Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Genar-Hofoen]

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.


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.

Just as a FYI : David Braben stated the "never sold as a PvP game" in this segment from a recent livestream...

[video=youtube;n7tGV7VVlhE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7tGV7VVlhE[/video]

Regards

 

[JosiahD]

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.

However, the conflict about the interface between the modes is initiated by those who are against it of course, despite it being the design from the start. In other words, players who have simply chosen the wrong game if they don't like the mode interface - this isn't the game they're looking for, but they insist on asserting their opinion of how it should be instead of accepting it and playing within that structure. Those of us who agree with the design of course defend the design because it's what we backed, or for those who came later it's a design that appeals - and calls that the mode system is bad aren't going to come from that quarter for obvious reasons. It's like accepting that open can allow PvP - most of us happily accept that open can allow that, but many simply choose to avoid it as a result - but you don't see calls that we should get rid of open mode altogether because it competes with solo or private influence on the BGS. Rather the calls for an open PvE mode see it existing alongside the current open mode just as solo or private do.

 

[Han_Zen]

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.

Apology accepted. (non needed)

As I said, this is my personal experience of the modes. I have noted that not everyone shares my sanctification.

However, I still think FD have made the correct choice.

Many potential buyers will check if their preferred way of playing is supported. If it is, they buy the game. Most will probably not worry much about how other players choose to play. If they have fun, they will buy the updates as well.

By supporting different types of players, without changing how the game works(just applying a filter), you get more customers without an additional development cost.

It's better to have a lot of content customers than just a few super happy customers.

 

[Mephane]

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.

That's not the point. The points is you make it sound like your definition of PvP is correct, ours is wrong, and thus our wish for a PvE mode is wrong, when you very well know we only talk about harming other players's ship/SLF/SRV. You are constructing a counter-argument that you must know is false.

 

[Apos]

That's not the point. The points is you make it sound like your definition of PvP is correct, ours is wrong, and thus our wish for a PvE mode is wrong, when you very well know we only talk about harming other players's ship/SLF/SRV. You are constructing a counter-argument that you must know is false.

I don't use my own definition of PvP, I just apply the same definition everywhere.

If people in this thread are willing to tunnel vision in order to fit their own argument, that's none of my concern.

And yes, your wish for PvE is wrong because it provides inherent gameplay advantages. And you use virtue signalling in order to justify that those advantages should exist.

 

[dreamer1986]

+1 vote for PvE mode.

 

[Deadspin]

I don't use my own definition of PvP, I just apply the same definition everywhere.

That's uh.. using your own definition still.

 

[Apos]

That's uh.. using your own definition still.

If we apply the tyranny of the majority as correct, sure. Just because some people can claim they speak on behalf of all the members of the Mobius group, that must make them correct for making exemptions and me wrong for having a universal standard.

 

[Aurinkoinen]

How about no, to open PVE. We only need toggle to enable PvP on menu when not connected any gamemode and after that add different marker for those who have enabled their PvP. Easy.

 

[Deadspin]

If we apply the tyranny of the majority as correct, sure. Just because some people can claim they speak on behalf of all the members of the Mobius group, that must make them correct for making exemptions and me wrong for having a universal standard.

I'll just keep poking at your wording here.

Your universal standard is still your own universal standard and that "standard" does not apply to the context of the conversation that was happening within this thread.

Does that help at all?

 

[Apos]

I'll just keep poking at your wording here.

Your universal standard is still your own universal standard and that "standard" does not apply to the context of the conversation that was happening within this thread.

Does that help at all?

Not really. Because it does apply to the context of PvE, it just doesn't fit the narrowed context that the thread wants to push in order to fit its argument.

Just because people choose to be oblivious to it doesn't mean that it stops happening.

 

[excalibus]

Meanwhile... Back on topic.... You still have absolutely no way to deny that the financial side of Eve Online, which is the foundation of the game since the entire economy is player driven and thus the entire game is PvE driven and completely, 100% facilitates the PvP gameplay as a result. Feel free to try and dodge that one again by pointing fingers though.

It would be nice if you could actually get back on topic, the topic of the thread being a request for an OPEN PVE MODE, not anything to do with the economy or play styles or play mechanics of another game, nothing to do with PVE vs PVP or any other derailments you choose to spout...

So how about either get back onto the topic of either reasoning a decent and effective argument against an open PVE mode, or leave the thread????

 

[Deadspin]

Not really. Because it does apply to the context of PvE, it just doesn't fit the narrowed context that the thread wants to push in order to fit its argument.

Just because people choose to be oblivious to it doesn't mean that it stops happening.

The problem with your logic is that you are trying to choose the context. That's not the way it works.

I'll agree that in the big scheme PvP itself lends a touch to everything we do in game because, at some point, you are working against another player whether you realize it or not. However, the entire Open PvE / PvP-vs-PvE argument and all of its various incarnations on this forum are centered around direct player-to-player action, not sidelined BGS action. This is why using your broader "universal" definition is incorrect in this context.

People want an Open PvE mode because they're tired of having to jump through hoops just to get together with other like-minded players in Mobius or some other semi-popular PvE private group to avoid being shot at by other players.

Not to avoid player BGS activity.
Not to avoid seeing another hollow box.
Not to avoid competing openly in CGs.

But to avoid being shot at when they don't want to be shot at. It's that simple.

What amuses me is how they dance around the fact that Frontier or DBOBE obviously have no intention of ever implementing this mode and continue to go on about how things would be better if FDev "..just listened.." to the vocal minority.

 

[VR Murgle]

The problem with your logic is that you are trying to choose the context. That's not the way it works.

I'll agree that in the big scheme PvP itself lends a touch to everything we do in game because, at some point, you are working against another player whether you realize it or not. However, the entire Open PvE / PvP-vs-PvE argument and all of its various incarnations on this forum are centered around direct player-to-player action, not sidelined BGS action. This is why using your broader "universal" definition is incorrect in this context.

People want an Open PvE mode because they're tired of having to jump through hoops just to get together with other like-minded players in Mobius or some other semi-popular PvE private group to avoid being shot at by other players.

Not to avoid player BGS activity.
Not to avoid seeing another hollow box.
Not to avoid competing openly in CGs.

But to avoid being shot at when they don't want to be shot at. It's that simple.

What amuses me is how they dance around the fact that Frontier or DBOBE obviously have no intention of ever implementing this mode and continue to go on about how things would be better if FDev "..just listened.." to the vocal minority.

You seem to have the numbers so just out of curiosity: exactly how small is this vocal minority?

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Yay, the never-ending discussion is still on!

I reckon, people will still be demanding Open PvE, long after FD has actually stopped developing ED, and long after all the "griefers" have moved on.

I don't mind most of what happens in Open. I've yet to die from Openism.

Not fond of things like station rammers though.

Being chased by PvP players is exciting, heart pounding fun, for me.
And escaping unharmed is quite satisfying.

But being blown up by the station for accidentally doing 101m/s is not fun.

 

[Vorxian]

Not really. Because it does apply to the context of PvE, it just doesn't fit the narrowed context that the thread wants to push in order to fit its argument.

Just because people choose to be oblivious to it doesn't mean that it stops happening.

I'm back! I know you all missed me!

I don't think anyone wishing to unify Mobius into an unlimited OPEN mode dedicated to the values that make Mobius work, are oblivious.

All we're saying is that obviously Mobius works. The values work. The ethics work.

Vegans LOVE vegetables! Largely what you're saying is that Vegans have it wrong, and therefore should throw in a bit of veal in all that delicious salad.

Apos, let Vegans be Vegans.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Vegans LOVE vegetables! Largely what you're saying is that Vegans have it wrong, and therefore should throw in a bit of veal in all that delicious salad.

i am all for pure PvE but.... erm, Vegans DO have it wrong

never trust a man who does not like a good pork sausage.

(not serious)

 

[Vorxian]

i am all for pure PvE but.... erm, Vegans DO have it wrong

never trust a man who does not like a good pork sausage.

(not serious)

lol, rep reflex!

 

[Apos]

I'm back! I know you all missed me!

I don't think anyone wishing to unify Mobius into an unlimited OPEN mode dedicated to the values that make Mobius work, are oblivious.

All we're saying is that obviously Mobius works. The values work. The ethics work.

Vegans LOVE vegetables! Largely what you're saying is that Vegans have it wrong, and therefore should throw in a bit of veal in all that delicious salad.

Apos, let Vegans be Vegans.

If Vegans had their way, the majority of domesticated farm animals would go extinct because they are unable to survive in the wild.

Vegans think they know better.

However, I think this is an apt comparison, because the same moral authority that vegans seem to consider themselves certainly has been apparent here as well.

Nothing wrong with it, just don't come asking for dedicated services in places where they already serve salads.

 

[DD_Crash]

IF and its a big if PvPers are only interested in killing players, for what every reason, then do they really need the BGS?