PVE-Players UNITE!: Do you want an Open-PVE-Mode?

[goemon]

Ok thanks.. i just changed the post.... ive named no one. But i have linked his Youtube video as it states his intentions to troll players.

/mod hat firmly on

after a lot of discussion on previous cases we (mods and community manager) decided that linking to outside websites, for exampel youtube, where a cmdr name can be easily identified, falls under the naming and shaming rule, too.

i have therefore edited your previous post.

thank you for your understanding,

and fly dangerous or safe, as you like it, @all

 

[Alpha November]

They're voting on a perception and not a reality. Open ~= Open PVE already.

Try it. The only time the danger rises above 0% is near Engineers or at certain CGs. Even then it's almost zero.

Perception or reality doesn't matter because the perception has seemingly already caused a lot of users to desert open and they're not coming back, the trend will continue because as the pool of people in open narrows they are conversely more likely to be hit by the ganking issues that has caused the perception to arise in the first place. A self-perpetuating perceptual circle if you will.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

/mod hat firmly on

after a lot of discussion on previous cases we (mods and community manager) decided that linking to outside websites, for exampel youtube, where a cmdr name can be easily identified, falls under the naming and shaming rule, too.

i have therefore edited your previous post.

thank you for your understanding,

and fly dangerous or safe, as you like it, @all

Yeh, appologies i didnt realise that was a rule.

Your post edit still expresses the kernal of my thoughts and of course warns other players to be careful around Jameson Memorial. which is more important.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They're voting on a perception and not a reality. Open ~= Open PVE already.

Try it. The only time the danger rises above 0% is near Engineers or at certain CGs. Even then it's almost zero.

Indeed they are - and theirs is the only perception that matters when they choose how to play.

The danger from players may be close to zero (but not zero, of course) - the danger from NPCs remains.

 

[JosiahD]

18,000 players? more like 30,000 players

https://elitepve.com/

There is a glaring need for a dedicated PvE OPEN server. Thanks to the antics of a small player group recently going above and beyond to bring bad press to FDEV, going out of their way to employ a smear campaign, an out of game personal attack against the company.. It is rightfully poetic that these debates about OPEN PvE servers are blooming, and prospering into a real quantifiable argument.

Thanks to this PvP group, it might just be a real possibility that a PvE OPEN mode may materialise. You know what they say.. what goes around, comes around..

PvE OPEN is needed, the PvE group has always been discriminated, the PvPers have been mollycoddled way too much. PvE balanced for PvP, dedicated gameplay modes for PvPers (CQC), OPEN mode where PvErs are chased from into hundreds of private sessions, chased to solo play.. PvE is fragmented, broken into smaller sessions, banished to solo, really is time for an official dedicated PvE mode in OPEN

Thank you and good day everyone. You have been watching Newsdesk 12.37, on this wonderful Friday. Where news and drama really are 'Galaxy' wide!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/G5hDOmCcvAk/hqdefault.jpg

While I was previously (before the latest combat logging saga) against the idea of a separate PvE open mode for fear of splitting the playerbase further, I really am sick of the agenda being pushed by certain PvP groups and the overexaggeration of the combat logging question. Mind you, I also think griefing/ganking gets pushed out of proportion also at times. Now though, I'm much more along your line of thinking than I was previously. And if an open PvE mode does eventuate and results in a mass migration of all those lovely soft targets that certain kinds of PvPers love to focus on? Then the PvP fraternity need only look within their own ranks to find the principal reason why.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And if an open PvE mode does eventuate and results in a mass migration of all those lovely soft targets that certain kinds of PvPers love to focus on? Then the PvP fraternity need only look within their own ranks to find the principal reason why.

Even if an Open-PvE mode is not introduced, some more players may eventually choose to repair to Private Groups anyway....

 

[JosiahD]

You're base assumptions are false:

1) False: Open is den of Vipers.

Open is made up almost entirely of people who only engage in PVE. So you already have a forum to exist in peace and harmony and meet new people.

2) False: only Möbius players would use Open PVE.

As stated above, Open players are almost entirely PVE focused and peaceful to other players. The exact kind of people that might downgrade to Open PVE if they were in a risk averse mood and wanted to drop the chance of being ganked from 0.002% down to 0%.

3) False: Open players would be fine without the PVE community.

Open players like to have a diverse set of experiences, and because of this are willing to accept a tiny amount of risk of being attacked. PVE might be a pure positive experience, but pure positive interactions don't allow for creative solutions because there are no creative problems. Hence the game gets static and dull in short order.

Likewise, if the PVE community leaves Open, then you are left only with an empty Galaxy and the few people you meet will be spoiling for a fight. This is a different and equally oppressive kind of monotony. And mode switching to get a predictable reaction from other players is not a solution because it's current unpredictability of Open that makes it worth playing.

Two things I'd tease out here.
.
First, whether an open PvE mode would be a 'downgrade' is a matter of opinion of course. Those wanting it would see it as an upgrade.
.
Second I completely agree that an open PvE mode would largely empty the current open mode. But who would be to blame for that - those who are wanting the pure PvE experience or those anti-social types whose attitudes, behaviour and mentality are feeding the strong desire for an open PvE mode free of their . The real losers in that will be who I call the legitimate PvPers, unfortunately - those with honour and integrity and enjoy PvP for its competitiveness, not an opportunity to express an inflated sense of superiority. They'd end up with a galaxy mostly devoid of players, and in a galaxy the size of this one, that's one heck of a big arena.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if an Open-PvE mode is not introduced, some more players may eventually choose to repair to Private Groups anyway....

Indeed....I'm swinging more into the open PvE mode thinking myself as a counter to that, I must admit.

 

[sndle9]

It's not actual danger. It's a "sense" of danger. An illusion really since the odds of being attacked by a human are astronomically small.

No, it really isn't if you go to the hot-spots. You are pretty much guaranteed to be attacked by players in open at some point when doing CGs, or visiting the alien crash sites and popular engineers. Just read the CG and new discovery threads about how incredibly rare PK'ers aren't in those locations.

BTW, the usual come-back of saying Open is fairly safe if you avoid the popular places pretty much defeats the point of playing in open. Open PvE, AKA Official Mobius, removes all those hassles at a stroke.

 

[VR Murgle]

Many people seem to think that implementing a PvE mode will lead to a mass exodus from Open which would be an argument in favor of such a mode and if that leaves Open with just a small group of PvPers then I think everyone can come up with a reason why that might be.

 

[Ziljan]

Indeed they are - and theirs is the only perception that matters when they choose how to play.

The danger from players may be close to zero (but not zero, of course) - the danger from NPCs remains.

That's essentially saying you're fine with destroying the game for 33% of players (see poll) because of a marginal inconvenience to 66% of the players?

That's a textbook example of a Disproportionate Response.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

That's essentially saying you're fine with destroying the game for 33% of players (see poll) because of a marginal inconvenience to 66% of the players?

That's a textbook example of a Disproportionate Response.

The counter argument to that of course is that the PvPers, Thrill Seekers and Risk Takers would adamantly remain in Open PvP (dunno what else to call it), while the more Carebear crowd would move to presumably the Open PvE mode. I fail to see how that would change anything for those who actively enjoy and welcome PvP.

Unless you're admitting on preying on those who don't want to PvP at all, which just reinforces what these folks are saying they need an Open PvE mode for.

The one exception I see is to Power Play, which from what I could see in the PP sub forums is literally on life support.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's essentially saying you're fine with destroying the game for 33% of players (see poll) because of a marginal inconvenience to 66% of the players?

That's a textbook example of a Disproportionate Response.

Open play has always been vulnerable to the freedom of choice that every player has (by design, from the outset) - if Open, for whatever reason, becomes an unpopular choice then it will be down to those who engaged in behaviours that discouraged players from selecting Open.

One of the reasons that seems to be most commonly mentioned is the lack of an effective crime & punishment system....

 

[Stigbob]

That's essentially saying you're fine with destroying the game for 33% of players (see poll) because of a marginal inconvenience to 66% of the players?

That's a textbook example of a Disproportionate Response.

The introduction of open PVE could attract new players to the game and also trigger the return of old players who got sick of being targets.

 

[Ozram]

The counter argument to that of course is that the PvPers, Thrill Seekers and Risk Takers would adamantly remain in Open PvP (dunno what else to call it), while the more Carebear crowd would move to presumably the Open PvE mode. I fail to see how that would change anything for those who actively enjoy and welcome PvP.

Unless you're admitting on preying on those who don't want to PvP at all, which just reinforces what these folks are saying they need an Open PvE mode for.

The one exception I see is to Power Play, which from what I could see in the PP sub forums is literally on life support.

I still think my "block player from being instanced with you" option is better, but at this point an OPEN pve (ala Möbius style where there can be pvp in CZs legitimately) is OK. Frankly, I think it's a matter of in game reason. Power play, missions, chasing wanteds etc. Ganks for Lulz is lame. One way or another, that's something needs dealing with (moreso than logging).

 

[Gunnet]

However we have 400 billion stars and only a few thousand players on at any given time. The odds of being attacked in any given system are almost zero.

In the real world we have ~149 million square kilometres of land and ~7.4 billion people alive at any given time. The average population density is a little under 50 people per square kilometre. Did you know that there are less than 40,000 people in New York City, but 700,000,000 people in Antarctica?

 

[Red Anders]

Know what I'm sick of? This relentless, never-ending and frankly puerile tribalism. It's a sickness in this game, really it is.

I still remember when I first came to these forums about a year ago, I genuinely couldn't believe some of the stuff I was reading from both sides of the fence but the utterly hysterical reactions from players willing to label literally any occurence of another player attacking them as griefing were unlike anything I'd never seen on a games forum before. Please bear in mind as you read that, I am in any meaningful sense a PVE player myself, I've spend well under 1% of my game time in open.

Part of the reason it was so surprising to me is undoubtedly that there aren't really any other games I can think of that have a set-up like this, so it's just not a situation that I (or most other players) will have encountered previously. I can't think of another game that has three completely separate modes of play, one of which allows no interaction with other players whatsoever, yet still has a significant shared element which leads to situations where players can be indirectly affected by another player's actions and can indirectly affect that player in return, yet cannot take direct action against the player unless the other player chooses to allow them to do so by playing in open.

It's like one of those awkward rows at Christmas dinner when nobody will talk directly:

'Jeremy, please ask your mother to pass the parsnips'

'Mother, father said please will you pass the parsnips?'

'Jeremy, tell your father I hope he chokes on them, perhaps his floozy next door will come and pat his back'

'Father, mother said...'

'I heard her. Tell her I'm going to the pub and she can shove her overcooked pudding where the sun don't shine'

I can see how basically playing against npcs only to achieve effects is frustrating to players who are used to directly acting against other players. I can also see how players who only want to play against npcs would find it frustrating to have to deal with players who want to blow them up, although I'll admit I have considerably more difficulty in understanding what makes them feel that they're able to invent their own definitions of what's acceptable (clue - FDev already did that for you) and then complain when other players ignore their headcanon rules, or even take delight in throwing them back in their face, rather than just playing in the two thirds of the game modes that exist specifically to remove that problem.

Someone used the analogy of a school playground a while back in a post, saying that you have a bunch of kids who just want to sit there quietly playing chess but tought luck because this other gang of kids want to play WWE. It's not even that though. What we actually have in the game is like having a quiet room, the playground and one kid's house.

Kids who just don't want to be bothered by anybody else, get their head down and do their own thing have the quiet room. Kids who like the more robust environment of the playground with all its unpredictability can go there and do pretty much what they want as long as it's within the school rules. Then you've got a group of five kids who like playing together but don't like some of the games in the playground - they go off to the one kids house and play together there.

Now granted we've had one incident where a gang of kids from the playground went round to that kid's house and threw dog muck through his letterbox. We've also had a lot of instances of kids from the quiet room and that one kid's house heading to the playground and telling everybody there that the only games allowed are ones they approve of. Neither of those are going to work out well.

What this thread seems to be asking for is that one kid's parents to buy a much bigger house so that anybody can go round there and play approved games, or perhaps for a second playground to be built and chaperones to be used to ensure that nobody can play rough games even if they want to.

When I was a kid, I had my own house, mates houses and the playground. Honestly, that was plenty for me and I really think it should be for people who play this game too.

I can't even begin to imagine what the forums for this game must look like to the vast majority of PC gamers.

 

[Ziljan]

The counter argument to that of course is that the PvPers, Thrill Seekers and Risk Takers would adamantly remain in Open PvP (dunno what else to call it), while the more Carebear crowd would move to presumably the Open PvE mode. I fail to see how that would change anything for those who actively enjoy and welcome PvP.

Unless you're admitting on preying on those who don't want to PvP at all, which just reinforces what these folks are saying they need an Open PvE mode for.

The one exception I see is to Power Play, which from what I could see in the PP sub forums is literally on life support.

Wrong assumptions. I am a 99% PVE focused player who only ever defends, and never attacks unless there is a legitimate reason to do so (defending territory and it's a fair fight).

The reasons I play Elite:

1) the prospect of peaceful interactions with new and interesting PVE players

2) the potential for being attacked (however infinitesimally small) by PVP experts

3) unpredictability, which breaks up the usual NPC and Environmental monotony

4) a highly populated world

Introducing an Open PVE would reduce all of the above except the exceptionally rare PVP. And that's not enough to keep me interested in Elite.

 

[Ozram]

In the real world we have ~149 million square kilometres of land and ~7.4 billion people alive at any given time. The average population density is a little under 50 people per square kilometre. Did you know that there are less than 40,000 people in New York City, but 700,000,000 people in Antarctica?

And by under 40K people in NYC, did you actually mean over 8 million?
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/current-future-populations.page
Or were you making a point as to the limitation of statistics when generalised, because clearly urban centres will have higher density, with the ED equivalent being CGs, engineers and POIs?

 

[Cosmo]

Open play has always been vulnerable to the freedom of choice that every player has (by design, from the outset) - if Open, for whatever reason, becomes an unpopular choice then it will be down to those who engaged in behaviours that discouraged players from selecting Open.

One of the reasons that seems to be most commonly mentioned is the lack of an effective crime & punishment system....

Yep the crime & Punishment system needs to punish combat loggers.

 

[Mengy]

It's not actual danger. It's a "sense" of danger. An illusion really since the odds of being attacked by a human are astronomically small.

Ziljan, this is factually false. I played in open exclusively for the first year of the game. In that time I was killed three times by griefers:

1. I was interdicted by a wing of two Vultures and a Clipper while returning to the bubble, they melted me before I could even jump out. I lost two months worth of exploration data, they lost nothing and had no repercussions at all. They never even said one word to me.

2. I was destroyed while doing trade runs by a Clipper. They never asked for cargo, never said anything, just interdicted and attacked until I was dead.

3. I was killed outside a CG station by a player who was hacking in an indestructible ship, he was killing everyone and not even the station could blow him up.

I don't play open anymore, but don't tell me that the danger in open is only imaginary. It really isn't.