Not any time soon, they have stopped mergin Threads in the SoG one for a while now.
Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen
- Thread starter excalibus
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Last edited:
Voted no.
I think the topics you say are not open for debate cripple the debate before it has even begun. One thing you didn't say was of limits was the BSG though!
Enough gets said elsewhere about how the modes interact, this just adds another corner to the debate and raises the whole specter of which mode should/could have the biggest effect on game-play. Not to mention the PvP crowd and the response from them.
I'd prefer the situation to be handled with harsher penalties and PvP warzones where the reward could be so great why bother going elsewhere to shoot other players?
On the subject of Mobius and what happens if/when he leaves... I would assume that the group is so large either another would step forward to take over the running of it or even FD may step in and take control.
I think the topics you say are not open for debate cripple the debate before it has even begun. One thing you didn't say was of limits was the BSG though!
Enough gets said elsewhere about how the modes interact, this just adds another corner to the debate and raises the whole specter of which mode should/could have the biggest effect on game-play. Not to mention the PvP crowd and the response from them.
I'd prefer the situation to be handled with harsher penalties and PvP warzones where the reward could be so great why bother going elsewhere to shoot other players?
On the subject of Mobius and what happens if/when he leaves... I would assume that the group is so large either another would step forward to take over the running of it or even FD may step in and take control.
And grouips have social interactions as well.. and my OP suggestion would be about bringing more players together for interaction, instead of having (god knows how many private groups segregated, and solo players who don't want a PvP experience segregated, they could essentially play together in the environment they want to play in...
However the PVE is implemented would be entirely up to FDev, weather it was done through game mechanics, account bans for breaking the rules of the game mode or through player matchmaking choices or some other way none of us have thought of is irrelevant, what would matter is that there would indeed be an option readily available for players who wish to play PVE and interact with other players...
The fact they may not wish to interact with other players in a PvP sense should be a players choice to make IMHO...
Ultimately, I think that the actions of another PC should not affect my enjoyment of the game as a whole. So, my fix for this issue of PC destruction would be a flag in my settings.
The flag is "lose credits due to PK death".
If I set the flag on, then a PK death is exactly the same as it is now.
If I set the flag off, then if I am killed by another player character, my ship still blows up, the aggressor sees the exact same end result, but, when I "respawn", there's no financial penalty to me. I get back the ship I was in/credits/whatever I had before, and spawn in the last station I was in.
Here's the kicker. If I fire on another player, it automatically sets the flag on.
The flag is "lose credits due to PK death".
If I set the flag on, then a PK death is exactly the same as it is now.
If I set the flag off, then if I am killed by another player character, my ship still blows up, the aggressor sees the exact same end result, but, when I "respawn", there's no financial penalty to me. I get back the ship I was in/credits/whatever I had before, and spawn in the last station I was in.
Here's the kicker. If I fire on another player, it automatically sets the flag on.
while i respect those, who wish for it (and playing in mobius sometimes), i voted "No".
why? because if i deploy hardpoints and trigger fire, my hardpoints should fire and have an effect. i can't see an implementation, which would "make sense", and not make the game more gamey. basically, i want no difference between player cmdr's and npc cmdr's - both should be able to do the same.
and I'm saying this without ever having a real pvp-battle. most times i'm too good at running away, and 2 times i got destroyed running.
why? because if i deploy hardpoints and trigger fire, my hardpoints should fire and have an effect. i can't see an implementation, which would "make sense", and not make the game more gamey. basically, i want no difference between player cmdr's and npc cmdr's - both should be able to do the same.
and I'm saying this without ever having a real pvp-battle. most times i'm too good at running away, and 2 times i got destroyed running.
But that would be only the case in the PvE mode, you don't have to play there. And even if you play there, why going in it with the ill intend of breaking the rules and firing at a player? should we really care about the feelings of those who wish to break the rules?
But as others have said it don't needs to have a function like that in place, it can work as groups work now: You can shot down a player, but then you are kicked out of the Group.
I do not see the need for another mode with options. What we need is punishment for engaging clean targets but FD already is working on that (unfortunately not on a high priority or they are not really far with developing this).
However, if there really would be a PvE mode then this should be merged with the actual open mode but with an option to avoid PvP.
If enabled, the player who gets interdicted gets almost instantly an escort of like 5 Anacondas from the local police. Disabling damage is a bad, very bad solution. Every player would still be endangered by PvP but a player enabled the "safe option" will get a NPC backup if attacked by another player (especially if the attacker is wanted).
However, since the backup is police based a wanted player being engaged will not recieve backup so we prevent pirates and "bad boys" to be safe.
Additionally, the backup will not appear in hotspots for example community goals, PP HQs, other HQs such as SOL, etc. This also shall prevent from getting easy profits without threat or danger (hence: Elite DANGEROUS).
But all in all I really do not see the need for a PvE mode. The only reason some want a PvE mode is because of the stupidity of NPCs. Even those players wouldn't want a PvE mode if NPCs would be challenging. I bet then a PvP only mode would be what was asked for.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
This. No difference between NPCs amd players (except some minor ones).
However, if there really would be a PvE mode then this should be merged with the actual open mode but with an option to avoid PvP.
If enabled, the player who gets interdicted gets almost instantly an escort of like 5 Anacondas from the local police. Disabling damage is a bad, very bad solution. Every player would still be endangered by PvP but a player enabled the "safe option" will get a NPC backup if attacked by another player (especially if the attacker is wanted).
However, since the backup is police based a wanted player being engaged will not recieve backup so we prevent pirates and "bad boys" to be safe.
Additionally, the backup will not appear in hotspots for example community goals, PP HQs, other HQs such as SOL, etc. This also shall prevent from getting easy profits without threat or danger (hence: Elite DANGEROUS).
But all in all I really do not see the need for a PvE mode. The only reason some want a PvE mode is because of the stupidity of NPCs. Even those players wouldn't want a PvE mode if NPCs would be challenging. I bet then a PvP only mode would be what was asked for.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
This. No difference between NPCs amd players (except some minor ones).
I don't think anyone is advocating a PvE mode where the NPCs are absent. It is the behaviour of human players that is the issue.
I voted yes! Then I remembered I spend all of my game time in Solo or Group, so I suppose I don't care.
I do hope the debate continues though. I find it particularly amusing to read about the PVP types complaining that their targets keep avoiding them
Really? I don't think I've seen any PVP types complaining about their targets avoiding them.
I have, however, seen many PVE types trying to claim that all players in Open are psychotic blood thirsty killers, which just isn't true.
Take a look in a combat log thread
Take a look in a combat log thread
Oh! Silly me.
I thought we were only talking about what was discussed in this thread.
As for combat logging, it's also known as cheating.
It doesn't matter if they are, to be fair. It only needs one of them to be a _____ and the damage is done.
So, the way to fix that is to ensure that that sort of _____ has no lasting impact on the unwilling victim.
And what about the complaints from PvPers about players using the FD-approved method of mode switching to avoid being targeted?
PvPers don't really only post here tough, they complain a lot about that on the Forum.
True, but a lot of Pvpers also have there own definition of combat logging and even put fair logging out in that category and complain about it. But thats way to op here, just wantet to point out that those complains exist in many forms. We jus can't really bring the PvP and the PvE crowd together, but I don't see how an offical PvE mode would hurt the PvPers since its something that will be used by PvEers who don't want PvP anyway. You don't get into PvP with them already so nothing changes in that regard.
this is somehow very true. so, if people really want that...
and now for "but"-part: i think, what is quite amazing about elite is as it is, that you can switch modes, without loosing "coherency" (okay, sometimes you are 5 km away...). i switch for various reason (BB refresh is none of them), for exampel connectivity, screenshot-quality, or simply want to spend an evening "alone with the npc", i switch to groups to be instanced for sure with other cmdr's, too moebius, if it gets to silly around a CG, to open, if i want to meet random people, or i want to do some blockade-running - and i rarely have the ffeling of "being in another world" (with other rules). i don't see how this quality could be given with hardcoded pve restriction.
the idea of a "hidden group-mode", e.g. you select open (random), "preferred pve", preferred pvp and get instanced more likely, especially if you pvp'd in a pve preferred mode, sounds fancy, but complicated in realistaion, if you think it through.
i think, what i would like to see, is that group-owners could set up "kicking rules" for their groups automatically - so somebody like moebius wouldn't need to kick players manually...
Which hopefully will be developed soon.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=226764&page=26&p=3483597#post3483597
Depending on your(not necessarily you specifically, but to anyone interested) forum theme, click the Elite or Frontier badge at the top right to read Sandro's responses to this thread.
What's your point? Combat logging is cheating. Do I need to track down those dev responses for you too? Do we need to argue about this? If a player uses the in-game method of logging out, obeying the 15 second timer and what ever else they need to do, then it's fine, because those are (currently) the rules.
Last edited:
Sorry I can't believe that any self respecting PvEer would ever claim such a thing while playing in open, as this would suggest that they them selves would be a psychotic blood thirsty killer being a player and all..... But you're right, it isn't true most CMDRs you meet a fairly decent and that includes the Pirates.... In my opinion it's the mersanary groups who are driving players away at the moment...