Open PvE

[GluttonyFang]

Similarly, demeaning players who do not enjoy forced interactions from other players cannot be justified.

I agree, however if a player enters an environment where the possibility of forced player interaction is possible, then it isn't a valid defense for the player who dislike interaction/interaction of a certain kind to claim that they were demeaned by random interaction. The said player is fully aware of potential encounters.

Edit:

Also that claiming that they are not playing the game just because they enjoy Pk or something not to your liking seems a little extreme.

 

[Mohrgan]

I agree, however if a player enters an environment where the possibility of forced player interaction is possible, then it isn't a valid defense for the player who dislike interaction/interaction of a certain kind to claim that they were demeaned by random interaction. The said player is fully aware of potential encounters.

One contention within this thread is that new players might not know the full extent of what Open means. Or that there are optional play styles. 'Open' doesn't really evoke, to me at least, what you assert is the full 'potential' of your encounters there. Changing the terminology used for the modes could go along way to avoiding those 'special' threads we see from time to time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree, however if a player enters an environment where the possibility of forced player interaction is possible, then it isn't a valid defense for the player who dislike interaction/interaction of a certain kind to claim that they were demeaned by random interaction. The said player is fully aware of potential encounters.

Hence the request for an analogous mode that caters for those who prefer PvE play but wish to enjoy the benefits of meeting random players - an Open-PvE mode would, in my opinion, satisfy that requirement.

Edit:

Also that claiming that they are not playing the game just because they enjoy Pk or something not to your liking seems a little extreme.

I did not claim that all PKers do not play the game - when I said "it's more than a bit sad that some players get their kicks simply thwarting others and not actually playing the game", I was expressing my opinion that there are some players who choose to adversely affect other players (just because they are players) and use the game as the vehicle for that behaviour.

 

[GluttonyFang]

One contention within this thread is that new players might not know the full extent of what Open means. Or that there are optional play styles. 'Open' doesn't really evoke, to me at least, what you assert is the full 'potential' of your encounters. Changing the terminology used for the modes could go along way to avoiding those 'special' threads we see from time to time.

I agree that new players may have to "learn the hard way," however they will eventually or very quickly discover the option to avoid player interaction or the kind of interaction they dislike.

This is not the fault of the players in any given mode, this is either FD's fault for not fully explaining the functionality of the modes to noobs or the noobs not doing enough homework before jumping into the game/modes.

"Full potential" by your diction and interpretation represent some sort of superiority, which is not intended by my use. Potential encounter can incorporate any encounter.

 

[Roguey]

I agreed, a PvE tag would be great. A reason to move from solo to open - have all the good benefits of open without any of the bad.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Hence the request for an analogous mode that caters for those who prefer PvE play but wish to enjoy the benefits of meeting random players - an Open-PvE mode would, in my opinion, satisfy that requirement.

It does make sense, however if implemented ill (deleting/adding mode), we're going to see even less of an active playerbase and even more splintered opinions.

I did not claim that all PKers do not play the game - when I said "it's more than a bit sad that some players get their kicks simply thwarting others and not actually playing the game", I was expressing my opinion that there are some players who choose to adversely affect other players (just because they are players) and use the game as the vehicle for that behaviour.

These people certainly exist, but how can you stop them even on a semantic level? They can easily use excuses and pretend to be RPing and kill off players that way. Or vice versa, people who don't want to kill players for the sake of killing players but appear to be and falsely interpreted?

The kind of players you describe exist on a conceptual level, but pragmatically speaking they are improbable to distinguish.

- - - Updated - - -

I agreed, a PvE tag would be great. A reason to move from solo to open - have all the good benefits of open without any of the bad.

Please be aware of your diction, calling non-PvE content "bad" is just asking for more flame. Though I am in full support of a flag system.

 

[Mohrgan]

I agree that new players may have to "learn the hard way," however they will eventually or very quickly discover the option to avoid player interaction or the kind of interaction they dislike.

This is not the fault of the players in any given mode, this is either FD's fault for not fully explaining the functionality of the modes to noobs or the noobs not doing enough homework before jumping into the game/modes.

"Full potential" by your diction and interpretation represent some sort of superiority, which is not intended by my use. Potential encounter can incorporate any encounter.

So, by extension, putting better labels on the modes should go a long way to solving FD's errors. So, how about relabeling open to Open-PvP, and Mobius to Open-PvE? Then it would simply be a matter of adding Open-PvE to the list. What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

[GluttonyFang]

So, by extension, putting better labels on the modes should go a long way to solving FD's errors. So, how about relabeling open to Open-PvP, and Mobius to Open-PvE? Then it would simply be a matter of adding Open-PvE to the list. What could possibly be wrong with that?

The only issue I see and like to emphasize again is playerbase fragmentation, which is why I see a flag system being implemented superior to mode separation.

Edit:

I mentioned this in another thread and I will repeat here.

We can have much more meaningful content and have the playerbase begin to appreciate one another despite of your favored activities in the game. Traders who want strict PvE can put on a PvE flag and perhaps hire a PvP player to escort them.

PvPers looking for strict combat action can interdict and fight the escort while the trader either enjoy the show or pretend nothing happened.

The new possibilities with the implementation of the flag system seems healthy and efficient.

This way some of the Open players don't feel like the galaxy is so empty and Solo players can truly "share" a Universe with Open players. A lot of the tension really sparked from Open players not being able to see Solo players, so having a flag system just might help some Open players to understand that some players just don't want to get involved in combat against another Cmdr and they are humans, too.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It does make sense, however if implemented ill (deleting/adding mode), we're going to see even less of an active playerbase and even more splintered opinions.

Is there really a difference (from the perspective of players in Open) between players playing in Solo or Private Groups because they don't like forced interaction and those same players potentially enjoying the game more in an added Open-PvE mode?

These people certainly exist, but how can you stop them even on a semantic level? They can easily use excuses and pretend to be RPing and kill off players that way. Or vice versa, people who don't want to kill players for the sake of killing players but appear to be and falsely interpreted?

The kind of players you describe exist on a conceptual level, but pragmatically speaking they are improbable to distinguish.

Therein lies the problem - they are difficult to distinguish and therefore difficult to deal with - much easier to allow players who wish to avoid them to play in an Open-PvE mode where the behaviour of such players is of no consequence to the target (i.e. no financial loss, just a little time lost).

 

[GluttonyFang]

Is there really a difference (from the perspective of players in Open) between players playing in Solo or Private Groups because they don't like forced interaction and those same players potentially enjoying the game more in an added Open-PvE mode?

There is, in the sense that from what I understand, any sort of player hostility is impossible in the Open PvE mode. Solo mode doesn't have any secondary Cmdrs, Private Groups still retain the possibility of being attacked by another Cmdr if there is more than one in a group. Open PvE mode is where players can see one another yet cannot fire upon one another.

This is an additional mode with its own special feature as far as I am concerned.

Think about RES/CZ, people are still going to either use group or solo to play with friends/yield maximum profit from 0% kill stealing.

Therein lies the problem - they are difficult to distinguish and therefore difficult to deal with - much easier to allow players who wish to avoid them to play in an Open-PvE mode where the behaviour of such players is of no consequence to the target (i.e. no financial loss, just a little time lost).

The prevention of the undesired behavior is indeed relatively absolute, basically wiping out any sort of hostile interaction between players. I am not against the establishment of a PvE system, but I feel that instead of fragmenting the playerbase further, use a system similar to a flag system will help the playerbase's and the game's longevity.

 

[Mohrgan]

The only issue I see and like to emphasize again is playerbase fragmentation, which is why I see a flag system being implemented superior to mode separation.

Edit:

I mentioned this in another thread and I will repeat here.

We can have much more meaningful content and have the playerbase begin to appreciate one another despite of your favored activities in the game. Traders who want strict PvE can put on a PvE flag and perhaps hire a PvP player to escort them.

PvPers looking for strict combat action can interdict and fight the escort while the trader either enjoy the show or pretend nothing happened.

The new possibilities with the implementation of the flag system seems healthy and efficient.

This way some of the Open players don't feel like the galaxy is so empty and Solo players can truly "share" a Universe with Open players. A lot of the tension really sparked from Open players not being able to see Solo players, so having a flag system just might help some Open players to understand that some players just don't want to get involved in combat against another Cmdr and they are humans, too.

Except that there is no functionality to make players impervious to a ships fire. There is functionality for matchmaking. A PvE mode, that works like Mobius, honor system that punishes infractions by banishment, has all the technology needed in game already. No real development, nor testing would be needed. Boom it's done. Leaving resources for the content everyone is looking for. That sounds elegant to me.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Except that there is no functionality to make players impervious to a ships fire. There is functionality for matchmaking. A PvE mode, that works like Mobius, honor system that punishes infractions by banishment, has all the technology needed in game already. No real development, nor testing would be needed. Boom it's done. Leaving resources for the content everyone is looking for. That sounds elegant to me.

So you're suggesting the PvE mode operate on a honor system?

If a PvE player walks into PvE mode and get fired upon by a troll, wouldn't said player feel inclined to utilize Solo or restricted Group (less people) anyway? You can't stop all the troll, and you know FD doesn't ban people seriously at all regardless of the individual's offense. And I will easily assume that mode trolls are going to be more frequent than combat loggers, which the support team already have a tough time dealing with and is unable to punish most offenses. (Cheaters that mess with memory and variable of the game to get infinite shield and super lasers only get two stern warnings after the cheater himself openly admits to cheating on a public network)

I feel that unless we have mechanics that actively prevents player hostility for the PvE system, we are going to repeat, if not, escalate the current issue with the playerbase's dispute.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There is, in the sense that from what I understand, any sort of player hostility is impossible in the Open PvE mode. Solo mode doesn't have any secondary Cmdrs, Private Groups still retain the possibility of being attacked by another Cmdr if there is more than one in a group. Open PvE mode is where players can see one another yet cannot fire upon one another.

This is an additional mode with its own special feature as far as I am concerned.

Think about RES/CZ, people are still going to either use group or solo to play with friends/yield maximum profit from 0% kill stealing.

In my preferred (hypothetical) implementation of an Open-PvE mode, players would still be able to attack / destroy other players, strange as that may sound. The consequences for the targeted player would be fundamentally different, as would those for the attacker. The targeted player would suffer no loss whatsoever, be it damage, mission time, cargo, insurance cost, bounty vouchers, exploration data, etc. - they would be fully reimbursed. The attacker would be kicked to Open at the next instance change / after the insurance screen (Police response to PvP would be swift and beefed up) and not allowed back into Open-PvE for some time.

The prevention of the undesired behavior is indeed relatively absolute, basically wiping out any sort of hostile interaction between players. I am not against the establishment of a PvE system, but I feel that instead of fragmenting the playerbase further, use a system similar to a flag system will help the playerbase's and the game's longevity.

The playerbase is already fragmented and a PvP flag would probably create more exploit opportunities (kill stealing by a PvE player getting between a player and their NPC target, as one example). Creating an Open-PvE mode would allow the fragments in Solo and Private Groups to potentially coalesce into more of a community that interacts with each other rather than playing alone or in small groups.

 

[Mohrgan]

So you're suggesting the PvE mode operate on a honor system?

If a PvE player walks into PvE mode and get fired upon by a troll, wouldn't said player feel inclined to utilize Solo or restricted Group (less people) anyway? You can't stop all the troll, and you know FD doesn't ban people seriously at all regardless of the individual's offense. (Cheaters that mess with memory and variable of the game to get infinite shield and super lasers only get two stern warnings after the cheater himself openly admits to cheating on a public network)

I feel that unless we have mechanics that actively prevents player hostility for the PvE system, we are going to repeat, if not, escalate the current issue with the playerbase's dispute.

Not if the example in Mobius, when it was invaded, is any indication. It was quickly investigated, and resolved. Life went on, and the group thrives.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Not if the example in Mobius, when it was invaded, is any indication. It was quickly investigated, and resolved. Life went on, and the group thrives.

It thrives because it is still considerably small, in the sense that not a lot of people access the forum and not all Cmdr in Mobius' total player count are active, actually a small portion of it is active from what I understand (I could be wrong). When it becomes an official mode, it will see much more "undermining," if you know what I mean.

 

[GluttonyFang]

In my preferred (hypothetical) implementation of an Open-PvE mode, players would still be able to attack / destroy other players, strange as that may sound. The consequences for the targeted player would be fundamentally different, as would those for the attacker. The targeted player would suffer no loss whatsoever, be it damage, mission time, cargo, insurance cost, bounty vouchers, exploration data, etc. - they would be fully reimbursed. The attacker would be kicked to Open at the next instance change / after the insurance screen (Police response to PvP would be swift and beefed up) and not allowed back into Open-PvE for some time.

Makes sense, then the only concern I really have is playerbase fragmentation from that point onward.

The playerbase is already fragmented and a PvP flag would probably create more exploit opportunities (kill stealing by a PvE player getting between a player and their NPC target, as one example). Creating an Open-PvE mode would allow the fragments in Solo and Private Groups to potentially coalesce into more of a community that interacts with each other rather than playing alone or in small groups.

Precisely why we need to prevent it from fragmenting further. Also, kill stealing is also possible in the supposed PvE mode if I understand accurately, which will drive people back to group/solo. If it is somehow dealt with, I see the flag system being superior in the sense that players can interact with one another where the PvE flagged players cannot be harmed. Friendship can happen between players, regardless of preference of PvP or PvE, if we just let them meet one another. I feel that is healthy for the community and encouraging for the playerbase.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Precisely why we need to prevent it from fragmenting further. Also, kill stealing is also possible in the supposed PvE mode if I understand accurately, which will drive people back to group/solo. If it is somehow dealt with, I see the flag system being superior in the sense that players can interact with one another where the PvE flagged players cannot be harmed. Friendship can happen between players, regardless of preference of PvP or PvE, if we just let them meet one another. I feel that is healthy for the community and encouraging for the playerbase.

Clumping the fragments that are already in Solo and Private Groups would be a start though....

Kill stealing would still be a problem and yes, players who suffer from it could still choose to play in Solo or Private Groups - that's their choice after all.

A PvP-Flag system is, of course, one way of approaching the problem - not my preferred option but an option nonetheless. If Open-PvE were created, players would still be able to select any of the (then) four game modes - it would not stop players from choosing to play in Open-PvP&E mode as and when they want to.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Clumping the fragments that are already in Solo and Private Groups would be a start though....

Kill stealing would still be a problem and yes, players who suffer from it could still choose to play in Solo or Private Groups - that's their choice after all.

A PvP-Flag system is, of course, one way of approaching the problem - not my preferred option but an option nonetheless. If Open-PvE were created, players would still be able to select any of the (then) four game modes - it would not stop players from choosing to play in Open-PvP&E mode as and when they want to.

I am trying to create a situation where it will appease both the Open PvP players and PvE players to an extent, the flag system seem to be optimal. Since as it stands, PvE mode will inevitably take population away from the regular Open mode. I believe this will upset some Open players that are not Pk PvPers, but PvP focused nevertheless (In a player interaction sense). The switch between PvP open and PvE open should be seamless, in my opinion. Providing a playground for Pk PvPers, PvPers, PvE where the three types of players cannot fatally "demean" one another feels more healthy for the overall playerbase.

 

[Mohrgan]

Makes sense, then the only concern I really have is playerbase fragmentation from that point onward.



Precisely why we need to prevent it from fragmenting further. Also, kill stealing is also possible in the supposed PvE mode if I understand accurately, which will drive people back to group/solo. If it is somehow dealt with, I see the flag system being superior in the sense that players can interact with one another where the PvE flagged players cannot be harmed. Friendship can happen between players, regardless of preference of PvP or PvE, if we just let them meet one another. I feel that is healthy for the community and encouraging for the playerbase.

I have, personally, very little concern over fragmenting the player base. We have fragmentation now. I support that, if that is how people want to play. Rather, I believe it will bring those that are interested in group play, without PvP, together. In effect, De-fragmenting the PvE crowd. The PvP crowd must already be as well represented in open as it can be, now. I don't see that group as fragmented.

My biggest issue is resources. I would see this done with as little expense, and time, as possible, or retain the status quo. I happen to be a strong proponent for free mode swapping. I enter any and all as my goals require. An Open-PvE mode just makes sense, so I accept the premise behind it. I see it more as educating the player base, than anything else. Just letting them know there is a middle ground between the free-for-all, and solitude. Both have their time and place.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I am trying to create a situation where it will appease both the Open PvP players and PvE players to an extent, the flag system seem to be optimal. Since as it stands, PvE mode will inevitably take population away from the regular Open mode. I believe this will upset some Open players that are not Pk PvPers, but PvP focused nevertheless (In a player interaction sense). The switch between PvP open and PvE open should be seamless, in my opinion. Providing a playground for Pk PvPers, PvPers, PvE where the three types of players cannot fatally "demean" one another feels more healthy for the overall playerbase.

It would only appease both groups if those who do not like the setting of another player's PvP-Flag keep their opinions to themselves.... Sadly, I don't think that that is likely to be completely successful - from either side.

The game is all about choice - if an Open-PvE mode was implemented and proved to be popular then that could either be viewed as a bad thing for Open(-PvP) mode or as a good thing for the playerbase as a whole because a popular mode probably means that players are happy with it. Frontier have said that all game modes are valid and equal - I expect that that would extend to the hypothetical Open-PvE mode too....