Convenience and getting a larger population because they're on the main menu is the way it was described to me 200 posts ago.
Open PvE
- Thread starter SiriusSeven
- Start date
- Status
Convenience and getting a larger population because they're on the main menu is the way it was described to me 200 posts ago.
Well if it is just for convenience ... I doubt that this is worth attention. I am sorry.
You are right excuses are only excuses.. and we've heard plenty of them from the pro PVP crowd whenever PVErs want to PVE and NOT be subject to PVP... You make a comment that PVE players are simply letting PVP players dominate their experiences in open, and that is true, but the truth of the mater escapes you.. PVErs dont' want to interact pvply with anyone.. the only way for PVErs to stop PVPers from dominating their experience is to PVP.. which is not acceptable. They can only submit to the pvp and let themselves be destroyed. Find the game no longer fun as they are forced to other areas and not where they wanted to play, switch to solo, try to find a group that doesn't allow pvp, or leave the game.
You also mention a little cohabitation and tolerance, yet it is NOT the PVEers who are against those ideas.. it's the ones who keep shooting them
It is a common complaint that there are not enough players on open. When I go looking for a tussle it takes many jumps, and often ends up as a useless exercise. That is coupled with the fact that players not looking for PvP just choose another mode. One more element that brings me to that statement is the constant refrain 'once you enter open, you have to accept PvP'. Open has devolved into the mode to use when you want, or at least accept the possibility of PvP. That is what forms the basis for my view that open has, or will be viewed as the PvP mode in effect, if not by intention.
Emergent doesn't imply PvP. The Fuel Rats are an excellent example of Co-Op emergent play that is the opposite of PvP. The Co-Op mode, called for in this thread could very well be the ultimate sandbox adventure if it were adopted. Adventure doesn't have to be created at the end of a barrel. Just look at English history for a glimpse at how often kings were challenged. I still say a Co-Op mode is no threat to Open. Just as many players who crave PvP will still log into open for that purpose. Fear not.
And what is about us PvPers? I don't like PvE. Can I have a mode that disables NPCs and only let's players join my instance? Pretty please?
I still don't get the point of the PvE open mode argument. Until now, I was told it is just for convenience and that is not a worthy argument for a PvE open mode
Last edited:
Well if it is just for convenience ... I doubt that this is worth attention. I am sorry.
The thread is about an interactive PVE option where you don't have to jump through hoops to get it. PVPers can go straight to Open and pvp all they want.. or CQC when it is up. Those who want to play by themselves can go straight to Solo and have fun, but those who are not interested in PVP and just want to PVE.. they can't just go into a mode.. they have to search and hopefully find a group. And a flaw has been mentioned that if the person who made the group left the game or something happens.. everyone has to find a new group. A Mode for this would make things much better.
- - - Updated - - -
And what is about us PvPers? I don't like PvE. Can I have a mode that disables NPCs and only let's players join my instance? Pretty please?
I still don't get the point of the PvE open mode argument. Until now, I was told it is just for convenience and that is not a worthy argument for a PvE open mode
*cough* CQC
I think not only a mode, but private servers would be a good idea. So we don't have Open PvE but also servers like "racing tournament" or "fightclub". Private servers must be hosted and ofcourse, private players have to pay the rent. FD would just have to provide a tool to connect these servers with the main game (listing, etc.).
This would be a good solution in my opinion as it offers more than just one solution for one problem.
So FD wouldn#t have to spend resources for some wishes some players make, the players can create their own game and play the game as they want to
However, I think this would further seperate the players and I don't want that. :/ Still, private servers would solve some problems I guess.
Last edited:
No, it's not the only way, you're just being closed-minded about the entire situation and refusing to actively work to fix the situation. Instead of creating your own game which is what ED was intended to enable players to do you are hiding from the responsibility and begging to be given your own special game separate from everyone else's because you're continuing to cling to the illusion that this is going to somehow be easier than confronting the issue.
5 months, 1250 posts, 0 dev replies. Why are you still waiting on the devs to improve your situation when other solutions are already available to you?
On a side note, the Open vs Solo debate is going on since 2 years and a half AND has been answered (multiple times) by the devs, yet it is still going on. This one still has way to go.
Last edited:
How am I being close-minded? To "deal" with the situation that you would have PVErs do.. calls for them doing the one thing THEY DON'T WANT TO DO, why won't you get that. When people do not want to participate in PVP but they are subjected to it.. they have a right to ask for a mode where they can still have the interaction but not have to deal with PVP.
And the fact that you keep repeating that the only solution to PvP is more PvP shows that you are being closed minded about it. You cannot fathom any other possible solution, thus you perpetuate your own problem.
I think not only a mode, but private servers would be a good idea. So we don't have Open PvE but also servers like "racing tournament" or "fightclub". Private servers must be hosted and ofcourse, private players have to pay the rent. FD would just have to provide a tool to connect these servers with the main game (listing, etc.).
This would be a good solution in my opinion as it offers more than just one solution for one problem.
So FD wouldn#t have to spend resources for some wishes some players make, the players can create their own game and play the game as they want to
However, I think this would further seperate the players and I don't want that. :/ Still, private servers would solve some problems I guess.
You have private servers already. They are called groups, and you can do those things in them.
A PVE mode would not fracture the community more, but instead mean that all the PVE groups that have sprang up can all move to one mode and interact with each other. It is half way point between solo and open. PVE only like solo, Player interaction like Open
- - - Updated - - -
nope, many took the best solution. Went to solo or private groups. We didn't perpetuate the problem..
And this is part of what it means to be closed minded. Continue to believe that there are no other options if that makes you happy.
Well what are those so called solutions ? Fighting the PvPers ? That is not a solution, since it is precisely what we do not want to do.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
How can PvE players be expected to stop PvP players (without changing their preferred play-style)?
Open contains PvP. Many practitioners of PvP insist that once a player selects Open play then they have consented to anything that may happen to them there.
Thankfully, it's not a case of the vegetarian eating meat or starving - we have the equivalents of an 24hr multi-diet catering facility - Private Groups. They are a good substitute to Open but just that, a substitute. That's why an integrated Open-PvE mode is being requested.
Cohabitation is fine - except for the fact that only one of the groups chooses to directly affect the other - that group will find the accommodation rather empty if their cohabitants choose to leave due to irreconcilable differences.
Open is the only open access mode in the game - what is being requested is a second integrated open access mode which automatically kicks players for attacking / destroying other players (and fully reimburses the targets of the attacks).
And what is about us PvPers? I don't like PvE. Can I have a mode that disables NPCs and only let's players join my instance? Pretty please?
You might be awfully lonely, according to some who post on the forums.
I still don't get the point of the PvE open mode argument. Until now, I was told it is just for convenience and that is not a worthy argument for a PvE open mode
I believe the main drive behind having FD provide a PvE Open mode is two fold. Firstly, it takes the onus off Mobius for managing a group of over 10,000 players. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it gives all players the opportunity to choose whether they want to accept PvP under any circumstances or if they want to play PvE but have player interaction at the point they log in.
This would theoretically end the occurrences of new players logging into Open, getting destroyed by another player (perfectly valid play style), and then deciding this is a bad game, and either coming here to complain, or worse, quitting the game. So yes, it's a convenience, but perhaps a useful one.
And what is about us PvPers? I don't like PvE. Can I have a mode that disables NPCs and only let's players join my instance? Pretty please?
Sure. In fact I think it's slated for September
Last edited:
Majinvash
Banned
True. Most PvE players play in Mobius. PvP players obviously don't. This leaves the PvP players and the PvE players seperated, creating the illusion that open is a PvP only mode.
However, it is true that open play is a mode full of "psychos" ... basically PvPers
I find it sad that we have such a division amongs the players :/
You say most PVE players play in Mobius. What you actually have is 0.022% of the ED player base or which you have 10 or so REALLY Vocal members who will post and post about how many players want PVE to the point that you forget its the same 10 in rotation in both threads.
When a PVP or Open advocate walks in, they are instantly told that they are the minority and that its in fact the PVE players who are the chosen children of Braben.
That we have been playing the game wrong because it was apparently never intended for players to fight each other and infact Elite Dangerous is a game based around NPC Trophy collecting. A huge number of different PVP players have posted in both this and the Open Vs Solo thread, but are silenced under the shear weight of the quotations and scare mongering from the Mobius 10
That it appears all the many many more people that are in Open that between griefing and player killing, are unable to use Google to find out if there is alternative.
So the VERY vocal number of players of a really minor cross section of the game, want their own special button because they want EVERYTHING that is available to them in OPEN but in a way that isn't going to inconvenience them in anyway shape or form.
Because these 10 or so, have their own special reasons why OPEN is broken and why anyone who wants to indulge in PVP has mental issues, is a moron, is a real life pyscho and I believe in one post that we might be Autistic. ( They even put up a test so I could test myself, I'm not but thanks for worrying )
If you try to explain that PVP in Open is rare, you get told it isn't.
If you explain that if you avoid hot areas know for PVP, you get told well, they should have the right to go there.
If you compare the interactions between being attacked by an NPC and a Human you get told its not the same because the human knows what their doing.
If you dare point out how much easier it is in PVE they get all defensive and rabbit on about how its just as hard....
So the best thing you can do is what I am doing, just support their vision.
Offer them moral support and if need be, lessons on how to play the game in the main mode ( oh but DB said every mode is equal quote on route )
Try not to have an opinion that doesn't align with their vision, because 0.022% of registered ( Not actively playing mind ) members of a group want the entire game changed around them.
And I get called Egotistical
Majinvash
Last edited:
No, it's very simple. I've broken it down several times in this thread, I'll do it once more.
Open PvE will come with severe drawbacks. It'll be a shining red target in the starting menu for every griefer to aim at. You will not get away from harassment to the same degree that you have in Mobius. There will be problems and troublemakers, and it will occur frequently. Many people speaking in support of this option have accepted that inevitability and said it's still worth it simply for the convenience and to draw more players in.
So if you can accept that level of risk, then it's reasonable to assume that you can also accept the risk of moving back to open if the rate of PvP is significantly decreased through your own efforts.
IF you chose to go back to open you have the largest group of players under one banner in the game. Period. By orders of magnitude. If 10% of that group decided to work together towards a common goal you could have significant influence in the game. First and foremost you have the ability to attract people. The first people you're going to attract is going to be the pirates, naturally. That's fine, because being the largest player group means you will have no problem attracting PvPers under your banner. Having your own security will reduce the rate of PvP as long as you keep your own PvPers interested in providing assistance. That comes in the form of them being entertained, so the important factor is to have someone competent organizing the PvPers. When the pressure lets up, they've got to start applying pressure of their own and spread the zone of influence until they have difficulty maintaining it. If it's challenging, they'll stay entertained.
Now you have a zone of influence in which the threat to the PvE players is significantly reduced, and they can do what they wish. If they wish to do so outside of the zone of influence that can be done one of two ways. Reputation and assistance. Reputation comes from being consistent and decisive in allowing your PvP members to commit to retributive actions. If people keep getting blacklisted for harassing your members outside your zone of influence, they'll stop harassing them, and thus your zone of influence spreads. Etc and so on....
There is a very large and popular group of players in many other games that functions on this same ethos, and has been very successful for years now. You may have heard of them as GoonSwarm. Their dirty little secret is that they are not a PvP primary gaming community, not even in Eve Online. They are PvE primary and the PvP side is just there to facilitate that.
It only works AFTER you have a large group of players, because only then do you start to draw enough attention, and thus create enough content, to keep a small section of PvP oriented players busy.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There is a very large and popular group of players in many other games that functions on this same ethos, and has been very successful for years now. You may have heard of them as GoonSwarm. Their dirty little secret is that they are not a PvP primary gaming community, not even in Eve Online. They are PvE primary and the PvP side is just there to facilitate that.
It only works AFTER you have a large group of players, because only then do you start to draw enough attention, and thus create enough content, to keep a small section of PvP oriented players busy.
It sounds like you are saying that Guilds are the only possible saviour of Open.... If that's the price, I would expect that some would sadly let Open pass on rather than pay it.
As to Open-PvE - yes, there would be infiltrations - with full reimbursement of adversely affected players and auto-kicking of PvP initiators, their actions could be reduced to an annoyance.
Last edited:
- Status