Modes Open Mode Balancing Proposal... Open PvE

[CMDR M. Lehman]

So here's a thought:

Why is being attacked by a player "harassment" (despite you knowing that you clicked on open) but not an NPC?

As long as you're feeling entitled to a PvE-only mode that "should" have been in the game since launch, why not ask for what you really want and include that all hostile NPCs be removed so that you can cr/hr in your shieldless Cutters in total peace?

 

[Jockey79]

Do you really think I give a damn about the PvP community?

So you don't care about the PvE community, you don't care about the PvP community....

Now we just need you to stop caring about the forum community and we all get some peace and quiet

 

[ALGOMATIC]

So you don't care about the PvE community, you don't care about the PvP community....

Now we just need you to stop caring about the forum community and we all get some peace and quiet

I can't, the forum community is very SPECIAL.

 

[Jockey79]

I can't, the forum community is very SPECIAL.

aww stop it, you're going to make me blush.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The reason that you aren't entitled to a total safespace experience in open is because it's open and that's the game you bought. PvE players wishing for such have PG and solo. If any "group" is at a disadvantage in terms of game design, it's the PvP crowd- you and your friends can always isolate yourselves from unwanted player interaction in a PG, but if a player wishes to engage another player in combat, they must almost always be in open.

The deck is already stacked in your favor- but you're still demanding more.

And no, PvPers don't "own" open. Open is, by definition, for everyone. That includes you.

2 things,

1. I think the concept of Open PvE, while attractive, is practically impossible without mechanics like PvP flags or players not dealing damage to each other. Which are seriously bad mechanics.
2. Needing to be in Open for a player to engage another is not a disadvantage. Both players decided to be in Open, so they are open to player encounters. That's not a disadvantage. Neither are solo or pg players in a disadvantage by the way. If players don't want to meet other players, not being able to force them to, is not a disadvantage.

Each and every mode is for everyone. No one is at a disadvantage. No decks are stacked.

So here's a thought:

Why is being attacked by a player "harassment" (despite you knowing that you clicked on open) but not an NPC?

Neither is.

But only the player can be guilty of harassment, since intent matters, which NPCs don't have. But I agree with the point I think you're making, that the vast majority of PvP encounters, no matter how asymmetric aren't harassment.

I agree with your dissagree and raise you a profoundly

I call!

 

[krylite]

OP's ideas have probably been suggested before, perhaps numerous times. However, I think there could be a variant possibility to use the wing mechanic or general scanning to improve open play.

What about Wing invitations where an invited player's "notoriety" history is revealed which is assumed to be on Pilot Federation's public record anyway. Then the host of a wing can gauge whether the invitee has a history of being a pvp griefer. The main idea is to faciliate wing up with anti-griefers or for protection escort. Or perhaps notoriety history is revealed on scan even in sc , so in general an indirect way of "flagging" as OP suggested.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

2 things,

1. I think the concept of Open PvE, while attractive, is practically impossible without mechanics like PvP flags or players not dealing damage to each other. Which are seriously bad mechanics.

Agreed. Not enough of the conversation revolves around the technical feasibility of PvE-only mode. It would likely be a coding nightmare, considering the quantity of changes to core gameplay mechanics such a mode would require.

2. Needing to be in Open for a player to engage another is not a disadvantage. Both players decided to be in Open, so they are open to player encounters. That's not a disadvantage. Neither are solo or pg players in a disadvantage by the way. If players don't want to meet other players, not being able to force them to, is not a disadvantage.

Also true- both players decided to be in open. What I object to is the notion that it is appropriate to start balkanizing open according to the wishes of special interest groups and still mistakenly call it "open".

Neither is.

But only the player can be guilty of harassment, since intent matters, which NPCs don't have. But I agree with the point I think you're making, that the vast majority of PvP encounters, no matter how asymmetric aren't harassment.

Yes, only players can have actual human intent behind their gameplay. Yet the point remains- if being challenged by an NPC is acceptable, why not a human? And why make such a fuss over the difference that you feel the need for an entire game mode that subtracts a core gameplay mechanic?

If you (and I use the word in the collective sense, not directly at you, Ziggy) wish to have challenge and adversity removed from your Elite: Dangerous experience, then don't stop at the half-measure of removing PvP. If that isn't your goal, then it becomes obvious that you wish to remove challenging challenge!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If that isn't your goal, then it becomes obvious that you wish to remove challenging challenge!

Making challenge unchallenging would be quite a challenge.

Wheeee!

 

[Alex DeVries]

Agreed. Not enough of the conversation revolves around the technical feasibility of PvE-only mode. It would likely be a coding nightmare, considering the quantity of changes to core gameplay mechanics such a mode would require.



Also true- both players decided to be in open. What I object to is the notion that it is appropriate to start balkanizing open according to the wishes of special interest groups and still mistakenly call it "open".



Yes, only players can have actual human intent behind their gameplay. Yet the point remains- if being challenged by an NPC is acceptable, why not a human? And why make such a fuss over the difference that you feel the need for an entire game mode that subtracts a core gameplay mechanic?

If you (and I use the word in the collective sense, not directly at you, Ziggy) wish to have challenge and adversity removed from your Elite: Dangerous experience, then don't stop at the half-measure of removing PvP. If that isn't your goal, then it becomes obvious that you wish to remove challenging challenge!

While I havent seen as many calls for a pve only mode as for restrict x to open only, I can guess the problem with players vs npcs is intent.
A npc has no choice but to attack, a player can make a choice so when a player chooses to blow up a new player repeatedly etc its much easier to attribute of malice to the action.

I also have to ask why you feel players dont want any challenge just because they dont want to face a player.
If the npcs are ballanced for the median level player then many players are challeged by npcs so I do not beleive your assesment that they want a challange free mode is valid.

 

[Alex DeVries]

Making challenge unchallenging would be quite a challenge.

Wheeee!

Well you could just rename it a fish.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Removing player/player damage would be less of a challenge than it used to be - as there are Engineer Experimental Effects that disable damage to non-targeted ships - that could be used for any CMDR target.

 

[jasonbarron]

Just imagine the immersion that would give us.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just imagine the immersion that would give us.

I know - it's great, isn't it? (or not, as the case may be)

More seriously, I expect that everyone has a slightly different personal definition of that term.

 

[Han_Zen]

Removing player/player damage would be less of a challenge than it used to be - as there are Engineer Experimental Effects that disable damage to non-targeted ships - that could be used for any CMDR target.

Weapons fire is easy. Many games do that.

Ramming and mines are harder.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Pew + ship = ouchie, damnit.

Sorry to get all technical here.

 

[Eidolon]

"Us?" For whom do you speak- yourself and the mouse in your pocket?

No, only myself. I am a PvEer.
I don't assume to speak for all PvE players. The devs have stated that they are aware the majority of players are PvE.
So, you must be speaking from a minority viewpoint.

Sorry.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Removing player/player damage would be less of a challenge than it used to be - as there are Engineer Experimental Effects that disable damage to non-targeted ships - that could be used for any CMDR target.

Those just affect the shields. Wont work with shieldless ships.

Wait, having a magic bubble against other players doesnt break any immersion... but instant ship transfers, hell no

 

[Robert Maynard]

Those just affect the shields. Wont work with shieldless ships.

If the application of damage has to check the ship at all then it'd likely not be a lot of work to add a "if (!PilotIsNPC(targeted_ship)) {damage_multiplier = 0;} " test to the series of calculations that must be done when determining the amount of damage to apply at the moment....

 

[Goose4291]

Removing player/player damage would be less of a challenge than it used to be - as there are Engineer Experimental Effects that disable damage to non-targeted ships - that could be used for any CMDR target.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Actually, the possibility of other "groups" (modes) where the rules can be different stems from the Kickstarter itself (my emphasis):

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?

The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.

The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).​

How does multiplayer work?

You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.
You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!
There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.
We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.​