1.3 made bounties expire after a week, no matter how high. That was the biggest change, not some irrelevant exploit that could have just been policed.
Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.
- Thread starter CMDR Generic EventHandler
- Start date
1.3 made bounties expire after a week, no matter how high. That was the biggest change, not some irrelevant exploit that could have just been policed.
*looks down at obvious clan/group signature line*
"The Filthy Few is a loose coalition of Federation loyal pilots who are dedicated to exploration."
Ayup.. Sounds like some huge steps to avoid interacting with people right there.
As for proposals on how Open PvE or a better C&P system could be implemented. The suggestion subforum is full of ideas.
This game doesn't need Open PvE, it needs some developer love.
Aye they did, and now they fragment Mobius as a group. It's like a double-smack
The single biggest way to attract players to OPEN is to simply make it safe for those that do not take part in direct PvP activity.
aaaaaaaaaand my suggestions above lean against this concept.. and make sense lore wise to!
Last edited:
Aye exactly, I'd aggressively promote an OPEN PvE server if other ideas fall over first. I'd happily nod my head in acceptance if OPEN PvE never happens in lieu of an acceptable (and fair) C&P policy
getting that balance, and acceptance is a mine field in itself.. hypothetically speaking, if clean players are safe from destruction in designated areas according to faction status and their karma for example then much of the argument for an OPEN PvE server actually holds less weight.
Obviously I advocate an OPEN PvE server.. but if a proper and sensible C&P plan can be proposed to instead encourage folks to join open, then that would be magical.. if something sensible, fair and agreeable can be.... agreed ofc
And there's the rub - getting both sides to agree that the punishment mechanics are sensible etc. If these sorts of threads have proven anything, in my opinion, it's that open PvE and PvP playstyles in the one mode doesn't mix. Further, these sorts of threads suggest to me that we have about as much chance of getting both sides to a consensus as I have of being an astronaut in real life (which is nil by the way.....). The best, most effective punishment system will have opponents - either some will find it too draconian/brutal or others will find it not draconian/brutal enough. I have little to no faith that the punishment system, of any kind, will be as effective as needed, nor a panacea, and I have little doubt that we'll only end up back here anyway. That said, I wouldn't mind being wrong.......
Last edited:
Both sides have already agreed for over a hundred pages on a C&P system. It's already a part of the collective consciousness. Lawful systems should feel safe for doves and dangerous for dastards. And Lawless systems should be havens for criminals and risky for peaceful traders. It's all pretty obvious, but the real rub is for Frontier to be able to implement a system past the technical hurdles in a way that makes sense based on what people have already agreed is a sensible solution. And in a way that makes things more fun for everyone.
Last edited:
Well, players do have alternatives to open already, so the game technically doesn't NEED an open PvE mode, true. However, that assumes Frontier is prepared to accept an ongoing requirement to keep expanding the number of Mobius private groups to meet the demand for an open PvE experience, a bandaid solution at best. My contention is that this is untenable in the long term, inefficient at best - while an open PvE mode might not be technically needed right now (and may pose several implementation challenges), I have no doubt that this will change in time, especially if punishment mechanics and the karma system fail to convince people to preferentially play in open. And right now it is highly desired by a significant proportion of the playerbase - so much so that many would indeed consider an open PvE mode as needed for them to get the best out of the game they want to play (ie to play their way, as advertised).
the $64k question is, how much longer do we have to wait??
The only info FD has given is the idea of some karma system.
Am I asking too much to see that as a QoL feature of 2.3?
But what we haven't agreed on yet is whether whatever Frontier implements is/will be effective. And we can't reach that until we see it in action. Excuse me but I'm rather cynical about this playerbase reaching wide consensus on the actual implementation - but I'd love to be wrong.
1: Frontier doesn't lay a finger on the Mobius groups. They are handled by the individuals who create and manage them. There is no increased load placed on Frontier by the continued use of the current Mobius system.
2: Frontier has expressed that, while an Open PvE mode would be nice, it's not in the cards. This is why they are pursuing the Karma and Revamped C&P systems.
The C&P threads, if you look beyond the echo chamber, have actually agreed to very little beyond ridiculous punishments for minor infractions. I took part in almost every one of those threads and the recommended actions I saw by 70% of the contributors were disgusting at best. Actions suggested with zero regard for player retention or game playability once a very thin, very hard to see line had been crossed. It was ridiculous.
This does make sense though. Several things Frontier could look at, including accelerating C&P response times in PvP interactions if a fine's issued (eg. if security arrives within 2 minutes when NPC attacks, in a PvP engagement they might be there in 1).
The trouble with exta PvE mode, as I'm sure will be discussed, is ofc not only the cost of providing servers but in policing it fairly .. adjudicating on reports of players which Frontier are already committed to do in Open. So Frontier (for certain) are better off improving the Open experience rather than creating a new mode. Ultimately players are better off too if the reduced demand for server space, and costs, keeps the whole game and it's development more viable.
I don't agree with the suggestion therefore. Not because I disagree with the sentiment, that punishment should be stronger than it is currently, but if more than one Mobius group has to exist during stop gap, while C&P becomes more resilient, then so be it for me.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A new mode would require no more servers than we already have - as all modes are just filters that control which players we are instanced with....
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not on the cards at this point, I would agree. If the introduction of a karma system and a re-invigorated C&P system are sufficient to encourage sufficient* players back to Open then all well and good. If not then who knows what Frontier may have to do.
*: an unknown increase to an unknown population (as Frontier do not publish player numbers at all, much less per mode) that only Frontier can determine.
Honestly, I think they recognize that the C&P system is sub par but are hamstrung by different elements of the development team in an eternal fight for 1985 Nostalgia against modern online gaming expected mechanics.
Bounty Hunting was hamstrung by someone (I can't remember who) not wanting players to be able to exploit it. So the ability to apply a bounty to another player was left out, as well as the ability to collect more than 1,000,000 credits off of a player bounty that could potentially be in the hundreds of millions (I stopped my activities at Robigo with a Bounty of over 40 million credits). So the incentive to hunt other players down isn't there for a few reasons:
Exhibit A) In the amount of time it would take to track a player down using the current system. You could have made 10-20x more money doing simple trade or passenger missions.
That's just one example of how badly they've borked the multiplayer design of this game.
Frontier, and I'm sure they have, needs to take a look at what CCPs done to make EVE work as well as it does right now. CCPs system works and while ganking/griefing isn't unheard of, it's incredibly hard to pull off and the in-game rewards for doing so are non-existent. If they'd adopt a Concord like stance with System Security Forces or even added a Pilots Federation Security Force to do the ball busting but stayed away from the elements that make EVE truly embrace PvP (Kill boards, player kill tracking, etc) then I feel they could really get the ball rolling on a C&P system that benefits everyone.
I'm way the hell out in the black and the game still lists uninhabited, lifeless systems as "Low" security. C'mon FDev.. That's NO security.
Hell, at this point, I'd take a simple switch from hollow to filled boxes as a bandaid.
And not withstanding the fact that any player will a modicum of level headedness can just HW out before they get destroyed
I remain unconvinced that a C&P system would solve the issue.
If any retaliation of the C&P system is delayed (i.e. happens after a victim went pop and the ganker had his gleeful moment) then it can probably be circumvented by clean save (a desperate measure, sure, but I'm willing to bet there will be those who take it). It also won't ever stop ramming at stations (you really don't need much to do that).
If the retaliation is instantaneous and actively prevents a victim from going pop then I doubt the PvP community would be happy about it (because it'll be too much in the other direction).
That said, I'd love to be proven wrong.
If any retaliation of the C&P system is delayed (i.e. happens after a victim went pop and the ganker had his gleeful moment) then it can probably be circumvented by clean save (a desperate measure, sure, but I'm willing to bet there will be those who take it). It also won't ever stop ramming at stations (you really don't need much to do that).
If the retaliation is instantaneous and actively prevents a victim from going pop then I doubt the PvP community would be happy about it (because it'll be too much in the other direction).
That said, I'd love to be proven wrong.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Hopefully, bad karma will not be wiped clean by a simple CMDR reset - it is probably meant to be a lasting consequence for actions after all.
How would you deal with pad hogging or preventing landing by nudging or mail slot blocking in this open PvE world?
FD have not exactly got a great history of policing infringements in the current open, I don't imagine they would be any better if another mode was brought in
FD have not exactly got a great history of policing infringements in the current open, I don't imagine they would be any better if another mode was brought in
One proposal would be to let fdev wash their hands on managing it. It would be a community run event, similar to Mobius running the Mobius event. Even a Mobius Open. Then anyone being a dirk would be permanently removed by a Mobius admin.
Something like that.
Deadspin whacked the nail pretty hard with this:
What we really need in OPEN to de-incentivise pointless clean commander ganks, is engineered FDL system authority ships decloaking and thwaping the perp before they strip the shields from the innocent..
I almost exclusively play in open, because I enjoy the threat while flying out there. And to me this sounds pretty good actually. But wouldn't that destroy real piracy as a career option? Never tried pirating myself, but I've been pirated a couple of times by honest pirates -so to speak- and those were pretty exciting and fun encounters.
Last edited:
Piracy definitely needs a new set of tools / re worked tools... that's very clear. BUT saying that, piracy doesn't have to end up smacking the target.. (think leech, it sucks the blood from the victim, but once has its fill, drops off and the prey (if you want to call it that) carries on, probably irritated, but very alive and continues to go about whatever it was doing)... the right tools for the job
a precision instrument to bleed cargo is enough.. you'll probably get a bounty, but absolutely not a hard retaliation by system authority ... unless you start slapping them with railguns The hopeful effect of this is that as PvErs are more confident to roam in open (knowing that they're protected stock) it will encourage more and more pirates (that will only be a nuisance, not things horror films are made from).. and in turn, you'll have more players (pirates) roaming about with BOUNTIES, delicious bounties!!It completes the PvP food cycle. Trader <-- pirate <-- bounty hunter. or perhaps pirates start getting territorial and hand out some grr to other pirates invading their turf. Bounty hunters will just roam after all that delicious bounty that pirates accrue. Hopefully it will set the scene that Pirates are not there to kill their trader life blood.. traders know that pirates are not there to just kill them.. the may try to get away.. but give the pirates the right tools.. and.. inevitable is inevitable.. lewt is lewt.
The EvE style response is simply there to stop seal clubbing (that which drives many PvE players away from open and into mobius).. Hopefully a fair all round solution. The only ones that lose out are the true griefers, not the real PvP players, nor pirates.
Hooray! (possibly?)
Last edited: