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

[Robert Maynard]

I'm aware of the different platforms (besides the game modes), and also the costs it would take to have additional BGS'es.
It's not so much a conflation but an acknowledgement of the obvious; and what many have observed.
That is; the different types of players (and their mode/playstyles and motivations) will always have friction when playing in the same universe.

Indeed - and Frontier have given each player the choice as to which game mode they play in to experience and affect the single shared galaxy state.

If the game had been designed to cater to the "I must be able to shoot at anyone who wants to oppose me, my Minor Faction, my Power, etc." play-style then there would only be one game mode. The fact that there are three game modes, as published in the design information released over three years ago at the start of the Kickstarter and hotly debated since some players realised that the options available to all players may affect their chosen play-style, strongly suggests that the game is not designed to cater to that play-style.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Input again:
Yes to OpenPVE, but as a separate universe/BGS from Open.

PVP and PVE players can't coexist in the same space.
Or allow me to rephrase.... Pure-PVE players cannot get along with PVP or even PVE/P players.
- PVP players will infringe on the Pure-PVE players' games when they attack them. This forces these PVE players to play a game other than what they want.
- And P-PVE players who play the undermining game on a PVE/P player's faction or interests force the PVP player to play a pure PVE game in return, which they might not be inclined to.

The 2 playstyles simply cannot co-exist without a lot of friction.

The PvPers take the short straw here anyway, thats maybe a problem. The BGS is heavily build around PvE, on a BGS that mainly is there for PvP people they would need to do PvE if they want anything to happen, with a focus on PvP of all players the BGS may remain very static with very little changes happening in the Galaxy.

I gotta admit I'm glad I'm a PvE player, because even if nothing gets changed people who want to focus on PvP are the most limited in the Game in many ways.

 

[Mohrgan]

The PvPers take the short straw here anyway, thats maybe a problem. The BGS is heavily build around PvE, on a BGS that mainly is there for PvP people they would need to do PvE if they want anything to happen, with a focus on PvP of all players the BGS may remain very static with very little changes happening in the Galaxy.

I gotta admit I'm glad I'm a PvE player, because even if nothing gets changed people who want to focus on PvP are the most limited in the Game in many ways.

Totally. They are limited in the ships they can fly. They are limited in the way they can out fit their ships. They are limited in the way they can fly (generally in wings). Out of the few reasons I choose not to fly in open, one of the biggest is my ships outfitting. To be competitive in PvP, you have to build for it. That removes much of the gear I carry now, in sacrifice to being able to defend myself. I'm not going to dump my SRV, Fuel Limpets, and scanners, just to be content for others.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Totally. They are limited in the ships they can fly. They are limited in the way they can out fit their ships. They are limited in the way they can fly (generally in wings). Out of the few reasons I choose not to fly in open, one of the biggest is my ships outfitting. To be competitive in PvP, you have to build for it. That removes much of the gear I carry now, in sacrifice to being able to defend myself. I'm not going to dump my SRV, Fuel Limpets, and scanners, just to be content for others.

I fell the same, the PvP specific builds are one of the main reason (not the only one tough) I can't get into PvP, all the while I have already put quite a lot of fun hours into CQC.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

*chuckles* Those calling for a separate BGS for PvE players - clearly you haven't thought this through properly.

XBOX players !

• Where are they right now ?
• Can they affect the BGS ?
• Are FD going to give them a separate universe too ?
• Who's going to pay for all this ? You ?

Simply put - In my opinion any solution to the PvE issue will not revolve around a separate universe unless someone finances it.

 

[dxm55]

Indeed - and Frontier have given each player the choice as to which game mode they play in to experience and affect the single shared galaxy state.

If the game had been designed to cater to the "I must be able to shoot at anyone who wants to oppose me, my Minor Faction, my Power, etc." play-style then there would only be one game mode. The fact that there are three game modes, as published in the design information released over three years ago at the start of the Kickstarter and hotly debated since some players realised that the options available to all players may affect their chosen play-style, strongly suggests that the game is not designed to cater to that play-style.

I'm not arguing the game modes, and I do agree that pure-PVE, PVE/P all have their place in the game.
I'm questioning the reason, and perhaps the wisdom, of sharing the galaxy state between the modes.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record;
Why should a PVE/P player be forced to play PVE only when defending his minor/player faction?
Why should a P-PVE player be subject to petty infiltration and attacks from PVP players?
When both types/sides are sharing the same galaxy state, and are unable to counter each other through their preferred means, that's when all these petty squabbles and dirty tricks come into play.

IMO my suggestion would be to keep 'em separated...
[video=youtube;XN32lLUOBzQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN32lLUOBzQ[/video]


Just sayin'

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm not arguing the game modes, and I do agree that pure-PVE, PVE/P all have their place in the game.
I'm questioning the reason, and perhaps the wisdom, of sharing the galaxy state between the modes.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record;
Why should a PVE/P player be forced to play PVE only when defending his minor/player faction?
Why should a P-PVE player be subject to petty infiltration and attacks from PVP players?
When both types/sides are sharing the same galaxy state, and are unable to counter each other through their preferred means, that's when all these petty squabbles and dirty tricks come into play.

IMO my suggestion would be to keep 'em separated...

Just sayin'

No-one is forced to play Powerplay or take part in Community Goals - both activities that, by design, are available to all players in all modes.

Even player sponsored Minor Factions are completely optional - and, like any other Minor Faction, able to be affected by players in any game mode.

I doubt that both sides in the PvP / PvE debate are "unable to counter each other through their preferred means" - it's more that the PvP players can't shoot opposing players in the face (unless they choose to make themselves available in Open).

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on the single shared galaxy state. Frontier chose to design the game around it - I expect that it is here to stay.

 

[excalibus]

I'm not arguing the game modes, and I do agree that pure-PVE, PVE/P all have their place in the game.
I'm questioning the reason, and perhaps the wisdom, of sharing the galaxy state between the modes.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record;
Why should a PVE/P player be forced to play PVE only when defending his minor/player faction?
Why should a P-PVE player be subject to petty infiltration and attacks from PVP players?
When both types/sides are sharing the same galaxy state, and are unable to counter each other through their preferred means, that's when all these petty squabbles and dirty tricks come into play.

IMO my suggestion would be to keep 'em separated...

Just sayin'

because realistically we players cannot 'assign' ourselves to a minor faction as such so we choose a minor faction and associate ourselves with it by doing missions etc for that faction...

Therefore (outside of powerplay) the BGS gets affected across all modes and you can PVP and it will NOT change the BGS in this sense, you would need to PVE to manipulate the BGS... Powerplay is a different kettle of fish... there if you kill a player trying to undermine, you will make some difference I would imagine - with them being unable to deliver documents or being unable to kill other powers ships etc for a short time... Powerplay is still ultimately a mix of PVE and PVP...

I understand what frustrates you about the BGS DMX... I have seen enough of your posts to understand your reasons... I accept that we will not agree on the BGS issue because I like the fact that ALL modes and ALL platforms affect it, and yes it can be frustrating when you are trying to flip a system and some 'unseen but know' forces are working against you... I accept that as part of the game, I take the view that those commanders are doing that while my commander is sleeping / drinking / visiting the bright neon lit places down the end of dark alleys in the middle of the night etc...

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

IMO my suggestion would be to keep 'em separated...

Just sayin'

forgetting the obvious reasons already listed, there is 1 very logical logistical reason....

work for FD.

imagine we have 3 universes - one for open, one for solo and one for PGs each with their own CG to smash SDC (just keeping it topical)

and imagine in Mobius they are destroyed, in open they are destroyed but in solo, the SDC win and keep their base.

that then mean FD have 2 fractured systems and have to write 2 different stories, in time each one will get harder and harder to follow as each BGS deviates more and more from each otehr

what if the entire thargoid invasion was based on damage done to the alien artifacts, but no one in solo ever damaged an alien artifact, does that mean in solo, thargoids are at peace with humans but in open and PGs there is a war?

 

[DHMeyer]

That is a well thought out plan. What keeps real people from shooting up a store? Penalties. The threat of arrest, or death. There's no reason not to fly around with a 19mil credit bounty on your head. You still get 95% casualty insurance, get harassed by maybe one lone wolf security viper, and can land anywhere you want with minimal concern. Original ELITE had a low pirate presence in Democratic and Corporate systems, higher in Anarchy, yet this version is almost safer in anarchies because the grivers don't congregate there.

The above mentioned police package should be prowling around any high tech system, pulling players out of SC not randomly, but based on their wanted status. And with a big bounty, like say 100K, your insurance company should drop you so if you lose that A-spec pirate Clippper, you're out a few million creds. Incentives!

Lack of consequences is for sure a huge part of the problem. Starting with not loosing the ability to dock in (supposedly) high security system.
If I go out there, decide to be a pirate and kill even one NPC trader, I shouldn't be able to just happily trot off to the nearest secure system, dock at some station and just clear off my bounty and fines. I'm a criminal now, so unless I have a way of hiding my identity (which currently I don't have), in any secure system I should be hunted down by every vessel they can spare. AND every bounty hunter (NPC or player) who notices me there . Additionally for sure simply turned into space dust the moment I show up anywhere close a station. If authority vessels don't scan me there, then as soon as I request docking.
Of course, I may want to pop in to some secure system to look for prey, but I should be quick about it or risk the whole system security chasing me down and following me at least to other secure systems. And bounty hunters wherever I go.
If I want to stick to my evil ways, it's the anarchy systems for me from now on. And if I want to become a respectable citizen again, I should be forced to look for an intermediate (not in every Anarchy system and it should require a proper search for such a person) who will take a significant fee plus credits to pay off the corrupt officials and the bounties and set things right for me. Fees and bribes going well into millions and getting higher each time I decide to turn away from the path of law and order. But it also has to be balanced out with some perks I get as a villain, such as access to black market, modified weapons and tools of the trade making my piracy a bit easier in some way (like opening the cargo hatch quicker or scooping cargo faster), ability to hire a wing of NPC pirates who will go through the fire with me etc.

After thinking about the issue I have to say I would like to see better response to crime and meaningful punishments to be implemented throughout the modes as this would add more depth to the game. I would also like to see players, even in current Open, being able to get some extra security by hiring NPC wingmen. That could make the ranks system being useful for something. But I still think there should be an Open PVE mode where players can be totally safe from being attacked by other players in areas other than specified PVP zones. Whether this is done by a no damage system or deadly and immediate response from authorities making PVP impossible, doesn't really matter (at least to me) as one thing is sure: it is not possible to make PVErs happy in a PVP only environment and PVP only environment is damaging to the game.

 

[Faded Glory]

Why should a PVE/P player be forced to play PVE only when defending his minor/player faction?

They shouldn't be, and really, they are not forced to. There will likely still be some players in Open that they can directly retaliate against and have their consensual fun. There will (presumably) also be players attacking and defending the faction in Solo (and Group).

The fact is though, that without some PvE 'work' nothing will change in the faction / BGS, as the whole BGS is designed around PvE actions. The factions themselves are not really even player factions, just player supported 'NPC' factions.

I don't disagree with your premise that separate BGS's for Open and Solo might solve some of the problems (of course, it couldn't just be one extra BGS for all the groups though, could it, as different groups would likely have different playstyles ), but in the end, as others have pointed out, from day 1 the different BGS's would diverge, and essentially, from that point on you've got different games.

Probably more of an overhead than FD would be able to cover.

 

[DHMeyer]

They shouldn't be, and really, they are not forced to. There will likely still be some players in Open that they can directly retaliate against and have their consensual fun. There will (presumably) also be players attacking and defending the faction in Solo (and Group).

The fact is though, that without some PvE 'work' nothing will change in the faction / BGS, as the whole BGS is designed around PvE actions. The factions themselves are not really even player factions, just player supported 'NPC' factions.

I don't disagree with your premise that separate BGS's for Open and Solo might solve some of the problems (of course, it couldn't just be one extra BGS for all the groups though, could it, as different groups would likely have different playstyles ), but in the end, as others have pointed out, from day 1 the different BGS's would diverge, and essentially, from that point on you've got different games.

Probably more of an overhead than FD would be able to cover.

True. In multiplayer modes the maximum number of players you are going to be able to meet in one place is 32. Whether you see 32 or less at any given time, there is some sort of a system in place to decide whom you're going to see. I have no idea as to what factors decide about that, but there is a chance you will not get to see players who are economically competing against you. You may as well see only the ones who do nothing else but dogfights. Or do absolutely nothing in the context of the power struggle going on, they can as well be simply exploring the system and fly away when they are done. They can be just passing by on their trade route. They can be just collecting some rares from this particular system.
If Elite had massive space battles, then maybe that could be a successful way of fighting for power and influence. But it doesn't have massive space battles, so it seems that by the game's design, the struggle for power was meant to be economical, either through trade or through completing missions (of which only a percentage has military / combat character and it takes quite a bit of work to influence the system factions).

So, just from the instancing point of view, it doesn't really matter which mode players are in from the point of view of the BGS. In a busy area, there may as well be thousands of players right there, in Open, who remain invisible to other players also in Open. For players to be able to decide about the outcome of the struggle through military means, Frontier would have to make instances much, much bigger. Which may not really be possible.

 

[Cmdr Cunomaglus]

But I still think there should be an Open PVE mode where players can be totally safe from being attacked by other players in areas other than specified PVP zones. Whether this is done by a no damage system or deadly and immediate response from authorities making PVP impossible, doesn't really matter (at least to me) as one thing is sure: it is not possible to make PVErs happy in a PVP only environment and PVP only environment is damaging to the game.

God yes, give me consequences when I'm being a nasty, brutal, mass-murdering terrorist in Fedscum space! Make me work for it! It takes all the fun out of it to be able to just swan into Li Qing Jao, giving the local Fed admiral a cheery wave, and resupply so I can go fly a few lightseconds away and blatt some more innocents...

About the quoted bit though; I honestly don't see the need for even specified PvP areas in the otherwise PvE mode. We can switch freely between modes at any time, so why not just keep one mode as pure PvE and the other pure PvP? Adding unnecessary complexity to it just makes it harder to code and provides cracks that the few genuine griefers will stick their grubby little fingers into and start prying.

And your one sure thing was two things.

 

[DHMeyer]

(...) And your one sure thing was two things. (...)

True

(...)
About the quoted bit though; I honestly don't see the need for even specified PvP areas in the otherwise PvE mode. We can switch freely between modes at any time, so why not just keep one mode as pure PvE and the other pure PvP? Adding unnecessary complexity to it just makes it harder to code and provides cracks that the few genuine griefers will stick their grubby little fingers into and start prying. (...)

That's, again, true. I am perfectly happy to manage my PVP zones myself and have my weapons simply malfunction each time I try to use them against a player in a PVE mode.
That being said, I think that being an outlaw should have its challenges, but also some unique perks awaiting in wild space of anarchy systems. In terms of hardware available there, in terms of unique, generously paid missions etc.

 

[excalibus]

True



That's, again, true. I am perfectly happy to manage my PVP zones myself and have my weapons simply malfunction each time I try to use them against a player in a PVE mode.
That being said, I think that being an outlaw should have its challenges, but also some unique perks awaiting in wild space of anarchy systems. In terms of hardware available there, in terms of unique, generously paid missions etc.

I think if you are allied with a local faction in an anarchy then their missions should pay more I do not agree on unique hardware... but perhaps an enginner or two in anarchy space

 

[Lestenio]

forgetting the obvious reasons already listed, there is 1 very logical logistical reason....

work for FD.

imagine we have 3 universes - one for open, one for solo and one for PGs each with their own CG to smash SDC (just keeping it topical)

and imagine in Mobius they are destroyed, in open they are destroyed but in solo, the SDC win and keep their base.

that then mean FD have 2 fractured systems and have to write 2 different stories, in time each one will get harder and harder to follow as each BGS deviates more and more from each otehr

what if the entire thargoid invasion was based on damage done to the alien artifacts, but no one in solo ever damaged an alien artifact, does that mean in solo, thargoids are at peace with humans but in open and PGs there is a war?

Every community goal would have the potential to have a different outcome that ultimately affects the BGS too.
Obsidian Orbital fails in solo, partially suceeds in group and totally succeeded in open. Meanwhile driving the pirated out of LHS 1122 suceeds in solo, fails in group, and suceeds in open. It would become impossible for FD to keep up with what's happening

 

[Robert Maynard]

Every community goal would have the potential to have a different outcome that ultimately affects the BGS too.
Obsidian Orbital fails in solo, partially suceeds in group and totally succeeded in open. Meanwhile driving the pirated out of LHS 1122 suceeds in solo, fails in group, and suceeds in open. It would become impossible for FD to keep up with what's happening

Indeed.

The simple fact is that the game has been designed from the bottom up around the premise that each and every player affects and experiences the same shared galaxy state. The network model is designed around a single galaxy state that, I expect, takes a not inconsiderable number of servers to handle.

The modes themselves are simply different settings of the matchmaking system with respect to which players we may meet - we all connect to the same transaction servers regardless of which mode we are in.

Frontier will also know how players actually play the game - their analytics, with a few rules for categorisation overlaid on the data, will be able to allow them to categorise players broadly in to PvP / PvE / PvP&E bins.

For those reasons, I don't expect Frontier to change their game design.

 

[excalibus]

Indeed.

The simple fact is that the game has been designed from the bottom up around the premise that each and every player affects and experiences the same shared galaxy state. The network model is designed around a single galaxy state that, I expect, takes a not inconsiderable number of servers to handle.

The modes themselves are simply different settings of the matchmaking system with respect to which players we may meet - we all connect to the same transaction servers regardless of which mode we are in.

Frontier will also know how players actually play the game - their analytics, with a few rules for categorisation overlaid on the data, will be able to allow them to categorise players broadly in to PvP / PvE / PvP&E bins.

For those reasons, I don't expect Frontier to change their game design.

good now that that's covered we can dispense with suggesting seperating the BGS...

going forward,

What sort of 'exploits' would be perceived as being possible for a PVE Multiplayer mode?

 

[Marnoch]

Forgive me if this idea has been brought up already but 29 pages was about all I could read.

Full disclosure: I currently play exclusively in a tiny private group.

Having said that... It seems that if players could purchase a bounty bond (unlimited credits) to be added to the overall bounty placed on a CMDR who destroys their ship the bounty amount would eventually be high enough for even a group to form in order to cash in on it.

Some caveats... Bond must be purchased beforehand; message would be sent announcing the bond immediately upon being targetted; bounty is only assigned to a PK (ship destruction) against a non-hostile ship, excluding legit kills in Cz's, opposing factions, etc

Probably a few more tweaks needed but seems like it would encourage the player base to hunt down 'Offenders' and deal with them. To me, it doesn't seem all that difficult to implement but I'm not a game dev so...

I might even spend some time in open if this was implemented...

 

[eza]

What sort of 'exploits' would be perceived as being possible for a PVE Multiplayer mode?

I mentioned this before, but it may have been overlooked:
If both players involved in a collision accrue penalty points equally, then an open PvE mode player could be rammed into normal open mode.
If there's some algorithm which assigns penalty points unequally, then it would just take more than one player to do it.
Either way it seems exploitable.

Ramming's a tricky one, I still haven't thought of a way it can be fixed properly...