking of what such a mode should be, but what about the actions of the same people that currently exist would do within it. And if the griefers want to do it and have ways to do it, the name of the mode won't deter them.

I don't think many are actually asking for a 'special benefits' mode, and I also do not think many would expect a PVE mode to be completely devoid of griefers, that would be a bit unrealistic, but depending on the implementation, the potential for griefing could be severely limited...

So PvP available in Open-PvE like it is in Noobius ? If not then it can t exist on the same universe because it would avoid an entire part of the game mechanic.

All current modes that exist, across all platforms, affect the same universe, so why would / should an open PVE mode be any different... Depending on the actual implementation, the only mechanic that would actually be missing is the ability for PVP... And that is not so much a game mechanic is it, but the implementation of various game mechanics by other players that directly impacts / affects / or is directly against other players...

I await a well considered and constructed reasoning in your next post... with baited breath...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Without doubt. But there's attracting players, there's keeping players, and there's keeping players enthusiastic. I imagine someone who's never played the game would be drawn by the theoretical appeal of 'play your way' - the ability to choose whether to allow interaction or not, but everyone plays in the same universe anyway. That does sound pretty great. And I've no doubt there's a substantial number of people - and obviously enough people for Frontier's needs - that're happy enough to keep playing.

Indeed.

But it's objectively true that there is a lot of conflict amongst players over the interface between the modes: a casual glance over the forums demonstrates that. And as far as I'm aware it's been like this at least since beta, and certainly since release. My perception - for that's all it can be, without access to solid user data - is that the inherent conflicts between the different play styles that ED is trying to accommodate make it more difficult for the game to truly excel at being one specific thing. It's a jack-of-all-modes.

There is conflict between players who expect to oppose all player actions and those who do not wish to play in a PvP enabled mode. Player interaction with the single shared galaxy state does not require players to engage in PvP at all - it's not pure PvE though as players can affect others indirectly through it.

I didn't see that stream. But I wouldn't disagree: the game hasn't been marketed as PVP, which is at least partly the problem. It's been built and marketed as a multiplayer game - on the back of a franchise that built popularity and a 'cult status' without ever having previously offered multiplayer - and a space combat game. So whether or not DBOBE ever actually said "This is a PVP game", that assumption is going to be there. It is a game where players can be destroyed by others. That means it will attract players whose preference is to fight other players (I make no moral judgement here - it's just a statement).

If enough players want to engage in PvP then there will be PvP - but players on both sides need to choose to do so. Many complaints relate to players choosing not to play in the game mode where they may be engaged in PvP.

At the same time, players who heard the game not being sold as a PVP game, but were drawn in by the promise of peaceful or constructive interaction with other players are... well, they're probably in large part the population of Mobius, and those supporting an optional Open PVE mode. Because to them, even though it's not been marketed, designed or intended as one, ED is a PVP game to all intents and purposes.

While the game offers players the chance to engage in direct PvP, it is entirely optional - and is not a required part of the game. If the game only had one game mode that was PvP enabled then I would characterise it as a PvP game.

As you say, we'll never know what could've been. And I can't know how many people have dropped off playing or wandered away from ED entirely, and how many more have started up. This isn't an 'ED is dying' post, it really isn't. I have no way to know how well the game's doing, and I hope it's doing well. But still, my strong feeling remains that had Frontier chosen one thing or the other right at the start, if ED had been specialised towards PVP, or Open PVE, or Solo play (or even the notorious yet mythical offline version), it could have forged a clearer path for itself and catered better to its chosen player base.

From a recent Dev post, Frontier are well aware that the majority of players do not engage in PvP - which, given that direct PvP is optional in this game, does not come as a surprise to me.