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

[Robert Maynard]

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.

That's a different argument altogether, as we already have one PvE mode and a second mode where PvP can be strictly controlled (by controlling the membership of the Private Group).

Every player, in every game mode and on every game platform affects and experiences the single shared galaxy state - by design.

 

[JesusOnEez]

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

I'll freely admit to being a bit totalitarian when it comes to this. I strongly believe that anything that takes away from Open (essentially as it is now) is bad for the game, that includes Solo mode, group play (especially Mobius), CQC (should be in Open somehow) and any other potential modes. The game arena is so huge...there's plenty of room for everyone to do their own thing and be relatively undisturbed but still have that tiniest of possibilities of an encounter to keep things interesting. The last thing an Open world needs is fragmentation of the players.

However, from where you're coming from, personally I think what you're suggesting needs to be implemented in the tutorials. The tutorials should get people ready for the world of Open.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

It's not demanded, it's expected. If you're in open, man up or shut up.

Best Reason for a open PvE today.

 

[Marra Morgan]

If people would stop insisting that people shouldn't be given the choice as to which environment they should play in that might make sense. Except for the 'man up' bit - there is nothing particularly man-like in pointless arcade pew-pew. It seems to be the preferred play-style of adolescents...

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



And why do the 'man-ly' spend so much time complaining that the big boys won't play with them?

Open is nothing particularly like "pointless arcade pew-pew".
Those who claim that Open is this scary place full of griefer kiddies and those who insist you need to "man up" in Open are equally as silly.
I'm a woman who likes to play in Open. I mainly do PvE stuff, but now and again I like the thrill of being chased (and sometimes doing the chasing!)
I would rather the devs put their efforts into improving the crime and consequences system across all modes and giving Private Groups better visibility and admin options.

 

[bladerunner900]

I'll freely admit to being a bit totalitarian when it comes to this. I strongly believe that anything that takes away from Open (essentially as it is now) is bad for the game, that includes Solo mode, group play (especially Mobius), CQC (should be in Open somehow) and any other potential modes. The game arena is so huge...there's plenty of room for everyone to do their own thing and be relatively undisturbed but still have that tiniest of possibilities of an encounter to keep things interesting. The last thing an Open world needs is fragmentation of the players.

However, from where you're coming from, personally I think what you're suggesting needs to be implemented in the tutorials. The tutorials should get people ready for the world of Open.

I too am adamant about this and frankly, I was never there in your Open world, never will be so nothing was removed. Can't you see, if someone doesn't want to be there, they don't have to be.

 

[Arithon]

For the longest time I only played in open, but in recent months I've played a lot in Mobius private group because the majority of players I know are there and I have to be in the same group to interact with them.

I think an extra play mode *might* formalise things removing the need for a Mobius-style PvE group, but what is more likely to happen is the fracturing of the online community, some in open, some in private and some in open PvE; and never the twain shall meet. Not something I'd want to see happen, so I vote no.

I'd rather see PvP & piracy more formalised. So it has enforced rules and PvP itself could only be consented to, in a game context, not inflicted (no space     ). This could then be followed with strict policies on combat-logging (e.g. a three strikes rule).

This would then see MORE people in Open rather than less, which is where we want to be.

What could those rules be?

Piracy: Pirates when buying a cargo-scanner get a new COMMS button "Hand over cargo". Which when enabled (by using scanner on target), sends the message to trader. Trader then has 15 seconds to hand over 1 to 146T of cargo (based on approx. 20% of total) or become fair game. Zero cargo = can't send message. Attacking without making warning results in massive federal response (ie. - seven police Vultures or three police Anacondas) against the offending pirate.

PvP: Unless a commander is Wanted, a PowerPlay Enemy or in a CZ (or power-play equivalent), both players must issue challenge and response to consent to PvP, or attack on clean player will result in massive federal response (almost certain death) unless in an Anarchy system, where all bets are off.

Combat Loggers: Logging out during combat is locked to 15 seconds before quit already (we've all had the doorbell go etc.) but the odds against it happening more than once a week? Slim. So, you get a 15 second log out once a week. Use it wisely. After which you cannot log out until safe or dead. If you combat log or get disconnected by hardware failure, the server records a "strike". Get three and your ship blows-up in your absence. You'll come back to a rebuy screen. Firm but fair. If you are having network or hardware issues, stay away from combat. If you are wanted, you can no longer CTRL-ALT-DEL to escape more than three times before losing it all. Again the clock should be reset, but for a longer period (i.e. three times in a month). Your CL "strikes" should be visible in status right beside the rebuy.

With strict, fair, transparent rules in Open, there's no reason why everybody couldn't play there and be happy.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT OTHER PLAYERS FORM THEIR CONTENT.

But people who choose to play in open decide to be content of someone else's game and vice versa. There is only "all or nothing" and not "just the sugar but no diabetis".

You go open, you want other players to be part of your game and that is your decision. Connected with all benefits and risks. You can choose to not let other players be part of your game and vice versa by going solo.
Oh, you can even select which players join you with private groups! So where is the problem?

Noone demands that others are part of their content, everyone decides that for his-/herself, accepting all the connected consequences.

 

[AJW]

Leave it to someone on this forum to take a well known phrase that generally serves as a way to say "accept the consequences for your actions" ie: You clicked open, you knew what you were doing; and turn it into something gender oriented. Good job. You get a cookie.





Love the idiot train that follows as well. You guys got a tumblr page I can follow too?

When some idiot suggests that there is anything remotely man-like about insisting that people play kiddie-pew-pew against their will, I will respond how I like...

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

But people who choose to play in open decide to be content of someone else's game and vice versa. There is only "all or nothing" and not "just the sugar but no diabetis".

You go open, you want other players to be part of your game and that is your decision. Connected with all benefits and risks. You can choose to not let other players be part of your game and vice versa by going solo.
Oh, you can even select which players join you with private groups! So where is the problem?

Noone demands that others are part of their content, everyone decides that for his-/herself, accepting all the connected consequences.

Are you actually aware of what this thread is about? The clue is in the title...

 

[JesusOnEez]

I too am adamant about this and frankly, I was never there in your Open world, never will be so nothing was removed. Can't you see, if someone doesn't want to be there, they don't have to be.

Nothing was removed but you have denied Open your presence, and Open is a slightly lesser place for one more CMDR not being it in.

We're obviously not going to agree here, but I can respect what you mean. I was deeply annoyed early days when they removed single player mode as I had planned to play it that way (just as is normal when playing Elite and Frontier). But having given Open the chance (after using Mobius as a tutorial), Open feels more like Elite than Solo/Group does.

Solo/Group kind of feels like a Demo mode to me now.

 

[Deadspin]

When some idiot suggests that there is anything remotely man-like about insisting that people play kiddie-pew-pew against their will, I will respond how I like...

You don't do this "reading" thing very well, do you? It's okay. You'll still get a cookie, friend.

As Crimson Kaim so eloquently worded it while you were no doubt slamming away at your keyboard in mock internet fury, nobody is insisting. You made your bed, you selected open, now man up to the consequences or shut up and go away.

 

[excalibus]

Leave it to someone on this forum to take a well known phrase that generally serves as a way to say "accept the consequences for your actions" ie: You clicked open, you knew what you were doing; and turn it into something gender oriented. Good job. You get a cookie.

Love the idiot train that follows as well. You guys got a tumblr page I can follow too?

Well I can sort of understand the reaction... really... and I would like to think you could too... That said... There is no alternative other than solo because when you click private group there is no listing of groups to request to join when you click on that option for any players new or old, so therefore it could be argued that one does not know what they should expect whent hey click on open, especially if they are seeking a PVE multiplayer experience...


Let's leave the derogaroty comments out of the conversation, as it adds nothing other than to be insulting and in doing so degrades your own arguement...

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Are you actually aware of what this thread is about? The clue is in the title...

Oh I am but what does your post has to do with the title? I mean Open PvE and "Noone has the right to demand [...]" isn't really connected either, hm?

 

[CMDR Crustatious Cornelius Pig]

I have been playing since premium beta, at least 750+ hours and have very rarely been attacked by players, maybe three times in all. Most are far more interested in talking or going about their business. I do not see this as an issue and would rather FD focus on additional gameplay enhancements and features.

 

[Evil Ed]

But people who choose to play in open decide to be content of someone else's game and vice versa. There is only "all or nothing" and not "just the sugar but no diabetis".

You go open, you want other players to be part of your game and that is your decision. Connected with all benefits and risks. You can choose to not let other players be part of your game and vice versa by going solo.
Oh, you can even select which players join you with private groups! So where is the problem?

Noone demands that others are part of their content, everyone decides that for his-/herself, accepting all the connected consequences.

What benefits are there for a trader/miner/explorer/CGer etc. to play in Open? I, a trader/miner when in the bubble, creates content for pirates (and griefers) and what do I get for that, except credits I lose when getting robbed or delayed?

 

[Suohhen]

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

But those players who would choose the PVE mode aren't in open anyway. Why do you PVP 'ers think you are losing here?

 

[AJW]

Oh I am but what does your post has to do with the title? I mean Open PvE and "Noone has the right to demand [...]" isn't really connected either, hm?

You should probably read the thread as well then - particularly where Lateralus responds with "says who?" to my statement - the gist of his argument is that Open will lose out if people are given other options, and accordingly, they shouldn't be.

 

[excalibus]

But people who choose to play in open decide to be content of someone else's game and vice versa. There is only "all or nothing" and not "just the sugar but no diabetis".

You go open, you want other players to be part of your game and that is your decision. Connected with all benefits and risks. You can choose to not let other players be part of your game and vice versa by going solo.
Oh, you can even select which players join you with private groups! So where is the problem?

Noone demands that others are part of their content, everyone decides that for his-/herself, accepting all the connected consequences.

so what is the problem with a PVE mode being available from the login screen instead of having to A) come to the forums to find out about a PVE group and B) requesting access to that group and while waiting for approval being unable / unwilling to play in the current Open mode?

 

[xondk]

Hrm

A thought, instead of more modes and whatnot splitting the players up even more, maybe take a page from some of the old mud's.

- Remove 'cmdr' from scan name by default.
- Remove hollow square's, so there's no radar difference by default.
- Upon interaction, be that interdicting a person, or attacking hem or whatnot, only then reveal attackers nature, them being a player do not reveal defender unless they fire on attacker, maybe adding a feature separate from friend list where you can acknowledge who you are, to a person, which would make you show up as a hollow square, and they 'know' you, even if you are not on friend list.

Doing so might make pirates a bit frustrated, but there's no reason not to pirate npc's as it is currently, you can earn a lot of money doing that with the new way npc's spawn.
But otherwise it would make Elite a big universe where you don't know who you meet.
Maybe allow it so that people you are in a group with show up as hollow squares, groups basically having acknowledged each other?

Thoughts? idea's to make it work better?

 

[bladerunner900]

Nothing was removed but you have denied Open your presence, and Open is a slightly lesser place for one more CMDR not being it in.

We're obviously not going to agree here, but I can respect what you mean. I was deeply annoyed early days when they removed single player mode as I had planned to play it that way (just as is normal when playing Elite and Frontier). But having given Open the chance (after using Mobius as a tutorial), Open feels more like Elite than Solo/Group does.

Solo/Group kind of feels like a Demo mode to me now.

Thank you for missing me, I think, but certainly for seeing my point of view. I have come to appreciate the ability to interact with others in private mode but don't think Open is suited for me. Not in it's present form.

You fly safe now. In RL as well.

 

[Commander Debic]

But those players who would choose the PVE mode aren't in open anyway. Why do you PVP 'ers think you are losing here?

Because it isn't about the Ops post anymore, its about "We the PVP players in open group want to see the closure of all groups except our own, so any that stay in the game will have to play in open group."
That way yet another good game can die as PVE players go searching for the elusive oft promised game for them, which also often ends up including PVP which like a cancer, grows and destroys it's host.