Frontier. Please make a PVE mode to this game.

[Apos]

Piracy does not require to be carried out on players and is available in all three of the existing modes.

I would not expect that PvP piracy would be possible in an Open-PvE mode - as it is PvP. Piracy by and of NPCs would still exist - as it does in Solo at the moment.

Then I want a game mode where the player is immune to NPC damage.

Because I'm ok and have had at least some fun with PvP Piracy, but PvE piracy is terrible.

And since NPCs are not players, this doesn't apply both ways. Oh, and, of course, it still affects the BGS.

And I am allowed to ignore other consequences that such an immunity would have, because they are secondary compared to the main grievance that NPC pirates inflict upon me. And I know that this applies to over 500K players that I can certainly speak on their behalf on this matter.

PS: I know you are trying to remain neutral, but this thread is getting silly with the double standards.

 

[DaveB]

Because I (personally) don't want an open-pve mode but do want open to be a more attractive place to play for all of us...

tl;dr An idea for how a "karma" system could work leveraging existing mechanics already coded into the game and therefore probably easier than most other proposals for FD to implement.

We already track faction and superpower rep. For "karma" I'd suggest an additional rep-like scale for each superpower. Where rep scales hostile-unfriendly-neutral-cordial-friendly-allied, the proposed new metric would scale notorious-crooked-neutral-honest-respected-paragon. Committing crimes in a lawful factions space (or being a member of a wing where a member commits a crime) produces a downtick for karma with the associated superpower (small one for getting fined, larger one for acquiring a bounty, size of the delta applied scales with the size of the fine or bounty and the sec level of the relevant space), handing in bounty vouchers gives you an uptick (also scales with the size of the bounty claimed and the sec level of the space where you claimed it). What you do in lawless space or the space of an anarchic faction has no effect. Somebody claiming any bounty on you or you paying off fines or legacy fines makes no difference, this stat persists across rebuys just like rep does. Just like superpower rep, notorious or paragon status will decay over time to crooked or respected respectively. Actions in space controlled by an independent faction will not directly affect your karma but independent lawful factions will treat you with a karma level equivalent to the average of your karma with the 3 superpowers.

The karma stat impacts how associated factions treat you in terms of your effective rep and the level of security response to your actions.

A "respected" or better cmdr will be treated by local lawful factions as if their rep was one step higher than it actually is for the purposes of mission availability and other rep-dependent mechanics. Criminal factions will regard the cmdr as if their rep was one step lower if the cmdr is respected or better in any superpowers space.

A "paragon" gets a percentage bonus on all bounty vouchers and combat bonds they redeem with factions associated with the superpower where they have that status as well as the benefits of being respected.

A "crooked" or worse cmdr will be treated by lawful factions as if their rep was one step lower than it actually is, criminal factions will treat the cmdr as if their rep was one step better if the cmdr is known to be crooked in any superpowers space.

A "notorious" cmdr will be refused docking if scanned on approach by lawful stations associated with the superpower where the notorious karma applies. They will not be awarded either bounty vouchers or combat bonds by lawful factions of that superpower. (so you can't work off "notorious" status by farming bounties in a RES, you've got to wait for it to decay)

Respected or better cmdrs are less likely to be scanned or interdicted by security patrols. Crookked or worse, more likely. Notorious cmdrs, if they are scanned by security will also be KWS scanned and attacked if they have any outstanding bounty anywhere in the same superpower's space.

Committing a crime in lawful space will still elicit a security response based on the sec level of that space. However, if you're regarded as crooked there, you'll get the response appropriate to one sec-level higher. One step higher than "high-sec" is an "extreme" response, the crook (and their wingmates, if any) will be immediately descended upon by a pilots federation kill-squad, balanced to shred just about anything. This should be a player experience akin to annoying Concord in EVE. Do anything other than run like heck and you WILL be destroyed. Unlike other NPCs these folks WILL be engineered to the max in all categories and probably have combat AI tweaked to even higher than your regular "Elite" NPC. Whatever combat-meta loadouts folks come up with, these guys will have it too.

Notorious cmdrs will always get an "extreme" security response to crimes they commit in lawful space where their notoriety applies, even if it's otherwise low-sec.

In practice, what this would mean is a cmdr who plays the murderhobo would have to BE a hobo. Get notorious status in fed space and you'd either have to relocate to another superpowers space or lurk in anarchy or lawless systems until your notoriety decays. Get notorious in all 3 and even independents will treat you like dirt, refuse you docking. You'll only have access to stations run by criminal or anarchic factions and will attract kill-squads the moment you commit a crime anywhere else. Wing up to disrupt a CG and pretty soon your wing will be notorious in that space and you'll have to leave.

This will not stop ganking by murderhobos and it wouldn't do anything for the first few victims but it would mean that the gankers couldn't stick around racking up their kill counts. A pirate that doesn't actually kill their victims unless they have to would simply have to watch their karma to make sure they never get to be worse than "crooked" and, if necessary, take some time cleaning out the "competition" for their bounty vouchers and the associated karmic band-aid.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then I want a game mode where the player is immune to NPC damage.

Because I'm ok and have had at least some fun with PvP Piracy, but PvE piracy is terrible.

And since NPCs are not players, this doesn't apply both ways. Oh, and, of course, it still affects the BGS.

And I am allowed to ignore other consequences that such an immunity would have, because they are secondary compared to the main grievance that NPC pirates inflict upon me. And I know that this applies to over 500K players that I can certainly speak on their behalf on this matter.

PS: I know you are trying to remain neutral, but this thread is getting silly with the double standards.

That mode, obviously, does not exist (unless CQC/Arena is considered) - nor will it, in my opinion.

A mode where players cannot be damaged by other players, on the other hand, has been part of the design of the game for over four years and was included, like the multi-player modes, in the game as released.

Similarly, players in all three game modes experience and affect the BGS - by design - and the modes are functionally the same with the only difference being the number of players that one may encounter.

 

[sewerratuk]

The point was not whether NPC piracy is acceptable (in my opinion there is a complete lack of "formalisation" of piracy) - rather that it would exist in an Open-PvE mode as it already does in Solo.

The point I was asking was whether the poster wanted instant response from security if he was pirated by an NPC. Which the poster failed to answer and instead replyed with the same old PvP is bad, PvP pirates are bad post

Which is obviously your stance as well, as you refuse to acknowledge that piracy doesn't have to involve ship destruction and if it does in some circumstances that can still just be piracy

 

[Apos]

That mode, obviously, does not exist (unless CQC/Arena is considered) - nor will it, in my opinion.

A mode where players cannot be damaged by other players, on the other hand, has been part of the design of the game for over four years and was included, like the multi-player modes, in the game as released.

Similarly, players in all three game modes experience and affect the BGS - by design - and the modes are functionally the same with the only difference being the number of players that one may encounter.

And that's where the catch is.

An Open PvE is not functionally the same. Neither is the mode which I ironically proposed.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The point I was asking was whether the poster wanted instant response from security if he was pirated by an NPC. Which the poster failed to answer and instead replyed with the same old PvP is bad, PvP pirates are bad post

Which is obviously your stance as well, as you refuse to acknowledge that piracy doesn't have to involve ship destruction and if it does in some circumstances that can still just be piracy

The security response should be consistent with the security level of the system that the player is in, in my opinion.

Which bit Is my "stance" - the bit about "instant response from security" or the bit about "PvP is bad, PvP pirates are bad"?

.... and where did I suggest that piracy must involve ship destruction?

 

[excalibus]

Then I want a game mode where the player is immune to NPC damage.

Because I'm ok and have had at least some fun with PvP Piracy, but PvE piracy is terrible.

And since NPCs are not players, this doesn't apply both ways. Oh, and, of course, it still affects the BGS.

And I am allowed to ignore other consequences that such an immunity would have, because they are secondary compared to the main grievance that NPC pirates inflict upon me. And I know that this applies to over 500K players that I can certainly speak on their behalf on this matter.

PS: I know you are trying to remain neutral, but this thread is getting silly with the double standards.

Feel free to start a thread asking for such a mode

There does not necesarily need to be an immunity to player fire implementation for an OPEN PVE MODE... Sure some will want that, but it is not something that is completely necesarry for implementing a PVE mode... It could well be that being reported for engaging in PVP wth appropriate evidence to back up, along with a reporting threshold, would see players engaging in PVP in a PVE mode being banned from the PVE mode at an account level... so unless they spend more money on another account, they won't ever be able to return to the PVE mode...

It could be an automated system that manages it... It could well be that being a 'richard' in such a mode would be swiftly dealt with by frontier in the first instance and setting a precedence of banning players who want to do that would also (I think) actually help drastically reduce the likelyhood of future incursions...

So if you want to keep drumming on about some invulnerability mode, do so, but do so knowing that it is not the only possible implementation...

 

[Robert Maynard]

And that's where the catch is.

An Open PvE is not functionally the same. Neither is the mode which I ironically proposed.

Indeed. Which is why I personally would not want a mode where player/player interaction was possible but the damage model was tweaked to remove player/player damage - but I can understand why some players would.

 

[Apos]

Feel free to start a thread asking for such a mode

There does not necesarily need to be an immunity to player fire implementation for an OPEN PVE MODE... Sure some will want that, but it is not something that is completely necesarry for implementing a PVE mode... It could well be that being reported for engaging in PVP wth appropriate evidence to back up, along with a reporting threshold, would see players engaging in PVP in a PVE mode being banned from the PVE mode at an account level... so unless they spend more money on another account, they won't ever be able to return to the PVE mode...

It could be an automated system that manages it... It could well be that being a 'richard' in such a mode would be swiftly dealt with by frontier in the first instance and setting a precedence of banning players who want to do that would also (I think) actually help drastically reduce the likelyhood of future incursions...

So if you want to keep drumming on about some invulnerability mode, do so, but do so knowing that it is not the only possible implementation...

So a mode that would slowly and surely ban all of its playerbase due to accidental rammings around CGs due to people being hasty.

OK, let's do it, then have threads with everyone's salty tears about how they didn't deserve their ban and me reminding them this is what they asked for.

 

[excalibus]

So a mode that would slowly and surely ban all of its playerbase due to accidental rammings around CGs due to people being hasty.

OK, let's do it, then have threads with everyone's salty tears about how they didn't deserve their ban and me reminding them this is what they asked for.

it depends on the implementation, I would personally expect such a mode to work on a points system where as you commit infractions , you are suspended from the mode for a 'growing' period of time, and when you either gain a certain threshold of points (or lose all your points if they start at a positive number like a drivers license) then you are banned from the mode and would need to apply to support to request being put back into the mode, which of course would be at their discretion, so if someone is having a 'bad day' with being reckless at a CG, does not equal a permanent ban from the mode...

The points could convievably restore over time prior to a permanent ban, providing that you played without infraction in that mode for a determined period of time (the more points that need restoring the longer you would have to not have PVP infractions)...

Infractions could be included in mechanisms such as interdicting another player, shooting at another player which then causes hull damage to said player, ramming into another player at a station causing damage to their ship if you are above the speed limit... this will reduce the 1% eagle exploit as long as the person is travelling at or below the speed limit or under the control of the Docking Computer...

It could well be that if you enter a conflict zone AND are on the 'opposing side' then you are actually fair game - this would be construed as limited PVP of course similar to how mobius works... Because when you enter the CZ, you are in essence neutral and need to pick a side, it would be considered consentual PVP if you picked the opposing side to other players in the same CZ instance... IMHO...

Station blockers, pad blockers, these should be dealt with across all modes and can be achieved by changing the stations responses, simply have the system pause a commanders docking timer for that pad IF some twit is also being told by the station that they are trespassing on the same pad... Then have the station simply open fire if the perpetrator has not moved off in an appropriate amount of time...


And just to add, with over 11W, 4D, 14H of play time, I think I have accidentally rammed perhaps 30 or so ships (NPC's included) during docking, and I rarely dock at the speed limit... Personally I do not see the ramming issue others see, I have been rammed to death by a suitably fitted commander once at a CG, and as I was stationary and he was at speed and repeatedly rammed, he would have incurred multiple infractions and due to commander death, he would have been suspended from such a mode for a bit, and depending how often he did that, he could end up permanently banned in a short order...

I would put commander death as the largest point remover / point added in such a system, with differing points depending on the lesser crime... perhaps assault without hull damage maybe 1 point, assault with hull damage 2 points, commander death 5 points... Player starts out with 20 points... they get a suspension when they reach a multiple of 5 points...

5 Points - suspended 1 week
10 points - suspended 1 month
15 points - suspended 3 months
20 points - suspended indefinitely (read that as banned)

Suspension would be immediate once the infraction that caused it was performed... and they player would be notified as to why they are being suspended and how long... The suspension would be immersion breaking for the player, as they would be immediately kicked out of the instance... too bad for them...

If they then re-entered the mode after the suspension, and played for a certain period of time then they would slowly have points recovery. I would suggest they would need to play for twice the time that the suspension period was for (in actual gameplayplay time), as a clean commander, and the timer for it paused when they where docked, afk idle or logged out)...

 

[Shaamaan]

And even then, a CMDR reset doesn't help the aggressor. Even if they could wipe their karma clean with a reset they've still got to find a way to procure the funding (Not to mention the time) to re-outfit an engineered ship, something you would absolutely need to pull off a gank before a Concord like security force could clear the aggressor from the instance. That's how you get ganked in EVE. The offending player flies in a glass cannon that can wipe out their target in seconds, avoiding concord. The only thing they get for the kill is corp harassment and a kill mail and, under a system like this, I wouldn't include those things in an ED C&P system.

Again, the devil's in the details and depends on the implementation. If the security response is sufficiently delayed, then you likely don't need an engineered ship to take down traders at will left and right (granted, an engineered ship would help). The point being that consequences of a killing spree need to last not only past getting your ship blown up (so you can't just suicide with a sidewinder) but also past a save wipe (which would be a precedent in and of itself and I could definitely see a few people being angry with it).

 

[Apos]

it depends on the implementation, I would personally expect such a mode to work on a points system where as you commit infractions , you are suspended from the mode for a 'growing' period of time, and when you either gain a certain threshold of points (or lose all your points if they start at a positive number like a drivers license) then you are banned from the mode and would need to apply to support to request being put back into the mode, which of course would be at their discretion, so if someone is having a 'bad day' with being reckless at a CG, does not equal a permanent ban from the mode...

The points could convievably restore over time prior to a permanent ban, providing that you played without infraction in that mode for a determined period of time (the more points that need restoring the longer you would have to not have PVP infractions)...

Infractions could be included in mechanisms such as interdicting another player, shooting at another player which then causes hull damage to said player, ramming into another player at a station causing damage to their ship if you are above the speed limit... this will reduce the 1% eagle exploit as long as the person is travelling at or below the speed limit or under the control of the Docking Computer...

It could well be that if you enter a conflict zone AND are on the 'opposing side' then you are actually fair game - this would be construed as limited PVP of course similar to how mobius works... Because when you enter the CZ, you are in essence neutral and need to pick a side, it would be considered consentual PVP if you picked the opposing side to other players in the same CZ instance... IMHO...

Station blockers, pad blockers, these should be dealt with across all modes and can be achieved by changing the stations responses, simply have the system pause a commanders docking timer for that pad IF some twit is also being told by the station that they are trespassing on the same pad... Then have the station simply open fire if the perpetrator has not moved off in an appropriate amount of time...

Overall sensible, but I have grown not to trust automated measures of penalties anymore. And I don't want to burden support more either.

And I would certainly never trust players to do it for them if such a proposal was to hit the table.

Which is why I think allowing private groups to have more people is the solution that should be adequate enough. At a certain treshold of players it's practically open anyway, the name doesn't matter.

 

[excalibus]

Overall sensible, but I have grown not to trust automated measures of penalties anymore. And I don't want to burden support more either.

And I would certainly never trust players to do it for them if such a proposal was to hit the table.

Which is why I think allowing private groups to have more people is the solution that should be adequate enough. At a certain treshold of players it's practically open anyway, the name doesn't matter.

you understand that in the PG system there is/was a hard cap coded that FDEV said they could not change (if I am not mistaken it is something to do with the backend system they use), hence why mobius was split in twain the first time... and a third group created for reserve...

It is not the same as an open unlimited number of players game mode... not by any rule of measure... Better PG mode management tools are needed that is for sure, as well as a real configurable ruleset system...


You can actually thank Robert Maynard for the Idea of the points system... As it does not require any significant changes to any of the current in game mechanics beyond adding some checks and record keeping for PVP infractions.... 'Richards' can still be 'Richards' but will find themselves S.O.L. if they be 'Richards' too many times...

 

[Hexcaliber]

How on earth can anyone ask this with a straight face?

Why would Frontier put effort into creating a system that is already served by private groups and solo; its asinine. You do not have to like it, but it is already available, your needs are already being met. Few other games, if any, have ever gone out of their way to meet the needs of such a disparate group of players while retaining the efforts of every single player and their effects on a single play space.

With so much arguably needing additional work, how could the time and effort required take priority over those. Frontier are already behind schedule with Horizons, there should be another season with us by now, and there is an impending ps4 launch, but you would ask them to divert developer resources and additional servers for this? No, no, no...

 

[Robert Maynard]

How on earth can anyone ask this with a straight face?

Why would Frontier put effort into creating a system that is already served by private groups and solo; its asinine. You do not have to like it, but it is already available, your needs are already being met.

With so much arguably needing additional work, how could the time and effort required take priority over those. Frontier are already behind schedule with Horizons, there should be another season with us by now, and there is an impending ps4 launch, but you would ask them to divert developer resources and additional servers for this? No, no, no...

Private Groups do not have unlimited populations - Open has - hence the request for a second Open mode that caters to the gameplay preference of a significant number of players.

.... and the possibility of multiple Open groups (modes) was included in the game design information published at the start of the Kickstarter.

 

[Han_Zen]

Overall sensible, but I have grown not to trust automated measures of penalties anymore. And I don't want to burden support more either.

And I would certainly never trust players to do it for them if such a proposal was to hit the table.

Which is why I think allowing private groups to have more people is the solution that should be adequate enough. At a certain treshold of players it's practically open anyway, the name doesn't matter.

It's by far the most sensible solution. If FD could add some kind of group management, it would be even better.

The problem with group management can be worked around, by having an extra account that all the group mods have access to. Management tools would be even better.

The main advantage of private groups is that there is no formal requirement for blocking players. Known PK'er = blocked from PG. Not so in Open-PvE.

Imagine there was an Open-PvE group and suddenly a divide happened in the PvE-only community. What then? Make a third open?

 

[Hexcaliber]

Private Groups do not have unlimited populations - Open has - hence the request for a second Open mode that caters to the gameplay preference of a significant number of players.

.... and the possibility of multiple Open groups (modes) was included in the game design information published at the start of the Kickstarter.

Things change through development, compromises have to be made, there is no single player offline mode either, it was not practical, and neither is this, there are better things they can be getting on with.

 

[JosiahD]

Things change through development, compromises have to be made, there is no single player offline mode either, it was not practical, and neither is this.

In your opinion of course. Other opinions differ.

 

[sewerratuk]

Things change through development, compromises have to be made, there is no single player offline mode either, it was not practical, and neither is this, there are better things they can be getting on with.

Welcome aboard and good luck!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Things change through development, compromises have to be made, there is no single player offline mode either, it was not practical, and neither is this.

Some things change - some things remain the same - compromises may be made, or not, as the case may be. Just as XB1 did not have Private Groups on launch but received them in an update, the lack of a feature does not mean that the feature will not be implemented.