Deleted member 102790
D
Easy - hidden private group - added menu option (though I won't be using open pve myself)
Last edited by a moderator:
Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen
- Thread starter excalibus
- Start date
Easy - hidden private group - added menu option (though I won't be using open pve myself)
Same as it does now with PvE groups, someone goes against the rules then ge gets kicked out of the Group.
I made an example a while ago in this Thread, but a solution that doesn't need any change in how the Games work would be FD going and creating CMDR Open PvE and make all Players by default members of the Group. Solves the two main problems of current PvE groups: none is a visible option in the Game and you need outside sources to get into the group and the second is that all Groups currently depend on one player managing the group all alone.
Well, maybe a little change would be needed, an added infobox next to the group that tells you that you get kicked if you attack another player. But other then that all the tools needed are currently in the Game.
No need. Real world examples already exist. See entry at WoW. Most gamers have at least heard of it, and pve servers are doing well in WoW.
Last edited:
Essentially what you are asking for is FD to implement missions to kill PvE players. You are missing the point that PvE players don't want to be content. Having FD implement better way for you to target the PvE population just makes the problem worse
In what way does a PVE-focused player in a slow, relatively poorly armed ship, with relatively poor combat skills, substantially enhance the risk level of your game?
And why, if PVP players are keen to enjoy a game with risk, do such targets come under attack from players flying A-rated Anacondas and Federal Assault Ships? Your risk could be considerably increased were you to choose to fly D-rate Sidewinders or Vipers for your PVP engagements.
A closed or private PVE option is available, yes. A moderately open PVE mode is also available, and popular, and doesn't appear to be damaging Open play too much - yet that mode is being left to a single generous player to maintain rather than being administered by FD as it should be.
This is inconsistent with your argument that allowing an Open PVE mode would reduce the risks of Open mode.
In addition, since you consider risk and danger to be desirable, it's also illogical to tell people to 'fly safe'. This is what people are trying to do, and you are opposing.
Yes, which would indicate FD are trying to solve the issue inside open, rather than create an Open PvE mode - which is the correct approach.
Keeping open populated with a broad spectrum of different players (not just PvP'ers) is obviously important to FD.
Last edited:
Nope, nope, and nope.
Players would be immune to damage from other players. Full stop. The targets are the NPCs, not other players, no matter if they have been a bad boy or flagged as an enemy.
Its how PvE only works in some multiplayer games.
I think most PvEers would be cool with it working like this. I'm sure some PvPers think it would be a stupid idea, but of course, it doesn't match their idea of good gameplay and fun.
Some *cough* "PvPers" would make it their mission to go into the PvE mode and ram people into stations to kill them, so a report system still needs to be in place and a method to ban such people from the mode. But apart from that it could work.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I was thinking about that which is what lead me to this.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=231302
You are entitled to your opinion mate...
Mine is different than yours...
See, in the first part you write, you say that all is good, all I have to do is apply to the 'private' group to join it. (I use I in the broad sense of the word not meant specifically) There in lies part of the problem
A new player who brought the game will most likely NOT know about private groups, will NOT know about mobius or even these forums actually (especially if they brought the game via steam) so chances are they would never even know a PVE mode does exist.
What I am proposing is to put an option on the login menu for entering a PVE environment. That will serve a few different purposes, firstly it will make it an available option for people who already do not know about mobius and for those new commers in the future... Secondly it will remove the need for one of the largest private groups on the server to be administered by one player (or any players really), it would give those who want to play in a PVE Multiplayer environment a readily available choice. It will allow players who currently play solo or some other private group because they do not like the PVP nature of the current open mode a choice which they might enjoy more and allow for more social interactions than the individual private groups currently have.
If as has been stated it would be a simple matter of some predefined matchmaking settings (like we currently have for solo and private group anyway) and a menu choice for that mode on the main login menu and then I would think from a programming point of view (I am a casual hobby programmer / designer only) I do not see it as a major issue to implement. As for enforecement of PVE only or limited PVP based on conditional situations (haz rez, wanted, etc) then that might take more effort on the programming side, how much I really could not say, that would be a topic for discussion though most certainly
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The following proposal relies on removal from Open-PvE (whether temporary or permanent) and a "points system" on the player's Pilot's Licence. Once a points threshold is reached, player is moved to Open at the next instance change / destruction, i.e. removed from Open-PvE.
1) When a player attempts to interdict another player - "FSD-Interdictor Failure" and player drops to normal space in Open, i.e. removed from Open-PvE.
2) Player destroys another player - damage / rebuy / cargo / etc. refunded to target with no loss of missions, etc. - player is moved to Open at the next instance change / destruction, i.e. removed from Open-PvE.
3) Player attacks another player - points are added to the attacker's Pilot's Licence.
4) Players collide - points are added to the Pilots' Licence for each player.
The duration of any exclusion and the number of points gained before exclusion would require to be defined. If players, by their actions, show that they cannot be trusted to abide by the PvE nature of Open-PvE then their exclusion from that game mode would ultimately become permanent.
Other proposals are available, of course.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is one approach and is consistent with Frontier's apparent desire for players to share Open. Whether it is the correct approach remains to be seem. Frontier have access to all of the play statistics and know which players play in which ways and in which mode - they already know the relative populations of the game modes and what players are doing in them.
Keeping Open populated would seem to be important, from the perspective of not acknowledging that the idea that either the rule-set or the population would regulate Open was optimistic (to say the least), yes. If neither of these works (and they haven't so far), it might be time for a different approach.
Care to elaborate? What if it were the other way round - players could not damage other players and people would ask for a PvP-enabled mode - would that also constitute a "ridiculous idea that should go nowhere"?
well there could be some solutions ... Entering the PVE server requires you to agree to an enforcable ruleset.
It may well be that those rules cover no PVP outside of conflict zones, allowing attacks on 'wanted' players (so there is still some real risk of PvP if you play the 'criminal' for example... (just 2 examples but I am sure there are other aspects that could be added to such an agreement.
Players breaking the rules would get 'reported' by the other players and investigated, obviously video evidence of a player breaking the rules would be considered... etc...
Should the terms of the agreement you acknowledge when your commander first joints the PVE server be broken by you, then you are kicked off the server with a ban from that mode, the ban might be for hours, days, weeks, months, indefinitely depending on the reasons for the ban and the commanders history in that mode...
That is just one way it could work without going the player fire turned off route - kinda like the current mobius group rules implementation I guess... Players report rule breakers, rule breaker gets investigated, if found warranted, rule breaker is banned from accessing that mode.
All this would require is a matchmaking template to be setup I think. so you can only see other commanders that are in the same 'mode' and a menu option and then the policing of the rules handled by Frontier Support.
An alternative to that is disabling player vs player combat weapon damage as an option across the board for that mode of play... That would require some mechanics to include a 'check' for the mode the player is in... this would mean more coding for sure but would require less work for frontier support in policing as the game mechanics would enforce the no firing rule, this would not stop 'ramming' so there would still need to be a report player mechanism for reporting people repeatedly ramming players etc.. much in the same way that the main open game has such a mechanic in place already via the report player option.
There are different ways it could be implemented and that would be best left to frontier to decide how they would implement it I feel
Why, exactly would this be a cheat, when anyone in this mode would be there so they could avoid killing players? And why is it necessary to treat "NPC' s" like real players. THIS IS A GAME, people. If you wouldn't want to choose this mode, you don't have to.
This is genius. I'd only add that being in a wing should ignore all penalties among wingmates in the same way you currently do not commit a crime by attacking one. If you then do too much friendly fire I am sure your wingmates will give you a stern lecture or throw you out.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
This is genius. I'd only add that being in a wing should ignore all penalties among wingmates in the same way you currently do not commit a crime by attacking one. If you then do too much friendly fire I am sure your wingmates will give you a stern lecture or throw you out.
Good point - the proposal ignores Wings.
Regarding Wings in which a Wing member transgersses, the consequences should probably only apply to the player who transgresses and not to the whole Wing - as this would be a way for one player to take other players out of the mode.
One point that I forgot to add was that a permanent record of transgressions / suspensions / bans would need to be attached to the game account and would persist even if the Commander was wiped and started afresh. Players that chose to disrupt such a game mode would find that their account would be locked out of Open-PvE..
Last edited:
This is what I don't understand. If a person is choosing this mode, there would be "no" killing of real players by other real players. It's that simple. If you want to kill, attack, or bounty hunt real players, you simply choose PVP open mode.
I voted no.
Keep the options that exist at the moment, but make Open more meaningful, appealing and of consequence by:
- improving the crime and punishment mechanics (various options discussed elsewhere) so that any playstyle, including piracy and killing clean players, is possible but doesn't essentially mean nothing as it does now
- Making it so that BGS / Powerplay / CG actions only count in Open
I realise the second point is going to be (very) unpopular, but ... it can only happen if the first point is addressed fully and properly first so that people are willing to play in Open knowing that, yes they still can be killed by others, it is a Dangerous universe after all, but that the perpetrator has had to properly consider the consequences of their actions and will be treated as a criminal.
(In my opinion) it just feels wrong to be able to affect the universe, and hence how everyone else sees it, while hiding in a closed group or Solo
Keep the options that exist at the moment, but make Open more meaningful, appealing and of consequence by:
- improving the crime and punishment mechanics (various options discussed elsewhere) so that any playstyle, including piracy and killing clean players, is possible but doesn't essentially mean nothing as it does now
- Making it so that BGS / Powerplay / CG actions only count in Open
I realise the second point is going to be (very) unpopular, but ... it can only happen if the first point is addressed fully and properly first so that people are willing to play in Open knowing that, yes they still can be killed by others, it is a Dangerous universe after all, but that the perpetrator has had to properly consider the consequences of their actions and will be treated as a criminal.
(In my opinion) it just feels wrong to be able to affect the universe, and hence how everyone else sees it, while hiding in a closed group or Solo