Modes Open PVE mode - partial solution to community division?

[galahad2069]

I might go there, this PvE mode. I guess I'd be rid of most of the trolls and saltminers there. Sounds like a chill place to be and hang out.

They could call it Elite: Harmless.

As opposed to the current Open mode, which should be called: Elite: Mostly Harmless, thanks to the single real (but otherwise rare and very easily avoidable) form of challenge the game has to offer: those "trolls and saltminers". ☺

 

[rootsrat]

Once upon a time I would have been in favour of an open PvE mode. But i don't think it solves a lot of the problems. I feel the best solution now is a complete separation of the existing Open mode with PG and solo, and then we can have a separate Open PvE mode along with PGs and solo.

Those who want Open (with PvP) will only have Open with PvP. A complete separation of everything, including save games.

Well, if it was for me, I'd only have Open from the start and be done with it. One mode, no complaints. That will never happen though, as well as 2 separate servers with 2 separate BGS's, storylines, CG outcomes etc.

So I went for more realistic solution that is actually possible with some development effort.

Asking for impossible makes no sense to me.

 

[Han_Zen]

Once upon a time I would have been in favour of an open PvE mode. But i don't think it solves a lot of the problems. I feel the best solution now is a complete separation of the existing Open mode with PG and solo, and then we can have a separate Open PvE mode along with PGs and solo.

Those who want Open (with PvP) will only have Open with PvP. A complete separation of everything, including save games.

That would mean disconnecting player action from all story driven content. Two separate save games would mean two transaction servers with two different universes.

It would not necessarily be a bad idea to let the game handle the ebbs and tides of the galaxy it self. It would allow FD more freedom to insert more large scale NPC campaigns. It would render both CGs and Powerplay meaningless though.

 

[Sylveria]

That would mean disconnecting player action from all story driven content. Two separate save games would mean two transaction servers with two different universes.

It would not necessarily be a bad idea to let the game handle the ebbs and tides of the galaxy it self. It would allow FD more freedom to insert more large scale NPC campaigns. It would render both CGs and Powerplay meaningless though.

I disagree with the last bit- they'd remain "meaningful" in respect to their own styles of play. They'd certainly not be meaningful compared to each other, however.

 

[Han_Zen]

I disagree with the last bit- they'd remain "meaningful" in respect to their own styles of play. They'd certainly not be meaningful compared to each other, however.

They would have to be meaningless in the broader sense of the games story. They could not affect things that end up on Galnet, for example.

Colonia, Obsidian Orbital, Opposing the Thargoid invasion, curing the Ceberus plage and stopping the Emperors Dawn are a few examples of player impact on the story. Non of these things could have been left to the players to decide, if the game was split in two galaxies.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

That would mean disconnecting player action from all story driven content. Two separate save games would mean two transaction servers with two different universes.

It would not necessarily be a bad idea to let the game handle the ebbs and tides of the galaxy it self. It would allow FD more freedom to insert more large scale NPC campaigns. It would render both CGs and Powerplay meaningless though.

It would mean two stories as it were, but FD could choose one to be the official story as it were. Roots says its impossible, i'll go with improbable.

Failing that, another option would be to maintain Open only, and allow people to set up private servers. Farm out the resposibility for people running other versions of the game. Then people could choose to run offline (eg: private server locally) or small private servers, or even massive ones if popular enough. The risk there is the non-official servers could become more popular than the official server, and the official server could possibly even tank, as once people have their own servers they could run their own storylines and mod mechanics, etc (depending on how much is configurable through files and how much is hardcoded).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

They would have to be meaningless in the broader sense of the games story. They could not affect things that end up on Galnet, for example.

Not end up on the website version of Galnet? I'd be fine with that. The in-game galnets can run different versions.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Not end up on the website version of Galnet? I'd be fine with that. The in-game galnets can run different versions.

FD can't even maintain a narrative with one galaxy - you seriously expect them to do two?

 

[Sylveria]

Ultimately, all FD really did was to defer cost. It's going to cost them one way or another and the only question is how much.

I really do think a good solid rework of PG's would do the trick. Remove the group player size limit, allow an optional toggle for PvP so that group rules can be enforced (which could be done by applying the Wings friendly fire threshold setting to the group's participants) and then both styles are perfectly catered to with choice. Want to create a PvP group? Done. Want to create a PvE group? Done.

Open PvP can be whatever it "wants" to be, PP and all.

Solo players can still play alone.

Everyone gets a choice of what they want, and like will attract like. (as it will no matter what changes are implemented)

They've a tough decision to make, and either it can be a win/win or a win/lose.

 

[Tarman]

If Open was PvE the only reason to go solo would be to cut back on technical issues that the P2P architecture brings with it when instances spawn with more than one player in it. That would still be a required option, but for most people outside busy areas, you don't need solo if Open is PvE.

For a pilot who's been rabidly against test-moving just one currently-crappy gameplay feature to a single mode to see if it can come alive because of imagined irreparable damage to a gaming preference, I find it highly ironic that you have no regard for Solo-only players at all, as your idea would remove 100% of their gameplay which involves categorically not having other people around anywhere.

 

[DeathStroke]

Won't happen, and I wouldn't use it if it did.

 

[HBK]

Game should have been "open PvE" from day one, with no "open PvP" mode whatsoever.

And each player should be able to engage a PvP toggle if they want to be able to hurt other players (and of course get hurt in return).

Said PvP toggle would be automatically enabled under certain circumstances, such as engaging in PowerPlay.

With some rules such as timers et al. to prevent some abuse, and voila.

And no matter how you look at it, the success of Mobius should tell us there are a lot of players who want an "open PvE" option.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

FD can't even maintain a narrative with one galaxy - you seriously expect them to do two?

If true, then nothing lost either way

Won't happen, and I wouldn't use it if it did.

So you have no objection to it happening if it were to happen?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Remove the group player size limit

As i understand there is some sort of technical reason for the limit, in that they have to track who is in the PG and of course, mangement and display of those lists (although considering DBs these days can easily handle such massive lists with no real performance issues, its a bit confusing).

An Open PvE mode like regular Open has no such issues because everyone is automatically a member anyway.

They should be able to do it though, from a technical perspective either way, unlimited PGs should be possible, although without better PG tools, maintaining them becomes almost impossible.

 

[Sylveria]

As i understand there is some sort of technical reason for the limit, in that they have to track who is in the PG and of course, mangement and display of those lists (although considering DBs these days can easily handle such massive lists with no real performance issues, its a bit confusing).

An Open PvE mode like regular Open has no such issues because everyone is automatically a member anyway.

They should be able to do it though, from a technical perspective either way, unlimited PGs should be possible, although without better PG tools, maintaining them becomes almost impossible.

And since it doesn't "remove" anything from other modes, (as opposed to mode feature exclusivity), it's not a win/lose situation but a win/win for everyone.

The PvPers keep those "pesky little carebears" from interfering with their pew-de-pew and "carebears" finally have a venue to play the game without interference from them.

Those who wish to be left alone may still do Solo to their heart's content.

The proper PG tools are IMO indeed more important than the limitation.

The only thing limitation does is reduce the ability for larger groups of 'friends' to play together, but with some strategy and group organization I don't think it would take much to overcome this, either. Sign up for group 1-4 and have your buddies do the same. I only point out the limitation mainly to demonstrate PG's really are NOT the equivalent of a full-blown "PvE mode". One of many differences, the two of which we're discussing being the most pertinent.

 

[Han_Zen]

As i understand there is some sort of technical reason for the limit, in that they have to track who is in the PG and of course, mangement and display of those lists (although considering DBs these days can easily handle such massive lists with no real performance issues, its a bit confusing).

An Open PvE mode like regular Open has no such issues because everyone is automatically a member anyway.

They should be able to do it though, from a technical perspective either way, unlimited PGs should be possible, although without better PG tools, maintaining them becomes almost impossible.

As long as there are member lists, there will be a practical limitation. An open group with the same rules as Mobius and community moderators like the forum, is a simple solution to that issue.

Robert would probably be happy to moderate it on his own.

 

[Sylveria]

As long as there are member lists, there will be a practical limitation. An open group with the same rules as Mobius and community moderators like the forum, is a simple solution to that issue.

Robert would probably be happy to moderate it on his own.

Within PG's the admins effectively are the moderators. It really isn't all that difficult to "kick" someone from a PG.

The issue remains in the investigation of "occurrences" and so forth- which would be immediately remedied by the mechanical prevention of activities with a simple toggle. Then there's nothing to "investigate". The game effectively prevents all player/player activity outside of the groups rules. No more incentives for "invasions" or to even bother trying. Why the "toggle"? Because then there's no argument as to PG's only catering to PvE... as PvP players could choose to leave it in PvP mode for their own PG purposes.

Since it's apparent that a "gentleman's agreement" holds no weight by the fact that it does occur (however infrequently), it stands to reason that such is no longer a "deterrent".

Not saying I wouldn't enjoy flying in Robert's company (or anyone else who has interest in a true cooperative PvE experience) just that "moderation" really wouldn't be required with the proper controls being implemented via the game itself.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Within PG's the admins effectively are the moderators. It really isn't all that difficult to "kick" someone from a PG.

The issue remains in the investigation of "occurrences" and so forth- which would be immediately remedied by the mechanical prevention of activities with a simple toggle. Then there's nothing to "investigate". The game effectively prevents all player/player activity outside of the groups rules. No more incentives for "invasions" or to even bother trying. Why the "toggle"? Because then there's no argument as to PG's only catering to PvE... as PvP players could choose to leave it in PvP mode for their own PG purposes.

Since it's apparent that a "gentleman's agreement" holds no weight by the fact that it does occur (however infrequently), it stands to reason that such is no longer a "deterrent".

Not saying I wouldn't enjoy flying in Robert's company (or anyone else who has interest in a true cooperative PvE experience) just that "moderation" really wouldn't be required with the proper controls being implemented via the game itself.

If youre involved with PVP activity. IE working against another power or player group. Intentionally. Then you do all the PVP. Not some of it.

Does this mean putting more ships out in open to shoot? Yep! People are competing against each other. Not the solo narrative.

Id you want to do it and get the rewards. Then do it and get the rewards. Nothing is being taken away.

God forbid you actually had to try in a game called Elite Dangerous...

 

[Sylveria]

If youre involved with PVP activity. IE working against another power or player group. Intentionally. Then you do all the PVP. Not some of it.

Does this mean putting more ships out in open to shoot? Yep! People are competing against each other. Not the solo narrative.

Id you want to do it and get the rewards. Then do it and get the rewards. Nothing is being taken away.

God forbid you actually had to try in a game called Elite Dangerous...

So you're in agreement then? As long as players are not engaging in PvP activity, they should be able to have this?

Glad to see we can agree on something.

Hint: PvE players don't engage other players, else they'd be PvP

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

So you're in agreement then? As long as players are not engaging in PvP activity, they should be able to have this?

Glad to see we can agree on something.

Hint: PvE players don't engage other players, else they'd be PvP

Honestly I think there should be a smaller protected area from where we start. I dont think the whole thing should be flagged, because how do you tell if someone is just passing through or working the BGS against you in a pinpointed system.

I think Player faction BGS works different than the "consensual PVP" that powerplay is, as a whole. Powerplay is that flagging system,
it has that understanding. BGS has cops and a whole different structure. To be honest I know more about the BGS than I do powerplay. I did powerplay really early on, seen what it was for. And realized there was nobody there to turn the gears of war. And come to find out you have to join a discord to get decently involved with the group. Hopefully squadrons fixes that.

Everyone else should run the risk of being pirated anywhere, you cant really do that with a PVP flag like youre talking about. If people are just trucking about with no influence changes and you're worried about getting shanked in space. Go to mobius, we already have the PVP flag imo.

People can chose to be out there for fun if they wish. However, anything PVP related powerplay, or Player faction stuff( I dunno how ) Needs to be where people can atleast DEFEND via PVP and drive people off.

I know we've spoke a lot about this in the past. But heres the deal, Ive never wanted to and attack anyone. Ive always just wanted to defend our systems against "PVEers".

Even MCRN when I went to colonia... We were kinda backed into a corner. SO I went out there for a bit. But never seen a soul, I did happen to go INTO their private group though and seen one of the guys working against us within 10 minutes of going into the mobius PG.

Thing is, I just want to defend our system and get some carebears off my space lawn.

I dont think thats too much for people to ask.

If they can define what it means to attack a player faction and restrict that to open play as well.

I could care less about how they flag open to be honest, Just as long as the people are flagged during any PVP activity, that includes hauling, passenger missions or whatever containing influence vs the players faction.

Thats all most of us want really. The ability to defend via PVP.

Dont know why thats so much to ask. Or why people dont understand it.