In my experience, most players I meet (outside of conflict zone CG's) are boring and either don't want to talk, or don't want to do anything.
Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen
- Thread starter excalibus
- Start date
In my experience, most players I meet (outside of conflict zone CG's) are boring and either don't want to talk, or don't want to do anything.
I vote 'no', because it reinforces the fallacy that Open is 'the PvP option'. Which it is not. I dont want to chose between Timidland and Psycholand, I want one universe where everything can happen.
That all depends on one player managing the group in his free time is the main reason I'm for an offical PvE group. All in all they wouldn't even need to change anything or code something new, just FD putting up there own Group and let support handle it and kicking players out that go against the rules. Maybe put an info about the group in the Launcher and I think we would have already pretty good solution.
and that could just as easily be done for a PVE 'open' mode yes? Where if the player breaks the modes rules, then they are immediately instanced back into the current open mode and unable to rejoin the PVE 'open' mode for a set period of time...
It does not even have to be hard coded that there are 'no risks of PVP' per se, it could well be the same mechanincs as the current open with the only difference being that if you fire on another commander and A) they are not wanted, B) they are not on an opposing side of a CZ then upon your leaving the instance (going back to SC from normal space or going to hyperspace) you are immediately transferred to an island in the current open environment.
Thereby you killed the 'commander' and then get a ban from playing the PVE mode for a set time... (maybe weeks maybe days but whatever that timeframe is would be set by FD of course) In that situation perhaps the 'victim' would only have a 1% rebuy on their insurance and take the hit to their cargo losses on the chin... Data loss for explorers... that is something that would need to be also considered....
Do not forget to "advertize" this mode on even terms with open and solo in main menue and i am in the same boat with you
That's not what I meant. My point was that the appeal of open to non-combat players is the interaction with other players - if an option exists to have all of that without the risk of PvP, it is likely that those players will choose it. This will result in normal open having only PvP combat players in, rather than a broader-spectrum of different players.
As others have said, open is not PvP mode... it is just a mode where any scenario is possible.
Positional statement: I have no interest in PVP and do not want to play ED as a multiplayer game. I have no interest in Open or Private Group or Mobius, and would not play an Open PVE mode were one offered. Given an offline option I would choose it.
That said, I believe there should be an Open PVE mode and have voted accordingly. Two points I think should be considered when we're considering the outcome of this vote. Sorry if these have been raised already.
1. One of the main patterns of objection to the idea of Open PVE is "No, there's nothing wrong with Open mode, I like Open mode and if you don't like it, there's always Solo or Mobius."
Consider that this is effectively saying, "I don't want there to be a mode I wouldn't use, and I wouldn't want others using it either even though I'm directing them to other modes that would amount to the same thing in terms of my own game experience."
If you are an Open PVP player, a player in Mobius, Private or Solo - to which modes many of you seem happy to direct people - is a player you won't meet. Similarly, a player in Open PVE is also a player you won't meet. In other words, exactly where that player is playing will make no functional difference to your game: you still won't meet them, and you still can't shoot them. You therefore have no logical reason to object to an Open PVE mode if you believe that "Go Play In Mobius" is a valid comment to make to those who don't like PVP.
2. While considering the tally of votes, also give some weight to the number of people playing in Mobius which according to elitepve.com stands at 19,005. Those are people who have already chosen to play in Open PVE. The only difference is that the mode they're using isn't formally supplied or maintained by FD. But it does indicate a demand for this group, and frankly it's a little questionable that FD are both holding off introducing a formal equivalent and allowing Mobius to continue as it is. They either want this option available or they don't; they're either happy for the option to exist or they aren't. And if they are happy for players to play in Mobius then there really is no good reason for them not to take the weight off this single player* and provide for the evident demand.
(* Of course, it's always possible Mobius still enjoys running the group and wishes to continue. Has anyone asked him?)
Don't blame you. It does seem to have been a bit like fighting the hydra.
That said, I believe there should be an Open PVE mode and have voted accordingly. Two points I think should be considered when we're considering the outcome of this vote. Sorry if these have been raised already.
1. One of the main patterns of objection to the idea of Open PVE is "No, there's nothing wrong with Open mode, I like Open mode and if you don't like it, there's always Solo or Mobius."
Consider that this is effectively saying, "I don't want there to be a mode I wouldn't use, and I wouldn't want others using it either even though I'm directing them to other modes that would amount to the same thing in terms of my own game experience."
If you are an Open PVP player, a player in Mobius, Private or Solo - to which modes many of you seem happy to direct people - is a player you won't meet. Similarly, a player in Open PVE is also a player you won't meet. In other words, exactly where that player is playing will make no functional difference to your game: you still won't meet them, and you still can't shoot them. You therefore have no logical reason to object to an Open PVE mode if you believe that "Go Play In Mobius" is a valid comment to make to those who don't like PVP.
2. While considering the tally of votes, also give some weight to the number of people playing in Mobius which according to elitepve.com stands at 19,005. Those are people who have already chosen to play in Open PVE. The only difference is that the mode they're using isn't formally supplied or maintained by FD. But it does indicate a demand for this group, and frankly it's a little questionable that FD are both holding off introducing a formal equivalent and allowing Mobius to continue as it is. They either want this option available or they don't; they're either happy for the option to exist or they aren't. And if they are happy for players to play in Mobius then there really is no good reason for them not to take the weight off this single player* and provide for the evident demand.
(* Of course, it's always possible Mobius still enjoys running the group and wishes to continue. Has anyone asked him?)
Don't blame you. It does seem to have been a bit like fighting the hydra.
I'm a member of Mobius but don't play there, I tried it but I mostly play in Open. So just because it has 19k members does not mean it has 19k active users.
Last edited:
yes, sounds good to me. but if i'm not sure whether support really has that capacity?
things are not so easy. "if the player breaks the modes rules" - i give you some exampels. did you ever took a kill warrant scanner to a CG? if not, do it, and scan CMDR-ships. it is quite impressing how many people have bounties of 100 k + on their head (i assume: powerplay). so, is a bounty hunter only allowed to bounty hunt cmdr's in a system where they are wanted? other exampel: killing by unintentional ramming, happens quite often around smuggling cg's or races, gets you a bounty (and should, because otherwise that would be griefers paradise...) - i think, that moebius group does work because there is a very active person weighing facts. a algorythm would produce false-positives, or people gaming the rules, not the "intention". this is why i was referring to an "auto-kick" for groups. you set up those rules as an group owner. if it happens, player gets into a new instance (we know that glitches anyway... ships disapperaing at all). now, if it was a "false positive", the owner can simply re-allow the player to come back in.
Its not really about advertizing anything, just an info to let palyers know about the Group. Currently no PvE group is a visible option in Game unless you have joined it already, for which you need external sources to find them. Could maybe also be done by making every player by default a member of the Group, so anybody who clicks on the group option sees it.Do not forget to "advertize" this mode on even terms with open and solo in main menue and i am in the same boat with you
Not sure, alltough they should have more capacity then a sinlge player doing it all on his own. Guess it depends on how many people they would need to kick and how much there would be to manage, which I can't judge all that well. Mobious might be able to give a better guess here.
From the publicly available information on Steam, Eurotruck Simulator 2 seems to have more active players than ED. And the difference gets even larger if you add the American Truck Simulator players. I believe this shows that there is a demand for that kind of gameplay.
Besides, PvE isn't about eliminating all risk. It's about eliminating unwanted player interference. NPCs wouldn't be affected — and, in fact, many of the players that want a PvE mode do welcome NPC attacks.
Actually, there are unofficial PvE servers for DayZ. The managers of those servers achieve that, despite the game not having an official PvE mode, by kicking and banning anyone that attacks another player, just like with the Mobius group.
Many, if not most, of the famous survival games out there do have PvE servers. The option is often supported by the devs even. And, if they don't have the option, players will nevertheless figure a way to create PvE servers. PvE-only survival might not be as talked about as the PvP version, but it does exist and is the preference of a lot of players.
And that is worse than people being able to just switch off all player encounters at will whenever they have something to lose — as they are currently able to do by switching to Solo — why, exactly?
Me too. Games that make sense as PvE or Solo ones and give players a choice, like ED does, typically have most of them choosing Solo or PvE. I wouldn't be surprised if Open only has a minority of players in ED.
Which is wrong. That is basically saying that a PvE player can only do the "good" professions, even if he only targets NPCs. Players are allowed to be pirates even if they don't target other players, you know.
Nope. I want the hardest NPC encounters that the game can throw at me, while having absolutely no PvP. I like a challenge, I just don't want that to be provided by players.
(Well, apart from PvP-only modes, where there is no PvE activity. Like CQC. When the PvP is instanced, there is a matchmaking attempting to balance things, there is no loss on death, and the game doesn't try to "shake things up" by tainting the PvP with PvE tasks, I actually love PvP.)
The point is that a lot of PvPers complain about that kind of logging too. The player that, just as he is interdicted, goes to the menu and logs out, to then log back in Solo or in a Group, does nothing wrong according to the game rules, but that doesn't prevent PvPers from complaining loudly about it.
If I'm not guaranteed by the game that you won't attack me, then unless you are a real life friend (AKA someone that will have steeper consequences from betraying my trust) I'm not going to bother talking or cooperating with you. If the game allows you to metaphorically knife me in the back, then I'm not going to partake with you in any activity that would require me to trust you. (And note that I'm using the royal "you" here, not specifically targeting anyone in specific.)
Part of the reason I don't bother playing in the current Open, and likely never will. With no guarantee that others won't try to ruin the game for me, I don't get to experience any social contact in it.
I suppose it's possible you've missed the various threadnaughts complaining about the carebears and cowards ( people they were trying to shoot ) running to the safety of private group and solo modes?
I'm a PVE type that couldn't care less what anybody does in open, as I think I've already said.
Last edited:
I see, that could still be a way to manage it anwya, they get autokicked back to the current open mode and frontier support look into the 'events' that unfolded through perhaps talking with each party as well as checking any telemetry / log information from both clients and the game server etc... so ultimately a person still looks over the incident but initially the 'instigator' is removed from the situation back into the current open mode...
the thing is, it would depend on the mode rules that were set out as to what behaviour would generate and auokick etc. that is something that would need to be looked at how to mange and set and enforce rules for it etc
Yup. It is likely that giving customers a clear indication of what their options are will result in them choosing the option they prefer. Now explain to me why FD should not give customers what they want? They are here to sell games, rather than to provide an arena solely for the preferred gamestyle of a subset of their customers - a subset who apparently seem to think that you can oblige other people to play games against their will.
That is okay-ish. It is officially supported and therefore a valid way of playing. You choose to trade community for safety or vice versa of you play in open.
However, providing the rose without its thorns would make the rose worthless and so uninteresting. Providing an open PvE mode would make it Elite: Safe.
Also a question to all players here: What is the defference in the behavior of NPCs and players? Both attack players randomly with the intention to destroy.
IMO the only difference is that players are successful while NPCw can be avoided by boosting in a straight line.
I voted no:
All modes use the same rules at the moment which even allow for a private group to operate at some gentlemens' agreement not to shoot each other - and I'm happy that this possible.
But the main problem with Open PvE is the change in the basic ruleset required. This not only destroys consistency but also needs a lot of brainpower to be put to work to avoid any arising exploits or general problems. Brainpower I'd rather see dedicated to tackle the current problems and projects including the crime overhaul.
All modes use the same rules at the moment which even allow for a private group to operate at some gentlemens' agreement not to shoot each other - and I'm happy that this possible.
But the main problem with Open PvE is the change in the basic ruleset required. This not only destroys consistency but also needs a lot of brainpower to be put to work to avoid any arising exploits or general problems. Brainpower I'd rather see dedicated to tackle the current problems and projects including the crime overhaul.
Yes! The pressure should not be on some poor player (like Mobius - whether he likes doing it or not ofc.).
More to the point, what harm would it do? There is already group and solo, so it's not like it's taking anything away from Open?
Or, ofc. you could add a pvp on/off switch to open to save time and effort!
More to the point, what harm would it do? There is already group and solo, so it's not like it's taking anything away from Open?
Or, ofc. you could add a pvp on/off switch to open to save time and effort!
I think there should be;
Open PvP
Open PvE - PvP (player vs Environment affecting other players)
Open PvE (player vs Environment not affecting other players)
Group PvP
Group PvE - PvP (player vs Environment affecting other players)
Group PvE (player vs Environment not affecting other players)
Solo PvE - PvP (solo player vs Environment affecting other players)
Solo PvE (player vs Environment not affecting other players)
Its what is needed to fragment the player base even more.
Open PvP
Open PvE - PvP (player vs Environment affecting other players)
Open PvE (player vs Environment not affecting other players)
Group PvP
Group PvE - PvP (player vs Environment affecting other players)
Group PvE (player vs Environment not affecting other players)
Solo PvE - PvP (solo player vs Environment affecting other players)
Solo PvE (player vs Environment not affecting other players)
Its what is needed to fragment the player base even more.
If you think that, why bother to play in Open at all? You can attack random NPCs all day and all night, and nobody is going to call it 'griefing'...
i've had more destruction of my ships from NPC's than I have from PC's ... and that is without including me faceplanting into a wall a couple of times while flying under the influence and other 'self inflicted' destructions etc... And on that note NPC's can be and no doubt will be improved if SJA has her way
so I would argue the rose and the thorns are there for all modes really...The reasoning behind my suggestion is to give players from various PVE private groups, from solo mode and new players coming to the game that prefer a PVE playstyle a clear choice on the login screen