Open PvE

[Meritz]

Two false statements in my opinion. Not going to discuss the first point more... its wasted time - we won't agree. Which fine, you have your opinion ( based upon player choice ) and I have mine based upon the Game Mechanics of Open.

Mine is also based on a dictionary, but feel free to disagree.

Open PVE is absolutely a possibility:

- Open PVE would be a separate mode from current "Open"
- Match making to separate the two modes.
- No player to player damage
- If you hit another ship, you bounce off like current but take no damage. No fly through.

And you just gave griefers an excellent tool. Bowling & Blocking. For example, they hang around station entrance in an Anaconda, and when they see you coming, they bounce you back inside. Then they pull back to clear the loitering timer. Then they do it again and again, possibly in groups, to block players from leaving and cause them to be destroyed by the station. And you can't do a damn thing about it.

Nice job.

 

[SiriusSeven]

And you just gave griefers an excellent tool. Bowling & Blocking. For example, they hang around station entrance in an Anaconda, and when they see you coming, they bounce you back inside. Then they pull back to clear the loitering timer. Then they do it again and again, possibly in groups, to block players from leaving and cause them to be destroyed by the station. And you can't do a damn thing about it.

Let's not make perfect be the enemy of good!

 

[Distance]

And you just gave griefers an excellent tool. Bowling & Blocking. For example, they hang around station entrance in an Anaconda, and when they see you coming, they bounce you back inside. Then they pull back to clear the loitering timer. Then they do it again and again, possibly in groups, to block players from leaving and cause them to be destroyed by the station. And you can't do a damn thing about it.

Nice job.

Greifing would be a rare occurrence and things like this can easily be dealt with taking a video of it and reporting the players. The same way combat logging is "dealt with" in open play.

Using your same logic you can argue that they should remove open play because noone should play in open play due to the p2p technology and anyone can pull their plug at anytime.

There's more arguments for a pve mode than against. The only way it could affect you would be that there's less players who play in open but by pushing players who don't really want to play in open in to open it causes more problems than it solves and is the main problem affecting the player base right now.

I'd rather have a pve mode that has to deal with a few griefers (the same way open has to deal with a few cases of griefers) and keep a player a customer for a few years than have them all shoved in to open or solo and then having them quit after a few months because the game isn't for them.

 

[Stewart_]

Mine is also based on a dictionary, but feel free to disagree.



And you just gave griefers an excellent tool. Bowling & Blocking. For example, they hang around station entrance in an Anaconda, and when they see you coming, they bounce you back inside. Then they pull back to clear the loitering timer. Then they do it again and again, possibly in groups, to block players from leaving and cause them to be destroyed by the station. And you can't do a damn thing about it.

Nice job.

This will probably be exceptional. If it does occur, report.

Griefers will find loop holes in anything.

 

[Simi Kusoni]

About as many as SWG lost with the same stunt. All of them. Well, not quite. A small bunch of PvE players would hold on - until SC comes out, then they'd jump ship as well.

Yes, this is usually the outcome in these kind of games.

People ask for PvE flags or something similar, or a PvE server. They get given it, PvP players leave in droves. Pure PvE players stay for a while until most of them start getting bored and move on, game is left with a tiny core fan base and dies.

 

[Stewart_]

There's more arguments for a pve mode than against. The only way it could affect you would be that there's less players who play in open but by pushing players who don't really want to play in open in to open it causes more problems than it solves and is the main problem affecting the player base right now.

I'm sure you'd agree - there isn't any problem with this - an Open PVE being more popular than current "open". If PVE is more popular than PVP then that is ultimately a community ( player base ) decision. Something that FD would have to adapt to.


----
I'm not sure why people keep on putting SC on some sort of Pedestal. Its as if the entire player base is playing Elite to kill time until SC comes out.

Bringing a theme park style game to Elite would totally break what Elite is. Theme Park Elite just isn't the game we know as "Elite". May as well change its name at that point.

 

[SiriusSeven]

Yes, this is usually the outcome in these kind of games.

People ask for PvE flags or something similar, or a PvE server. They get given it, PvP players leave in droves. Pure PvE players stay for a while until most of them start getting bored and move on, game is left with a tiny core fan base and dies.

And what happens if PvE is only half added, (as is the present status quo of this this game?)

 

[Distance]

I'm sure you'd agree - there isn't any problem with this - an Open PVE being more popular than current "open". If PVE is more popular than PVP then that is ultimately a community ( player base ) decision. Something that FD would have to adapt to.

It works both ways tbh. If you keep the current model and the pve player base leaves then FD will focus more on pvp, if they add pve and the pvp player base leaves then FD will concentrate on pve. At this early stage in the game though noone knows the outcome. There's a vocal section of both sides of the argument on the forum but the forum population is tiny compared to the overall player base. It's just as possible that they add in pve and only the minority uses it and in that instance nothing changes except they have retained more players that would have probably left anyway.

If players really are dedicated the proper pvp rather than jumping players who would rather be playing in a pve mode then they will stay in open regardless of the addition of a pve mode and open will be all the better for it.

Right now there's calls to water down open to account for two play styles and that ends badly for everyone. The simple addition of a pve mode means open stays the same and players have more choice in how to play the way they want to play like FD promised in the first place.

 

[Stewart_]

It works both ways tbh. If you keep the current model and the pve player base leaves then FD will focus more on pvp, if they add pve and the pvp player base leaves then FD will concentrate on pve. At this early stage in the game though noone knows the outcome. There's a vocal section of both sides of the argument on the forum but the forum population is tiny compared to the overall player base. It's just as possible that they add in pve and only the minority uses it and in that instance nothing changes except they have retained more players that would have probably left anyway.

If players really are dedicated the proper pvp rather than jumping players who would rather be playing in a pve mode then they will stay in open regardless of the addition of a pve mode and open will be all the better for it.

Right now there's calls to water down open to account for two play styles and that ends badly for everyone. The simple addition of a pve mode means open stays the same and players have more choice in how to play.

Absolute fair point. By adding a PVE Open mode, this unknown will become clearer.

At the moment, FD have tried to cater to all player bases ( solo, group, open ) : a very challenging balance. Something that isn't for everyone - look at "Solo vs Open".

 

[Meritz]

And what happens if PvE is only half added, (as is the present status quo of this this game?)

Game filters out pure PvE players and retains a core audience interested in sandbox gameplay. Which usually involves the possibility of interaction with other players. SWG PvE was similar to ED, granted that game did have a PvP flagging system. But sandbox games are never very attractive to pure PvE players, and PvE content is often quite grindy, that's just due to the nature of sandbox games (no direction, "unlimited" worlds etc.)
SWG thus had mostly PvP and a huge RP scene. PvE players were always complaining how there is "nothing to do" and how mission terminals were boring.

 

[Stewart_]

Game filters out pure PvE players and retains a core audience interested in sandbox gameplay. Which usually involves the possibility of interaction with other players. SWG PvE was similar to ED, granted that game did have a PvP flagging system. But sandbox games are never very attractive to pure PvE players, and PvE content is often quite grindy, that's just due to the nature of sandbox games (no direction, "unlimited" worlds etc.)
SWG thus had mostly PvP and a huge RP scene. PvE players were always complaining how there is "nothing to do" and how mission terminals were boring.

PVE players often with each other, evidence seen from these forums. Instead of deploying hard points, they talk to each other, and form wings. It doesn't necessarily mean grinding. PVE players often like co-operative play and the open universe of Elite. At the moment, the co-operative opportunities are pretty limited..

Those who don't like interaction, go into Solo mode.

 

[Distance]

Game filters out pure PvE players and retains a core audience interested in sandbox gameplay. Which usually involves the possibility of interaction with other players. SWG PvE was similar to ED, granted that game did have a PvP flagging system. But sandbox games are never very attractive to pure PvE players, and PvE content is often quite grindy, that's just due to the nature of sandbox games (no direction, "unlimited" worlds etc.)
SWG thus had mostly PvP and a huge RP scene. PvE players were always complaining how there is "nothing to do" and how mission terminals were boring.

That's the thing FD promised everyone "play your own way" and just added in flags for solo, pvp and group. They can add in a pve mode and if anyone complains then they can be pointed to open. We all know open is the main mode and what fd are focused on but giving players one more choice to opt out isn't a bad thing.

The mission system needs an overhaul for everyone as they suck in open right now anyway. If in the future you can do arching missions with wings, being able to do them in a pve mode for an added sense of safety isn't a bad thing. The real fun happens in open imo and will do for the long term but if people want to opt out of that for any reason and still play with a larger number of players than mobius currently offers then who am I to judge?

 

[Stewart_]

That's the thing FD promised everyone "play your own way" and just added in flags for solo, pvp and group. They can add in a pve mode and if anyone complains then they can be pointed to open. We all know open is the main mode and what fd are focused on but giving players one more choice to opt out isn't a bad thing.

The mission system needs an overhaul for everyone as they suck in open right now anyway. If in the future you can do arching missions with wings, being able to do them in a pve mode for an added sense of safety isn't a bad thing. The real fun happens in open imo and will do for the long term but if people want to opt out of that for any reason and still play with a larger number of players than mobius currently offers then who am I to judge?

Open mode is the main mode? "Play your own way"... solo, group, open. Not to mention FD have stated "all modes are equal".

FD have been focused on more multi-player elements of the game, which includes both Group and Open play because that was in their immediate road map anyway, such as Wings, and improvement the Comms system. Hopefully they'll soon add the ability for players to add NPC wings.

 

[Distance]

Open mode is the main mode? "Play your own way"... solo, group, open.

As described before and linked to a dev quote in one of my earlier posts :

There's one mode to ED the entire galaxy, solo and group aren't different galaxies or modes but "flags" on the match making system to control who you see. If you select solo it will flag your client to not match you with any cmdrs. If you select group it will flag you to only match only with other cmdrs in that group. With open you're able to match with everyone except payers with a different flag.

The problem comes with FD calling them modes rather than flags and everyone seems to think that everything is a separate mode or instance when in reality it's exactly the same game universe and just a setting for the matchmaking server.

 

[Stewart_]

As described before and linked to a dev quote in one of my earlier posts :

There's one mode to ED the entire galaxy, solo and group aren't different galaxies or modes but "flags" on the match making system to control who you see. If you select solo it will flag your client to not match you with any cmdrs. If you select group it will flag you to only match maker with other cmdrs in that group. With open you're able to match make with everyone.

I'm well aware of how it works

I understand what you mean - by "main", yes. Terminology.

 

[SiriusSeven]

Open mode is the main mode? "Play your own way"... solo, group, open. Not to mention FD have stated "all modes are equal".

FD have been focused on more multi-player elements of the game, which includes both Group and Open play because that was in their immediate road map anyway, such as Wings, and improvement the Comms system. Hopefully they'll soon add the ability for players to add NPC wings.

Comms and wings also benefit Open PvE -- arguably more so. Open PvE is a nonstarter if people can't talk to one another and group... Since they can't steal and kill each other.

-- edit --

Actually that might it! Maybe that's why Open PvE didn't launch with the game...it wouldn't have made sense. I've been looking at this through the eyes of the most excellent v1.2

 

[Distance]

FD have been focused on more multi-player elements of the game, which includes both Group and Open play because that was in their immediate road map anyway, such as Wings, and improvement the Comms system. Hopefully they'll soon add the ability for players to add NPC wings.

That's because from day one they wanted to make an online version of elite with all that came with it. The matchmaking was a compromise for players not wanting to be subjected to unwanted pvp and to give the illusion of a single player online game to quell the offline gate masses.

The "all modes are equal" line is true in the sense that all players regardless of their flag can all influence the galaxy in the same way. People generally use it to mean that you should be able to "trade in open with no shields and have noone shoot at you" . . . An extreme case I know but you get my point. This is also my argument for why we need a proper pve flag as then it will truly be as equal as possible.

Regarding wings I personally think they should have waited to release the wings update until they had the ability to hire npc wingmen. Coupled with most players lack of understanding with how the match making system works as led to the "all modes are equal" to be used as ammo against FD and reignite the open vs solo debate all over again.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's because from day one they wanted to make an online version of elite with all that came with it. The matchmaking was a compromise for players not wanting to be subjected to unwanted pvp and to give the illusion of a single player online game to quell the offline gate masses.

From day one, the game pitch offered solo, group and online play. The subsequently cancelled offline mode was offered some time after the initial pitch was made. The solo and private group modes are not simply included as a way to avoid perceived griefing - although, of course, they can be used to good effect for that purpose - they have been included from the outset to satisfy the play-style choices of players who may not wish to play in open all the time, ergo the mode switching feature.

 

[Distance]

From day one, the game pitch offered solo, group and online play. The subsequently cancelled offline mode was offered some time after the initial pitch was made. The solo and private group modes are not simply included as a way to avoid perceived griefing - although, of course, they can be used to good effect for that purpose - they have been included from the outset to satisfy the play-style choices of players who may not wish to play in open all the time, ergo the mode switching feature.

I agree with you there but from a technical perspective that's all the other "modes/flags" do as it's all still the same game.

I bought the game myself because you could choose at a whim which mode you could play. I soon found out that as it's all the same game and playing in open away from the main player populations it's exactly the same as playing solo or pve with the added bonus of meeting random people where ever you are even if this could be a risk.

On a personal note as I see you popping in here and the solo vs open thread, what are your personal thoughts on a pve flag/mode?

 

[SiriusSeven]

On a personal note as I see you popping in here and the solo vs open thread, what are your personal thoughts on a pve flag/mode?

Robert Maynard was the one who pointed me to the quote in the OP, and its possible interpretation: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90583&page=450&p=2014345&viewfull=1#post2014345

I linked to that post in the OP, but I see now that it doesn't show up well in the standard forum ED theme (I'm using the mobile version). I'll see if I can make it stand out more. Information provenance is important.