Open PvE

[Majinvash]

PVE is lame and skill less.

Private group shouldn't exist.

You either want interaction in ANY form with human players or you don't.

Solo or Open.

Cherry picking which part of the game to avoid because its too hard, is lame.

Just like wanting to play a football match but banning anyone tackling.

Elite would be so much better if they could sort the instancing out and everyone had to play together or just play on their own.

The ones who aren't any good at PVP would either get better at it or learn to avoid it.

Oh and combat logging... That has to be sorted asap.

Griefing does not exist. Its a word created by people who are beaten by someone who knows the game better than they do.
I could choose to destroy every commander I came across for lol's and as long as I don't use an exploit to do so, there is nothing wrong with that.

There are holes in the world, so there should definitely be holes in space.

Majinvash

 

[Meritz]

To have attacked another player, you would have to Target that player. Just like the FF mechanic we have now. It's FF, unless you target the player. Next.

Oh, so I can just use my, you know, eyes, to aim (I assume you know of the existence of fixed weapons) and then I can kill with impunity? No? Damage threshold? Ever seen how easily that is broken in anything larger than a Sidewinder?

Ramming is an issue throughout the entire game, and I don;t see it as something to scuttle a good idea over. The debate over ramming is ongoing and let's see what comes of that.

Nothing comes out of that. You either allow it, or you don't. If you disable ramming damage, you enable bowling/blocking griefing. If you enable it you also enable ramming/kamikaze griefing. The solution is for players to learn how to dodge, or go solo.

The current state caused the split, what makes you think forcing players into one or the other would solve the schism? Do you really think that causing the players to have to reside in Open, would solve any problems?

Nobody is forcing them. They can choose solo or group. The point is in not polarizing the community. You have the main mode, Open, and optional modes added for convenience. Most of the playerbase is in Open. Most new players start in open, because most new players bought a multiplayer game. There is no schizm. As I said, the PvE group not happy with currently offered modes is a tiny minority. And this thread would be buried on the third page by now if it were not for my need to amuse myself with pointless debate.

 

[Mohrgan]

Combat Logging. Get griefed by someone, log off. No worries, they weren't supposed to hit you anyway. When you disable ramming, you make blocking irrelevant like many other games to by not letting the avatars interfere with one another. You can nit-pick all you want, but the troubles you pose still leave a workable solution. Exploiting and griefing are a fact of all games. That doesn't stop players and developers from sorting issues out as they go. Nothing can be perfect, but letting that stop you from making something good is ridiculous.
.
I have to take umbrage with your dig, 'You have the main mode, Open'. That is just not the case. All three modes of operation are available at will, making all three equals. To the point, the polarization exists. Forcing your idea that Open should be held above the other modes won;t end that any time soon. The choices that already exist made the split. Nothing you have suggested makes any improvement on that.
.
I see you do know what Passive aggressive is. Loosing an argument, then saying you engaged in it for amusement is pretty much in the definition.

 

[SiriusSeven]

Just like wanting to play a football match but banning anyone tackling.

You lost me on this one.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930919/football-concussions-childhood-research

For what it's worth, I spent the summer doing academic research on sports injuries.
There are very compelling reasons to let people play in leagues that ban full contact.

In Canada, for example, full contact hockey is banned until age 13, and then afterwards the different leagues have different rules.

 

[Blastbeats]

In Star Trek, the Borg shields adapt and are impervious to the Federation's weapons. It's not that silly. We are all part of the Pilot's Federation. Just add to the lore that Pilot Federation weapons cannot damage Pilot Federation shields. Think of it like an evolution of existing IFF (identification friend or foe) military technologies.

As for the status quo being fine, I think the poop will hit the fan when Mobius (the player) is away and can't admin the group. It's a lot to ask of, and a huge responsibility for a player. Also, it will never be as large as it could be, thus impoverishing PvE players from player interactions (e.g., co-operative wings). Mobius is only 1% of the present player population, but I suspect many more are interested.

In Star Trek, Federation ships can still attack other Federation ships. EG: VOY Message in a Bottle, VOY Timeless, ST Wrath of Kahn, etc. Friendly fire can happen.

Also, Borg shields adapt to ANY weapon, not just the Federation's. Federation weapons are easy to adapt to because they choose to use, (inferior) phaser based weapons.

 

[SiriusSeven]

In Star Trek, Federation ships can still attack other Federation ships. EG: VOY Message in a Bottle, VOY Timeless, ST Wrath of Kahn, etc. Friendly fire can happen.

Also, Borg shields adapt to ANY weapon, not just the Federation's. Federation weapons are easy to adapt to because they choose to use, (inferior) phaser based weapons.

fair enough, the analogy breaks down

i was just thinking of a popular scene where lasers fire but don't penetrate shields

 

[Meritz]

I see you do know what Passive aggressive is. Loosing an argument, then saying you engaged in it for amusement is pretty much in the definition.

Considering your only counter argument to my points about PvE mode being pointless and the exploits that would follow is combat logging, something FD is actually on record as considering as an exploit, I'd say you're pretty far from defeating anything.

And you know, 400 000 copies of the game sold. Mobius, the biggest, most well known PvE group has what, 5000 members? Even adjusting for player retention, you have a pretty skimpy case if you base your idea that solo/group modes are anywhere near as popular as open mode is.

 

[Mohrgan]

Combat Logging wouldn't be an exploit where no PC's should be destroyed. That's pretty obvious. But, I brought that up as some comic relief. My real answer to your 'what about greifing?' question was: It happens in every game, and it gets sorted. Why would a player come to a PvE only mode to engage in those activities and likely get banished, when they are free to do it in PvP-Open with impunity? Except to take out some aggression on people who feel differently than they do. ( We don;t condone that, do we?) Because there are possible exploits in one mode or another why should that stop a good idea? Those exploits are in Open now, and we don;t think E: D is a bad idea.
.
You have zero idea how the player base is distributed. Neither do I. I don;t suggest what I offer in terms of numbers, I offer it in terms of simple choice. Some players just don;t want to fight other players. There's nothing wrong with that. Implying there is does no service to the notion of bringing the community together. My point of view sees Open as about 1/3rd the player base. I guess that's about as valid a guess as yours.

 

[Majinvash]

You lost me on this one.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930919/football-concussions-childhood-research

For what it's worth, I spent the summer doing academic research on sports injuries.
There are very compelling reasons to let people play in leagues that ban full contact.

In Canada, for example, full contact hockey is banned until age 13, and then afterwards the different leagues have different rules.

Thats America football.. I was referring proper Football... Soccer.

 

[SiriusSeven]

Thats America football.. I was referring proper Football... Soccer.

Oh yes. My bad

You mean the football the other 90% of the world enjoy

I don't know much about the typical injuries in that sport, but I suspect they are much less severe.

 

[Blastbeats]

fair enough, the analogy breaks down

i was just thinking of a popular scene where lasers fire but don't penetrate shields

I know, I just wanted to point that out. In Star Trek, they would regularly protect themselves from certain weapon times, by adjusting their shield frequency and shield modulation. This, by effect, would make their shields impenetrable by whatever weapon was fired on it. This is a perfect world scenario, however, as most ships will modulate their weapons to try and compensate or "guess" what the enemy's shield frequency or modulation range could be.

If you knew the enemy's shield frequency or modulation range, your weapons would cut through their shields like butter and hit the hull.

I would be ok with a system that protects your self from friendly targets (Wingmates, Faction, etc) based on this, but would allow enemies to still penetrate your shields (That's what she said). I don't think FD will ever implement a system of this type, but it would be neat.

 

[Antmax]

I think an open PvE group should allow PvP in Anarchy. It's anarchy where anything goes and the game is already set up so everyone is innocent until proven guilty via a scan.

I also think the current open can work for the majority of PvE players over the long term so long as Gameplay mechanics try and make governed systems secure through various means that have been discussed for future updates.
Just make anarchy more tempting and lucrative for traders willing to stick their neck out.

They have hardly gotten started with trying to fix things like reducing murder and force quitting the game without penalties.

 

[SiriusSeven]

I think an open PvE group should allow PvP in Anarchy. It's anarchy where anything goes and the game is already set up so everyone is innocent until proven guilty via a scan.

I also think the current open can work for the majority of PvE players over the long term so long as Gameplay mechanics try and make governed systems secure through various means that have been discussed for future updates.
Just make anarchy more tempting and lucrative for traders willing to stick their neck out.

They have hardly gotten started with trying to fix things like reducing murder and force quitting the game without penalties.

Well I know there are too many WoW comparisons already, but I did like the fact that you were well protected in your faction's territories. You didn't really even think of PvP until venturing into the contested or enemy territories. And even then, you knew who the enemy was. Still, I preferred PvE, and did most playing on those servers, but I did keep a few high level chars on PvP servers too, and I liked the way it was handled.

--edit--

If FD go this way, I think they need to let a few of their principles slide. In particular, the system authorities in highsec places should be super powerful. If using the present ships, they need to cheat like hell, and be comically quick at responding to crimes. Otherwise the police are pushovers and we are back where we started. I don't think this will happen, and I'm not sure it should. I think PvE would be a more direct and less finicky solution

 

[Mohrgan]

Anarchy systems are regular destinations for missions. Enabling PvP in that many systems on a PvE server is a recipe for anguish. It;s gets too fussy. That said, those kinds of differences in Systems would be welcomed in Open as well.

 

[Meritz]

Combat Logging wouldn't be an exploit where no PC's should be destroyed.

Actually, that constitutes avoiding content, something most MMO games frown on. But since FD can't do anything about combat logging as it is, arguing about is pointless.

My real answer to your 'what about greifing?' question was: It happens in every game, and it gets sorted. Why would a player come to a PvE only mode to engage in those activities and likely get banished, when they are free to do it in PvP-Open with impunity?

Because we're talking griefers here, not regular PvPers. As I said earlier, griefers hate PvP. Last thing they want is armed and skilled players flying around, blasting their ships. What they want is inexperienced and PvE-fit players, which are easy prey to them. So PvE Open would be a griefer magnet. Similar to how you get people go to RP servers for the express purpose of messing with roleplayers.

And to get it sorted, you need to design the game with that in mind. ED is NOT designed as a PvE game, not by a long shot. Adding necessary functionalities is not a trivial thing to do. I believe FD have more important stuff to deal with.

And I have to say that I resent the notion that Open play is for violent PvP only. That can only come from players who never bothered to play in Open for any meaningful length of time. I had plenty of pleasant encounters in Open and I'd like to keep it that way, not turn it into some sort of Thunderdome for bored PvErs. If you're lonely out there in solo or group, play in Open. It's not like we're all rabid maniacs out here. Refusing to play in Open because you don't want to PvP is like refusing to go out into the city because you don't want to get robbed.

 

[SiriusSeven]

It would appear that Möbius is still growing at a healthy clip. New milestone today:

it would appear that with current numbers its not just Solo/private/All, its now Solo/Private/All/PVE. your group grows to over 6200 members.

 

[Distance]

The solo vs open thread has been dead all day so Meritz has had noone to argue with

 

[Mohrgan]

And I have to say that I resent the notion that Open play is for violent PvP only. That can only come from players who never bothered to play in Open for any meaningful length of time. I had plenty of pleasant encounters in Open and I'd like to keep it that way, not turn it into some sort of Thunderdome for bored PvErs. If you're lonely out there in solo or group, play in Open. It's not like we're all rabid maniacs out here. Refusing to play in Open because you don't want to PvP is like refusing to go out into the city because you don't want to get robbed.

Some people resent the notion when Open is treated like the default setting. But you continue along those lines. Open has the opportunity for combat between players. That's all I imply. None of the scenarios you used to describe the griefing that could go on, are not possible in Open. Those faults are in the whole game. So the idea is, someone that was inclined to do those things, why would they do it where it's prohibited, when there's a place that it is accepted? You brought up that behavior, not me.

 

[Simi Kusoni]

The solo vs open thread has been dead all day so Meritz has had noone to argue with

Tbf he has a point, sandbox games aren't really designed as PvE games.

ED might not be particularly good in terms of PvP but adding PvE flags, PvE modes... God it just makes me think of WoW and every other theme park mmo on the market.

I really don't think FD would ever do anything with such a high risk of tanking their player base either way, definitely not this early in the game's life cycle, so the argument is largely a moot point.

 

[SiriusSeven]

Tbf he has a point, sandbox games aren't really designed as PvE games.

ED might not be particularly good in terms of PvP but adding PvE flags, PvE modes... God it just makes me think of WoW and every other theme park mmo on the market.

I really don't think FD would ever do anything with such a high risk of tanking their player base either way, definitely not this early in the game's life cycle, so the argument is largely a moot point.

tbf, ED isn't a particularly good sandbox either

Sure it's a great open world, but until maybe a week ago, nothing players did mattered. It wasn't a sandbox. You couldn't shape, build, or influence anything meaningful. Thankfully this is starting to change.

If it was a good sandbox, I probably wouldn't have started this thread.