Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen

[DarkWalker]

Either way. Original point stands. Even if we quadruple the current Mobius membership, that crowd is still a vast minority, no matter how vocal they become here on the forums. That is why Frontier hasn't implemented a PvE Open mode. It's not needed. 95% of the player base (Give or take) is content to play the game the way it is, apparently.

It wouldn't just be doubling or quadrupling it. You need to take into account how many players are even aware that Mobius exists — which, I believe, is something less than the number of players that read the forums. Then you need to take away all of those that are XBox players, since they can't join Mobius even if they want. Then you need to take into account that some players would want a PvE mode but won't play in Mobius due to other reasons, such as needing to ask for permission to join the group and the fact there are no tools in ED currently to eliminate PvP inside a group (and, thus, unwanted PvP in Mobius still happens, even if it's rare).

Those adjustments would do far more than double or quadruple the relative size of Mobius. Just adjusting it for the number of players that visit the forums would roughly multiply its relative size by 10. But it would take data only Frontier has (and doesn't seem willing to share) to do better than a very rough educated guess.

---

Please, avoid explicitly setting the text to black in your responses. The dark theme uses a black background, rendering what you wrote invisible.

I don't get it. It's ok for NPCs to attack/interfere but not other players. ...Right.

Yep, exactly that. For some, myself included, fighting NPCs is enjoyable and fun; fighting players (in non-consensual PvP), on the other hand, is neither.

Let's put it this way; when people write articles about Dayz or post videos of their encounters to show off what they like about the game how many times is it along the lines of "here we are on a pve server, killing some zombie npcs and scavenging for beans" and how many times is it some sort of tense standoff with other players? I'm pretty sure it generally would be the latter.

PvP tends to be more exciting to watch than PvE, that is true; that and boss battles, specially large multiplayer ones, which is why game trailers that use in-game footage tends to favor those even when they are just a small part of the game. And, in the case of DayZ, there's the snag that the devs don't officially support PvE. Doesn't change the fact a huge number of players prefer PvE, even in games that were basically made for PvP like DayZ.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sandro was handed a document early on that, from my understanding, would have offered up quite a few fixes for the current crime and punishment system and yet nothing from it was implemented. I take what he says with a grain of salt. At the same time, upping the punishment for PKing is not going to deter any of the more aggressive members of the PvP crowd. They play this game to pvp whether their target is a willing participant or not.

Just look at station sniping. A speed limit was instituted and within a day of it being pushed into the game the work around to troll and kill people hiding behind station defenses was found and, to this day, continues to be exploited when the need is there. If anything, they made it easier to kill players in a station.

The DDF threads on criminality contain the majority of recent proposals on the topic - they have lain unused for quite some time.

If, as you suggest, increased consequences for PKing will not deter the more aggressive players then it would be interesting to see what Frontier's next move was in relation to encouraging players back into Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

With respect Robert. They can incentivise Open all they like, but as long as there is the remotest chance of being "Ganked" and yes, I have been in the past, Open can go whistle Dixie. There is no way I will leave myself open to that again. I would dump the game first.

I wasn't trying to infer that Open would receive an incentive (that would go against Frontier's stance on the three game modes) - rather that if consequences for PKing were to be increased in the game then some players who eschew Open because of the gross imbalance between the financial consequences for the attacker and the target may find that Open would become a more attractive proposition.

 

[DarkWalker]

How many of you who are dissing open actually play there?

99.999% of the time open is fine. Only time I have been attacked is in CGs.

If that is true, then allowing players to turn off PvP damage — which would be easy to implement — would be perfectly fine, wouldn't you agree? After all, it would only be changing the result of 0.001% of player interactions

As for me, I'm not playing any game mode where I can be attacked without first giving my consent (and logging into Open can never be considered as giving consent). How rare that kind of interaction would be matters not.

 

[jimbeau1571]

Remind me what the game is called? .... Oh yeah ... Eliteangerous
How about remove all game options and have 1 .... Play
It would stop this PvE, PvP, Open, group talk

 

[Deadspin]

The DDF threads on criminality contain the majority of recent proposals on the topic - they have lain unused for quite some time.

If, as you suggest, increased consequences for PKing will not deter the more aggressive players then it would be interesting to see what Frontier's next move was in relation to encouraging players back into Open.

There would be no next move. Open is open. I highly doubt frontier would go beyond making the crime and punishment system more relevant to the game. Once the punishments remotely begin to fit the crime, and frontier won't go beyond heavier fines/bounties/(light) system restrictions at best, that will be the end of trying to incentivize open. There are two other modes for players to play in. There's no reason to try to draw them all into one, especially the most controversial one. I'd be more willing to put money on them implementing more administrative controls and adding a flag to completely nullify player weapons damage against other players (but not hull on hull).

Those adjustments would do far more than double or quadruple the relative size of Mobius. Just adjusting it for the number of players that visit the forums would roughly multiply its relative size by 10. But it would take data only Frontier has (and doesn't seem willing to share) to do better than a very rough educated guess.

Current Mobius membership multiplied by 12 is still only 16.2% of current existing accounts. Minority faction status: granted.
Original point still stands.

As a side note: I am a firm advocate for Mobius being advertised in the Launcher once better group administration controls are implemented. At least until it is no longer the accepted go-to PvE private group.

Yep, exactly that. For some, myself included, fighting NPCs is enjoyable and fun; fighting players (in non-consensual PvP), on the other hand, is neither.

I'm a firm advocate for the complete removal of all player identification markers in-game just so that people will never know if they're facing players or NPCs until communication is established, if it is established. This also keeps "griefers" from being able to target players instantly when they appear in the instance.

PvP tends to be more exciting to watch than PvE, that is true; that and boss battles, specially large multiplayer ones, which is why game trailers that use in-game footage tends to favor those even when they are just a small part of the game. And, in the case of DayZ, there's the snag that the devs don't officially support PvE. Doesn't change the fact a huge number of players prefer PvE, even in games that were basically made for PvP like DayZ.

There isn't an acronym or piece of slang on the internet to convey how amusing that thought is to me. To think.. Bohemia supporting anything other than the playing of their game in whatever way the current mission or mod set allows. They don't care. Not a single bit. DayZ is a horrible example to use. The worst. ARMA can never be classified as strictly PvE or PvP. DayZ was/is an Arma mod that will never, ever, be finished. Bohemia dropped the ball on that one by letting it sit stagnant for so long.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

No. There is no need for this option.

 

[xondk]

Remind me what the game is called? .... Oh yeah ... Eliteangerous
How about remove all game options and have 1 .... Play
It would stop this PvE, PvP, Open, group talk

Yes, but unfortunately there are some extreme aggressors that attack everyone without any in game based reasoning, and are basically aiming to ruin the game, if people didn't do that, there wouldn't be this problem at least not to the extend it is, there will of course always be those that are risk averse towards fully understandable ingame attacks, pirating and whatnot.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There would be no next move. Open is open. I highly doubt frontier would go beyond making the crime and punishment system more relevant to the game. Once the punishments remotely begin to fit the crime, and frontier won't go beyond heavier fines/bounties/(light) system restrictions at best, that will be the end of trying to incentivize open. There are two other modes for players to play in. There's no reason to try to draw them all into one, especially the most controversial one. I'd be more willing to put money on them implementing more administrative controls and adding a flag to completely nullify player weapons damage against other players (but not hull on hull).

You could well be right - we don't yet know the full extent of the consequences for PKing that Frontier are prepared to consider.

I take it that you are referring to Private Groups when you mention administrative controls? Anything in that regard would probably be an improvement over what exists at the moment.

 

[jimbeau1571]

They can only spoil it if you, the individual, let them. Move away from the 'heavy traffic'd' systems and you remove the odds and likelihood of it occuring.
The game is so much bigger and more than hanging around Kremainn, Eravate and the homeworlds. The really depressing thing is, so many don't realise this.

 

[Deadspin]

You could well be right - we don't yet know the full extent of the consequences for PKing that Frontier are prepared to consider.

I take it that you are referring to Private Groups when you mention administrative controls? Anything in that regard would probably be an improvement over what exists at the moment.

Yes indeed, I meant private groups and you're right, anything in that regard would be a massive improvement over the current implementation.

As far as PK punishments, they'll have to walk a fine line between punishing actual griefing and not punishing players participating in pirate activities. I would be highly amused should traders suddenly be asked to hand in questionnaires regarding how well their pirate communicated with them and how obvious his intentions were upon interdiction. That there is the problem though. How do you punish someone for the act of targeting and destroying another player in such a way as to deter "ganking" without punishing the players who clash regularly in pvp between consenting (or in the case of pirating where no consent is given or expected) parties.

PVP flag? You destroy pirating. Or maybe the PVP flag would prevent outright destruction but still allow the aggressing player to cause enough hull damage to destroy the cargo hatch. There are a variety of ways this could be looked at.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

In game financial loss does not concern me to be honest. I am more concerned with being forced into being someone else's game content.

Re. the game title of Elite: Dangerous. I remember a Dev talking about it two years ago, that it referred to the in game rank of Dangerous, not the level of danger in the game. A frequently miss-quoted reference.

Refers to the highest combat rank attainable in the previous iteration of the game, yes. Still suitable as a "dangerous game" given the no-rules gameplay of Open.

 

[xondk]

Refers to the highest combat rank attainable in the previous iteration of the game, yes. Still suitable as a "dangerous game" given the no-rules gameplay of Open.

Yeah, but its called "Dangerous" not "Entirely random acts of violence where you won't have any chance" or at least dangerous doesn't contain that part in my opinion.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

I vote 'no', because it reinforces the fallacy that Open is 'the PvP option'. Which it is not. I dont want to chose between Timidland and Psycholand, I want one universe where everything can happen.

I don't agree, but this is the first reply that I've seen from the nay group that makes a bit of sense. Of course, open has already moved in that direction. It's never going to be the universe filled with easy mark traders and explorers that pvp'ers want. Most with any sense already do those tasks in solo/group. I even remember seeing CODE members say that they earned in solo, back when CODE was still a thing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As far as PK punishments, they'll have to walk a fine line between punishing actual griefing and not punishing players participating in pirate activities. I would be highly amused should traders suddenly be asked to hand in questionnaires regarding how well their pirate communicated with them and how obvious his intentions were upon interdiction. That there is the problem though. How do you punish someone for the act of targeting and destroying another player in such a way as to deter "ganking" without punishing the players who clash regularly in pvp between consenting (or in the case of pirating where no consent is given or expected) parties.

PVP flag? You destroy pirating. Or maybe the PVP flag would prevent outright destruction but still allow the aggressing player to cause enough hull damage to destroy the cargo hatch. There are a variety of ways this could be looked at.

Piracy could be formalised, e.g. using the results of the cargo scanner as an "order form" for the pirate - trader has the opportunity to haggle - once agreement is reached and the target has dropped the agreed cargo then they would be free to leave. If the pirate then destroyed the target, that would be the point that enhanced consequences could be applied.

If players want to engage in consensual PvP then an anarchy system with "report crimes against me" disabled would probably still work.

I would not expect Frontier to add a PvP-flag in Open.

Refers to the highest combat rank attainable in the previous iteration of the game, yes. Still suitable as a "dangerous game" given the no-rules gameplay of Open.

Elite was the highest rank attainable in the three previous iterations of the game.

Dangerous refers to the rank at which, in lore, Commanders would be approached by the Elite Federation of Pilots.

 

[DarkWalker]

There would be no next move. Open is open. I highly doubt frontier would go beyond making the crime and punishment system more relevant to the game. Once the punishments remotely begin to fit the crime, and frontier won't go beyond heavier fines/bounties/(light) system restrictions at best, that will be the end of trying to incentivize open. There are two other modes for players to play in. There's no reason to try to draw them all into one, especially the most controversial one. I'd be more willing to put money on them implementing more administrative controls and adding a flag to completely nullify player weapons damage against other players (but not hull on hull).

You know what, add to group management:

- The ability to delegate tasks, such as adding and kicking out members, to other players.
- The possibility of transferring the group to another player.
- An option to somehow negate weapon damage to other players, like you proposed.
- An auto-kick system that could be set to kick out of the group players that abuse ramming and, if the group decides to not disable PvP weapon damage, those that consistently fire at other players.

And promote a mix of groups on the launcher, including the largest ones, and it would likely be enough to solve most of the issues that an Open PvE mode would solve.

Current Mobius membership multiplied by 12 is still only 16.2% of current existing accounts. Minority faction status: granted.
Original point still stands.

The snag is, you can't be sure.

How many players could, potentially, join Mobius? Someone said that only 8% of the players are in the Forums. You then need to adjust that number down based on how likely someone on the forums is to know that the Mobius group exists. Lastly, of those, you need to remove the XBox players. And, if you want to compare it with the current Open, you would then need to remove the Solo players.

After all that, how many players that could join Mobius won't, despite wanting an Open PvE mode? For example, players like me, that won't play in Mobius because of the still existing risk of PvP there? And how many players are in other PvE-focused groups? If you are using the number of Mobius players to gauge the interest for Open PvE, you also need to take that into account.

My guess is that, among the non-Solo players that know of the existence of the Mobius group, the Mobius group might be about as popular as Open. But both that is a guess and, even if I had all numbers, it might not be possible to extrapolate to the players that don't take part in the forums; the preferences of players that don't visit forums don't always match with the preferences of those that do visit.

I'm a firm advocate for the complete removal of all player identification markers in-game just so that people will never know if they're facing players or NPCs until communication is established, if it is established. This also keeps "griefers" from being able to target players instantly when they appear in the instance.

And I would never play like that because I don't open fire without making sure that my target is either a NPC or, if it's a player, has consented to engage me in combat. No exceptions, ever.

DayZ is a horrible example to use. The worst.

Not my choice, I would usually go with Rust or Ark — both of which have official PvE support from the devs —, but I was answering a post about DayZ being meaningless without the PvP.

ARMA can never be classified as strictly PvE or PvP.

Relatively few games can be classified as strictly PvP. Common usage, though, is to classify a game (or game mode) that can't be played strictly PvE as being PvP.

 

[Jackboot]

I feel like even if they wanted to do this there are like 100 other things that are more important they could be spending their time on.

 

[kofeyh]

Happy for dedicated PVE if all of the multi-player aspects are unavailable.

So, remove the following:
- power play
- community goals
- one-off events created by frontier

Then it's a reasonable suggestion. I voted no, because right now all of the game's multiplayer content is available in single player. So what's the point of having a PVE? Groups already exist and respond to this need.

 

[Suohhen]

I play exclusively in solo. Played in open at the very beginning, but really wanted the single player option all along, so went to solo. I don't think there is really a need for this, but voted yes. I believe that options are always a good thing. And since the voting at this point appears to be running about 50/50, there would clearly be enough people who might use it. I think some people might want to fly with other real players, fight npc's, without having to form a group to do it. This should not be a problem, and FD has already shown that they can easily tweak settings for each instance, if they really want. Just make it not possible to shoot real players. Anyone who doesn't want to use the option doesn't have to. Options attract more customers.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Remind me what the game is called? .... Oh yeah ... Eliteangerous
How about remove all game options and have 1 .... Play
It would stop this PvE, PvP, Open, group talk

That is 1 option.. drop all multiplayer support and become solo like all the other games before it. It is not a view I share, I quite enjoy playing co-op with friends but it has merit and would solve all issues of griefing and some of the ship balance issues.

Of course if we were to take your suggestion solo is the only one which could work because 1) xbox live silver, and 2) David braben claiming you can play using only a few meg of data an hr on a train over 3G, and 3) because of the promise made in offline gate that solo was almost the same as offline and that will be available to all. and finally the big legal one
4) because the game is rated for Age 7 and above.... I would not let a 7 year old go online into open, it has to have solo, or at least tightly controlled private groups to be rated for such young kids.

 

[SnowyNI]

Also a question to all players here: What is the defference in the behavior of NPCs and players? Both attack players randomly with the intention to destroy.

NPCs tend not to camp, mock and used to be ram (b4 FD broke them!). Most of the human race tends to be door handles.