Open PvE
- Thread starter SiriusSeven
- Start date
- Status
Prohibited by whom? Enforced by whom? FD? Don't make me laugh. They can barely handle their existing ticket queue.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Well we all know FD launched a barebones framework of the game, despite claims to the contrary. It's going to take at least a year for them to fatten up the game enough to be a possibly excellent sandbox. Right now it's... mostly down to player imagination.
Which is kind of my point. I want them to focus on bringing the game up to speed. Not set aside developers to add yet another game mode that would not do much.
I see Lugh as a very handcrafted and manually intervened attempt to have players impact the sim in a meaningful way.
I Wish it was more automated, but I don't mind if FD want to play as game master once and a while when the algorithms can't keep up.
The solo vs open thread has been dead all day so Meritz has had noone to argue with
At this rate I'm going to have to start arguing with myself!
Ahh right, Lugh.
I don't really see that as a sandbox type thing anyway, it didn't meaningfully change anything. Players weren't fighting for anything, they were just grinding out credits (usually by playing feds or csg interchangeably).
Whether csg lost or won had no real impact on the game, a real game war IMHO would be something akin to wars over territory in Eve nullsec.
This is a fair point that I wish I didn't have to concede
The truth is, I think that real sandbox play and real security protections in highsec places are probably what 8 months off? I think PvE mode is a patch the size 1.1 was and would really give a lot of bang for their buck. I also don't think it would hurt or fragment the players any more than the 3 modes already do, and might help retain us PvE-ers for the 8 months they need us to stick around before *maybe* reconsidering the case for Open.
I know you disagree with me. I know you have a rebuttal for all those points. No need to repeat yourself. The truth is we can find some common ground here and there (e.g., the value of social connections and a sandbox), and disagree on others (the ease of implementing PvE and its potential fallout).
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Fair enough. I just wanted to stay a little positive.
I save all my negativity for the Open, Group, Solo thread...where it gets lost in the sea of whine
(abolish mode jumping!!! oops, it spilled out)
Last edited:
Sandbox doesn't mean a game is pro or anti PvP or PvE. Nor does it mean a game that is defined and shaped by the players. A sandbox game just meas it is an open world. There is no linear progression of zones or areas. Sure some places (like anarchy is supposed to be) are far more dangerous than others, but that's it. A non sandbox game would be, for example, you start in zone A > B > C > D or E > F > G > H > I or J > K or L > M > Riadtime. A sand box would be rather A > Anything you want, though some areas would be far better at your skill level/money/etc.
Or, in case I explained that terribly:
"
- An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives. The term free roam is also used, as is sandbox and free-roaming.
Genuine answer.
You do realise a proper sandbox takes time to develop. The AI and heuristics involved to create a proper BG sim takes months of gameplay to develop. Do you honestly think that FDev (or any company) can create an AI BG sim that will work independently of the devs from day 1?
We will all need to work with the BG sim for a year or so before it can start actually becoming what some of the people in the forum want of it. It's all about the metrics
.Give it time and we'll have a system that we all can be proud of.
My suggestion : make Mobius group an official (on the start menu) option - only available if you register and agree. Rules as per now. FD allocate someone to moderate - accept CMDRs (and reject them if they go wild), and generally police it ... they have access to the internals. Sorted!
On the ramming issue - that's a kill. I want credits for it (if entitled) and would be happy to be penalised for it if I got it wrong - straightforward mechanics.
On the ramming issue - that's a kill. I want credits for it (if entitled) and would be happy to be penalised for it if I got it wrong - straightforward mechanics.
Genuine answer.
You do realise a proper sandbox takes time to develop. The AI and heuristics involved to create a proper BG sim takes months of gameplay to develop. Do you honestly think that FDev (or any company) can create an AI BG sim that will work independently of the devs from day 1?
We will all need to work with the BG sim for a year or so before it can start actually becoming what some of the people in the forum want of it. It's all about the metrics
Give it time and we'll have a system that we all can be proud of.
Many of the issues in the game stem from the lack of any mechanics allowing or encouraging player interaction, rather than issues with the background sim. In normal sandbox MMOs you don't need the "background sim" to decide what happens next: players do.
And when I pay £40 for a full retail game I don't do so on the expectation that it'll be ready in a years time. I refuse to pay for early access and beta access games for this very reason.
Most multi-player sandbox games allow open world PvP, as ED has done. Sure, the exact definition of sandbox is very narrow, but there are certain tropes associated with it.
You could try and convince FD to buck that trend and add official PvE open, but I suspect this game already has quite a high churn rate and they wouldn't risk completely tanking the player base this short a distance from release.
I'm not convinced a PvE mode would "Tank" the game to be quite honest (but it would likely tank the PvP aspect,it's been my observation from the past decade of gaming that the "Surprise PvP" crowd is the minority). Most people are quite content with PvE to the point it's their preferred mode. I think the only Reason we're not seeing Mobius being in the tens of thousands instead of the 6k it has now is simply because people who don't frequent the forums (the majority of players) simply don't know it exists.
If I am mistaken in my belief that "Open World" and "Sandbox" are two distinct (though perhaps related) concepts, then I apologize.
But, we've gotten off track for this thread.
Mobius now has 6200 members, and we've heard from a few people who only discovered mobius from this thread. I think there is substantial value is offering an official PvE option, given that many of us who read the forum have already voted with our feet and joined; and, given that Mobius is constrained by poor administration tools and is a single point of failure.
I don't think the player base will be any more divided than it is now. In fact, I believe it will reunite all those people who the PvP pirates constantly complain have run off to Solo.
Two things could keep us PvE-ers in the game once we "get our conda" (get tired of the grind)
1. The stuff we've created, built, and are proud of (and can keep building/extending/improving).
2. The friends we meet and our social connections
Given that 1 is really not possible or designed to be part of this game, player retention rests on 2. Give PvE players the ability to meet friends and form bonds, and the player base will reward you with their loyalty.
Last edited:
This right here - this right here is what makes PvE games have staying power long after the game has been beaten.
I can tell you from personal experience that people will stick to a game that they are Meh about if they got people they get along with and have fun with.
I think the "surprise PvP" crowd might not be the majority, I'm unsure, but it isn't split between "PvE" and "PvP". There are lots of PvE players, like myself, who would leave out of boredom and similarly many others who would request a mode like this and then do the same.
I can't speak for everyone but I think it's fair to say a large part of the player base here were attracted to the game because it promised the opportunity to "change the galaxy around you in an ever-unfolding story". Sure, you can try and achieve that with a PvE only environment where players fight NPCs, but that isn't exactly what springs to mind when I think of emergent game play and modern sandbox games. Usually if you want to control the best farming spots, the best mission hubs or whatever you have to fight for it.
Look at Eve, it kept going for 13 years by all accounts thanks to it's ability to ignore cries to remove or nerf the sandbox PvP elements or make high security space a 100% risk free "safe zone". There are very few, if any, sandbox games that have caved to PvE-mode demands and gone on to survive for that long.
Even if you assume that only 25% of the player base has heard of Mobius, that's still only 6% that use it. And that's ignoring those that play in Mobius purely to farm, and then swap to open when they want to engage in pointless PvP in their throwaway ships.
IMHO that is the purest definition of the term "arcade game", all that would make ED unique is having added a grinding element to their arcade spaceship-shooter, and I don't think that's what they were aiming to achieve.
At the risk of sounding hypocritical myself, I have trouble reconciling the above with the discussion earlier in this thread that PvP can be avoided in Open by traveling a few short lightyears outside of core systems -- that 90% of the systems are like playing Solo.
If this game can't stand on its own with its PvE elements, then it becomes an issue for all modes including Open, and not just the hypothetical PvE mode. Getting PvE right benefits everyone.
Last edited:
What really is the point of arguing against a PvE-Mode ? .. Those that don't want it don't have to use it.
If issues arise, such as 'Blocking a spaceport' etc, then so what?. It's not an issue that the detractors of a PvE-Mode would have to deal with since they wouldn't have to be there.
Personally I'd be inclined to logout and dock solo, (/duck incoming flak) but if someone wanted to use a game mechanic just to cause problems like that then I'd have no issue using a game mechanic to avoid it.
I've seen claims that '"It's only a tiny minority that want it". If that is true then it would take nothing away from the population of the current Open-Mode that Solo and Groups such as Mobius do already.
Maybe though, and I am speculating here, maybe these naysayers of a PvE-Mode realise that the number of players interested in PvE is far more than they would like to admit
Regardless of the actual numbers, for an individual to object to the creation of a particular Game-Mode simply because they don't want to play it themselves seems rather selfish to me.
Each player is presented with the same option panel on startup. Would the Open-PvP fans please choose the Game-Mode you want to play and stop objecting to the creation of a Mode that other Pilots may wish to choose if given the chance.
If a pilot, who thought he wanted PvE, later finds the experience lacking then he can join the ranks of the PvP crew in the full knowledge that “Yes, this is far more fun. You guys were right all along”
The pilot would get to play how they want, when they want and the Open-PvP population would get pilots that genuinely want to be there rather than feeling cajoled into it in order to experience a high population environment.
As far as any perceived 'unfair advantage' goes, that point is both Invalid and rather Hypocritical;
Invalid, since all options would be available to all pilots. There is nothing unfair about giving every pilot every option.
Hypocritical given that I've also seen calls for making PvP areas artificially more rewarding.
Proved the sandbox and let each one play how they want, whether that's PvP or PvE.
If issues arise, such as 'Blocking a spaceport' etc, then so what?. It's not an issue that the detractors of a PvE-Mode would have to deal with since they wouldn't have to be there.
Personally I'd be inclined to logout and dock solo, (/duck incoming flak) but if someone wanted to use a game mechanic just to cause problems like that then I'd have no issue using a game mechanic to avoid it.
I've seen claims that '"It's only a tiny minority that want it". If that is true then it would take nothing away from the population of the current Open-Mode that Solo and Groups such as Mobius do already.
Maybe though, and I am speculating here, maybe these naysayers of a PvE-Mode realise that the number of players interested in PvE is far more than they would like to admit
Regardless of the actual numbers, for an individual to object to the creation of a particular Game-Mode simply because they don't want to play it themselves seems rather selfish to me.
Each player is presented with the same option panel on startup. Would the Open-PvP fans please choose the Game-Mode you want to play and stop objecting to the creation of a Mode that other Pilots may wish to choose if given the chance.
If a pilot, who thought he wanted PvE, later finds the experience lacking then he can join the ranks of the PvP crew in the full knowledge that “Yes, this is far more fun. You guys were right all along”
The pilot would get to play how they want, when they want and the Open-PvP population would get pilots that genuinely want to be there rather than feeling cajoled into it in order to experience a high population environment.
As far as any perceived 'unfair advantage' goes, that point is both Invalid and rather Hypocritical;
Invalid, since all options would be available to all pilots. There is nothing unfair about giving every pilot every option.
Hypocritical given that I've also seen calls for making PvP areas artificially more rewarding.
Proved the sandbox and let each one play how they want, whether that's PvP or PvE.
it's funny that moderators will combine threads to monster threads but this nonsense thread is still trucking along on it's own. Open PVE already exists. It's like 99% of open gameplay unless you're looking for pvp action on purpose. this thread is pointless.
Yes, there are a lot of issues IMHO with the core game design that I feel have helped it achieve that empty feeling and most of it is to do with PvE. Even in so-called PvP games like Eve the industry/trading/PvE mechanics are the core of the game.
Take just a brief look at ED's map design (if you can call the galaxy a map) and the first thing you notice is that there are no bottlenecks, these are a pretty common tactic used by MMOs of this type to combat players simply spreading out and forgoing competition but ED completely lacks the capacity for them. There is also no requirement to transport farmed resources, bounties can be fulfilled usually in the system you collected them, and minerals can be sold there also if you are masochistic enough to put yourself through a prolonged period of mining.
Usually certain areas are also created with higher value than others, intended as hotspots of player activity. From what I can tell one area in ED is much the same as every other area, there are conflict zones/RES sites in some systems but they are the same all over populated space.
Add that to the fact that the only real PvE activities are RES sites and trading, and I think FD probably have larger issues to worry about than adding new game modes.
The galaxy map is just that. A reasonable recreation of our actual galaxy. You might surmise that the design of the environment wasn't intended to foster any particular tactics, just a open field to negotiate. Part of the attraction, for some, is that very difference from other games. Artificial elements as described are crutches for Devs and players alike. E: D has no reason to follow all those games to the very same point, it has been made to stand out, not conform.
.
The crux of the request for a PvE-Open option is to help the Co-Op players coalesce into a larger, richer community. One big issue with the current Group system that is of great concern is that they are run by players. A Private Group, enjoyed by many is threatened if the owner has to stop playing for any reason. That home to the other members would be lost, a PvE-Open option would defend against that circumstance.
.
A Co-Op mode would relieve the workload on the curators of having to administer the Group, allowing them more time to play, rather than work. Even with this some players won't want to join an official Co-Op mode, and that would be supported too, they can just carry on as is. I can see no better way to bring like minded players together than giving them an option when loading in to play in the largest pool of players as possible. Bringing the galaxy to life doesn't mean you should have to face the guns of other players if that's not your thing.
.
The crux of the request for a PvE-Open option is to help the Co-Op players coalesce into a larger, richer community. One big issue with the current Group system that is of great concern is that they are run by players. A Private Group, enjoyed by many is threatened if the owner has to stop playing for any reason. That home to the other members would be lost, a PvE-Open option would defend against that circumstance.
.
A Co-Op mode would relieve the workload on the curators of having to administer the Group, allowing them more time to play, rather than work. Even with this some players won't want to join an official Co-Op mode, and that would be supported too, they can just carry on as is. I can see no better way to bring like minded players together than giving them an option when loading in to play in the largest pool of players as possible. Bringing the galaxy to life doesn't mean you should have to face the guns of other players if that's not your thing.
- Status