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

[Lateralus]

And that never happened did it?...oh yeah my mistake of course it did.

That's not a reason to make the problem worse.

 

[Gedemon]

The ability to play in an Open "group" with different rules *was* included in the sales pitch for the game:



.... as were more meaningful punishments for PKing that have not been implemented.

That point 4 is about griefers.

And shadow bans are not already implemented ?

 

[Chaz]

FD obviously realised it would be a bad move as it would polarize player types into separate game modes.

But the player groups already are polarized. Those that don't want PvP usually end up playing solo and those that find their way onto these boards looking for a PvE solution end up joining the Mobius private group. A proper option for those wanting a PvE play style is long over due.

I voted no. An open PvE mode isn't compatible with FD's vision.

But Solo and private groups are?

 

[AJW]

See my last post above this one for solutions to all that... (it's not been hijacked by the 'ganker crowd' that's a massive exaggeration - in 99% of the bubble you won't see any other players)



You've just done the same... It doesn't matter which result edges it though, it's pretty clear that the swing is between 45% and 55% either way - meaning that there are enough players against the idea to make Frontier think twice before going down that route.

Doing something that satisfies 50% of customers while permitting the other 50% to carry on as before (less the unwilling targets which are other customers) seems like good business sense to me. Options are good. They increase sales...

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is great and all but your destruction flag alone negates it. If destruction instantly rates a banishment from open pve mode in your world then all I have to do is scrape a sidewinder along a station wall for a few seconds and then settle in next to the gate and I'll be able to push half of the approaching players (Who are no doubt speeding *wink*) right out of open PvE and into regular open.

If the destruction was by collision and not combat related then it would fall under the collision rule, 4), so points would be added to both players' Pilot's Licences. The player that did it more often would get their account flagged for exclusion (whether temporary or permanent) more quickly. Also, if player/player collision losses were fully reimbursed then there'd be less incentive for the "accident" specialist....

 

[excalibus]

Wow! This is really split!

There are decent arguments for both sides. Personally (and this given I'm an '84er and bought up on 'Solo' Elite and Frontier) I believe that Open has made Elite a better game. I've been playing for about a year, and I generally travel all over the place. I've been murdered for no reason twice in that time, and genuinely pirated twice as well. So, interaction with other players has been minimal in that year and I very much play a 'Solo' game...BUT. Playing in 'Open' and knowing the risk is there of an encounter (good or bad), adds a level of tension that I love and believe the game needs. Those moments of being pirated and yes, even murdered, are standout moments for me. I was murdered in a T6, and decided to head back to the same system just to see if I could evade the same CMDR a second time around. I did, and it was great fun!

I've done a lot since then, mostly exploring, but now I'm back to running rares in a T6 in open...effectively an open invitation to any pirates out there.

I don't want it to be safe from maniac CMDRs or genuine pirates...safe is boring for me. I want to test my evasion skills, so I vote 'No'.

I understand fully where you are comming from, I too play open only since I brought the game in beta (Okay I logged into solo once to test hi rez screen shots) and for the same reasons, I enjoy the 'tension' and risk.. believe it or not, I would probably continue to play OPEN even if a PVE only mode was introduced...

The point is, this is not about 'me or my playstyle' but about something I strongly believe is important for the game and something that is truely lacking for new and existing players (remember not all players come to the forums, not all players even know there is PVE Multiplayer choices (Mobius and other groups) so the idea I am proposing is having a PVE mode available from the login menu for players who wish to play against the environment without requiring them to apply to a third party (player) to join their group which they may well not even know about to enjoy the game we ALL love

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree that so far the way in which open is managed (from a security perspective) is poor and needs to change. System security ratings don't protect non-combat players as they should do. But there is an opportunity to create a better experience in open for all here, with a few significant changes to the mechanics:

Spoiler

• Increase bounties 10x for murders of clean players (except for self-defense where it should stay as it is)
• Make the security response quicker at reacting to crimes in high-security systems
• In high-security systems, security NPCs should fly strong ships and always be in wings of 3 upwards
• Allow players to officially assume the role of security officer when they are friendly or allied to a minor faction (only one minor faction at a time)
• Security players should be given a crime report feed in their jurisdiction; if someone is attacked they can react to it quickly (bounty hunters would end up following security players for leads which would make the security response twice as effective)
• Catching criminals (pirates, murderers or smugglers) when playing as security, players should get paid 'security bonds' with the amount dependent on the profile of the criminal (ranks, bounty etc).

These improvements would make places like Eravate and Eranin far safer for newbies, traders, miners and explorers while keeping them in open at the same time. To me that is a much better option than luring all the non-combat players into a separate mode where there is only danger from NPCs.

I realise this suggestion will probably be dismissed with "you're trying to force us into your game against our will" type comments, but hey-ho.

FD obviously realised it would be a bad move as it would polarize player types into separate game modes.

Improving the consequences for PKing in Open / Private Groups are not forcing anyone to do anything - although they may encourage some players to play in Open in the knowledge that PKers would suffer consequences for attacking them.

Are you suggesting that the player-base is not already fragmented into the three game modes?

 

[Loetmichel]

I want to be sure that there will also be a PvP mode with rules for PvP to attract PvP only players AND still an open mode to preserve the spirit game I've backed because I'm also afraid that if they work on a open PvE then they will stop work on the crime system for the normal open and all PvP player will (even more than know) assume that if I am in open I want PvP only...

I am pretty sure it is to late for _any_ measure to bing open back from "pvp only" to "open for all playstyles". Especially because it would require some respect from the "i shoot on anything that has a hollow icon" for other players&/playstyles. As long as said PvPers occupy open with the statement "go run away to mobius/solo you coward! I bet you CL/cheat too!" Open is no longer a viable for any playstzyle but these "hardcore pvpers". So as nice as an open for all would be: i dont see that happen ever again. Open PvE may be not the ideal soution but is in my opinion the only option left to end the "i was griefed!!!" and "Coward combatlogged" threads.

 

[Lateralus]

Doing something that satisfies 50% of customers while permitting the other 50% to carry on as before (less the unwilling targets which are other customers) seems like good business sense to me. Options are good. They increase sales...

The options for FD are;

Keep things as they are, try and improve open, continue to get flak from a certain area of the playerbase for not giving them PvE.

-or-

Provide an Open PvE, potentially annoy a lot of the people who enjoy open as it is, gamble that more players approve of the changes than dislike them, spend a lot of time/money on redeveloping the PvE mode.

You don't know that it would increase sales, as open supporting players might be put off knowing that a good part of the playerbase is in PvE only.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Provide an Open PvE, potentially annoy a lot of the people who enjoy open as it is, gamble that more players approve of the changes than dislike them, spend a lot of time/money on redeveloping the PvE mode.

Why would adding a mode, that no player is required to play in, annoy a lot of players who enjoy open as it is?

 

[Chaz]

I don't want it to be safe from maniac CMDRs or genuine pirates...safe is boring for me. I want to test my evasion skills, so I vote 'No'.

And you would still be able to play in Open as you are now. No one is asking for that choice to be taken away from you.

We're just asking for an additional server type for those that do want to be safe from maniac cmdr's. I don't see how that will affect anyone who wants to stay in Open, as most of the folks that don't want the prospect of PvP probably aren't playing in Open anyway.

 

[Lateralus]

Why would adding a mode, that no player is required to play in, annoy a lot of players who enjoy open as it is?

Because less players would be in open, and be in PvE instead.

 

[excalibus]

The options for FD are;

Keep things as they are, try and improve open, continue to get flak from a certain area of the playerbase for not giving them PvE.

-or-

Provide an Open PvE, potentially annoy a lot of the people who enjoy open as it is, gamble that more players approve of the changes than dislike them, spend a lot of time/money on redeveloping the PvE mode.

You don't know that it would increase sales, as open supporting players might be put off knowing that a good part of the playerbase is in PvE only.

Similarly you don't know if the fact there was a PVE only mode would actually increase sales so what is your point beyond attempted scaremongering on 'potential' sales?

There are ways they can implement it that require little cost too I think... It would of course depend solely on how it was implemented as to the 'cost' in design and programming man hours.

 

[AJW]

The options for FD are;

Keep things as they are, try and improve open, continue to get flak from a certain area of the playerbase for not giving them PvE.

-or-

Provide an Open PvE, potentially annoy a lot of the people who enjoy open as it is, gamble that more players approve of the changes than dislike them, spend a lot of time/money on redeveloping the PvE mode.

You don't know that it would increase sales, as open supporting players might be put off knowing that a good part of the playerbase is in PvE only.

If "a good part of the playerbase is in PvE" it proves that there is a demand for it. Businesses make profits by meeting demands. And for the umpteenth time, NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT OTHER PLAYERS FORM THEIR CONTENT.

 

[excalibus]

Because less players would be in open, and be in PvE instead.

Why would they? because instead of having to find out about a PVE alternative after they have been in the game for a while or finally come to the forums after playing for a while would make them want to stay in the current open if they truely prefer a PVE experience?

 

[Lateralus]

Similarly you don't know if the fact there was a PVE only mode would actually increase sales so what is your point beyond attempted scaremongering on 'potential' sales?

I wasn't scaremongering, I was providing a counter-argument to AJW's 'increased sales' point.

 

[AJW]

I wasn't scaremongering, I was providing a counter-argument to AJW's 'increased sales' point.

Can you point to a single example where a business has reduced sales by providing customers with alternative options?

 

[Evil Ed]

Sure we can have PvE - rules. That is if trade/mission income is reduced in this mode, ranking nerfed, powerplay influence nerfed, not able to participate in CGs, not getting your tag on planets when exploring etc. PvE shouldn't be easymode. i bought a game called Elite: Dangerous.

 

[Lateralus]

If "a good part of the playerbase is in PvE" it proves that there is a demand for it. Businesses make profits by meeting demands. And for the umpteenth time, NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT OTHER PLAYERS FORM THEIR CONTENT.

Oh dear, all caps melt-down... says who? The UN?

 

[excalibus]

I wasn't scaremongering, I was providing a counter-argument to AJW's 'increased sales' point.

i missed his post where he mentioned that... so my apologies for the scaremongering comment, it still does not remove the fact that in reality none of us know how it would effect ED sales, that was the point I was trying to make... at the 'extreme' it could go one way or the other but in most likelyhood it would not change sales much at all because the other reality is, people buy into elite because they like the whole space sim/game/mmo idea

I do disagree that adding a PVE mode on the login screen would reduce the number of players in open personally... because for a lot that want PVE only, they are either playing in group mode or soloif they truely want a PVE only experience, All having an option on the login screen would do as far as those players go, is give them a mode which is readily accessible where they can have a multiplayer PVE experience that may well contain more players than all the private PVE groups and SOLO players combined... It would not effect people who wish to play in the current open mode in the slightest as far as their own gameplay really went.