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

[Koren]

The way it is now feels like a compromise between two undesirable extremes, one where Open is the only mode, and one where only group and solo play is allowed in order to protect players from griefing.

The current system provides a lot of freedom, but the drawback is that this freedom opens up loopholes, like undermining in Solo, combat logging and mode switching to avoid death, and using non-Open modes to trade/rare/CG in relative safety compared to players in Open.

If I were Braben, I would have split Open and Solo/Group into separate saves and called it a day. Open players share one universe, and all Solo/Group players share another.

Then, give group creators a group-level flag that is set at creation time and can never be changed that turns PVP on or off in the group.

 

[Loetmichel]

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.

The differnece is that NPCS are RNG and not responsible for anything Getting killed by an overpowered NPC is just bad luck.

Players are doing ot for THEIR fun, destroing other players for WHATEVER reason is a move that shows intention to be the bad guy (player bounty hunting doesent work at all so thats no excuse either).
And some players dont want others to have fun on their expense with nothing to gain from that.

 

[Mercy Killing]

I do think there should have been an "Open PvE" mode from the start and not a "solo" and "group" option. I would happily accept the removal of both those modes and replace them with said "Open PvE" mode and just leave plain old Open the way it is.

 

[Deadspin]

Doth mine eyes deceive me?

Is the "No" vote actually winning for once?

 

[Lateralus]

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?

If players switch to Solo they have to sacrifice community interaction - that is the trade off. Open PvE advocates want all the perks of open without the riskier aspects of it. This would reduce the overall appeal of open to non-combat players thus reducing the amount of potential emergent gameplay in open. So on that basis I will never support an Open PvE mode.

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.

Because it's not what their other customers want (as indicated by the poll as a snapshot) as it would affect open participation numbers, making that mode less appealing.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything against your will. FD provide you with options which you can either take or leave.. Those options are Solo, Private Group, Open or CQC.

Changing it now will just cause a big uproar - keeping things how they are is safer for Frontier.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

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'...

Because it is boring. It is quite easy to destroy Elite Anacondas in a Viper MK III. If NPCs would be somewhat challenging other than spawning 10 at once.
See I would even consider playing solo but as it stands now NPCs are nothing more than floating credits. Lifeless packages of credits.

 

[Billy Herrington]

People getting butchered in Open is the symptom of a bigger problem, which is that it is simply too easy to murderize people and get away with it. If you want a PvE option, you're putting a bandaid solution on the issue that will do nothing but make Open even more horribly empty than it already is, while adding absolutely nothing.

Buff up system sec in hi-sec, give incentives to go out to into lo-sec through better trade routes and harder pirate challenges. Eravate and the neighboring systems should be a neutral tutorial zone outside of PP (who's idea was it to put Eravate under Hudson?) with SysAuth that should wreck your bum within seconds of interdicting someone.

Please let's try to make the game a little more meaningful instead of "I got killed, frontier pls get rid of dis bully"

 

[Pluvialis]

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.

Indeed. But it does mean that 19,000 people have shown an interest. I believe this number should be considered when weighing the outcome of this vote. I'm not saying it represents 19,000 Yes votes.

 

[Mohrgan]

What does it tell you when an obvious option, PvE Open, is denied because it would make another option less popular? To me it sounds like exactly what the players want. Don't get all excited about a poll on the forums here. Any push to advocate that any poll is the will of the players you will get reminded, and real quick, how unreliable and useless any vote on any in any of the threads here.

When it all comes down to it, those that won;t support an PvE Open are those that want to fill up open with targets. They fear a place where we can get the Co-Op play we are looking for without the predation they are looking for.

 

[Pluvialis]

Doth mine eyes deceive me?

Is the "No" vote actually winning for once?

I'd be very surprised if it didn't, given the volume of the people who want not only not to play in Open PVE mode, but also to prevent others from doing so.

 

[goemon]

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.

well, i wouldn't mind, if you could not differentiate between players and npc (as long they don't chat). if obvious things like the hollow blink or the CMDR name would go... that would add up to my experience.

 

[excalibus]

If players switch to Solo they have to sacrifice community interaction - that is the trade off. Open PvE advocates want all the perks of open without the riskier aspects of it. This would reduce the overall appeal of open to non-combat players thus reducing the amount of potential emergent gameplay in open. So on that basis I will never support an Open PvE mode.

And if they go to group they sacrifice nothing correct? they get the player interaction and so there is no trade off is there...

Seriously the only 'perk' to open from my own experience is interacting with other commanders

Some people want that interaction to come with some heightened sense of risk because of meeting unknown new people etc and some don't wish for that sense of 'risk' from other players to be there....

an Open PVE mode would allow for those players that want the interaction without the sense of risk and would predominantly be players that prefer that play style ... aka those who would go to group mode eventually or who would otherwise play solo but would prefer to interact with other players in a non PVP sense...

Because it's not what their other customers want (as indicated by the poll as a snapshot) as it would affect open participation numbers, making that mode less appealing.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything against your will. FD provide you with options which you can either take or leave.. Those options are Solo, Private Group, Open or CQC.

Changing it now will just cause a big uproar - keeping things how they are is safer for Frontier.

The poll is set to run for a month, I am genuinely interested in seeing how many forum users actually would prefer some sort of official PVE mode... snapshots taken 6 hours or so in don't mean a lot at this point in time...

As you say nobody is forcing anyone to play against their will, all this suggesting does is give players a choice of environments that is far more intuitive / obvious than the current setup... I would in no way want them to remove solo as an option nor remove PG as an option because there are validities to using those options as well

How can we say it would cause a big uproar when the reality is, if we take the 'snapshot' you mention, it would appear a similar number want it and a similar number don't want it as a choice on the login screen...

 

[Mohrgan]

People getting butchered in Open is the symptom of a bigger problem, which is that it is simply too easy to murderize people and get away with it. If you want a PvE option, you're putting a bandaid solution on the issue that will do nothing but make Open even more horribly empty than it already is, while adding absolutely nothing.

Buff up system sec in hi-sec, give incentives to go out to into lo-sec through better trade routes and harder pirate challenges. Eravate and the neighboring systems should be a neutral tutorial zone outside of PP (who's idea was it to put Eravate under Hudson?) with SysAuth that should wreck your bum within seconds of interdicting someone.

Please let's try to make the game a little more meaningful instead of "I got killed, frontier pls get rid of dis bully"

Why? Open doesn't require nor deserve special treatment. It shows how hard it is to get enough players of anything interested in open world pvp. Players here would rather play alone in the galaxy, rather than play through a PvP world. There is no way to keep open from becoming the PvP Mode. That is all it is now. Why would it change?

A PvE Open mode would on;y serve to give the, admitted, majority of players what they want. Even those that don;t want a Co-Op Mode say they don;t because then even fewer players would play in open. FD are using the opportunities for player interaction as a hostage to the PvP crowd. FD won;t offer a PvE option for fear of having the PvP'ers get mad and leave. I have sympathy for them. The best thing they can do about the modes is nothing. Leave it the way it is and no one can point to favoritism, except for the hostage situation.

Vote with your feet. No polls here will or can do more than our actions. Boycott open until there is a viable PvE option offered. Leave the wild west to the cowboys.

 

[AJW]

The thing is that FD don't need to look at polls to make such decisions - they have ample data on who plays where. And they have the option of engaging in market research if they want to find out what their customers want. Though it seems that some of the participants in this discussion don't think that giving customers what they want is a good idea...

 

[Loetmichel]

If players switch to Solo they have to sacrifice community interaction - that is the trade off. Open PvE advocates want all the perks of open without the riskier aspects of it. This would reduce the overall appeal of open to non-combat players thus reducing the amount of potential emergent gameplay in open. So on that basis I will never support an Open PvE mode.

So you are basically complaining that you will lose targets that are not combat capable in open. Nice.

Because it's not what their other customers want (as indicated by the poll as a snapshot) as it would affect open participation numbers, making that mode less appealing.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything against your will. FD provide you with options which you can either take or leave.. Those options are Solo, Private Group, Open or CQC.

Changing it now will just cause a big uproar - keeping things how they are is safer for Frontier.

So you are saying: "We have made open a big combat arena and dont play any other aspect of the game. You dont like it? Go play some other game, we have occupied this and will bend it to our whishes".

Sorry to say that: Will not happen. EVER.

 

[Billy Herrington]

What does it tell you when an obvious option, PvE Open, is denied because it would make another option less popular? To me it sounds like exactly what the players want. Don't get all excited about a poll on the forums here. Any push to advocate that any poll is the will of the players you will get reminded, and real quick, how unreliable and useless any vote on any in any of the threads here.

When it all comes down to it, those that won;t support an PvE Open are those that want to fill up open with targets. They fear a place where we can get the Co-Op play we are looking for without the predation they are looking for.

You sure are making a lot of assumptions there.

Maybe it's because I payed for a multiplayer game, and I don't want that multiplayer game to be even more fractured than it already is, before even dealing with godawful instancing issues. Maybe it's because I'm sick of shooting at spinning NPCs and trying to hopelessly flip PowerPlay systems when there are people working against me and my group that I can't even see. Maybe it's because I actually joined a group to patrol areas like Eravate and high density hubs to deal with pirates and gankers, and you want to take it away because god forbid someone stops you from your 50th run on that trade route or throws a wrench into HazRes grinding. You want a game you can't lose, and you can have that in solo or group.

 

[Mohrgan]

You sure are making a lot of assumptions there.

Maybe it's because I payed for a multiplayer game, and I don't want that multiplayer game to be even more fractured than it already is, before even dealing with godawful instancing issues. Maybe it's because I'm sick of shooting at spinning NPCs and trying to hopelessly flip PowerPlay systems when there are people working against me and my group that I can't even see. Maybe it's because I actually joined a group to patrol areas like Eravate and high density hubs to deal with pirates and gankers, and you want to take it away because god forbid someone stops you from your 50th run on that trade route or throws a wrench into HazRes grinding. You want a game you can't lose, and you can have that in solo or group.

Adding a Co-Op option takes nothing away from open. I say leave open just as it is. Trying to make PvP relevant in a game with only PvE mechanics is a lost cause. The fractured PvE community could actually coalesce around one Mode rather than being splintered into PG's. How many of those players, those playing in solo or group, do you expect to return to open as things stand? Saying no to a Co-Op mode only serves to keep the community splintered.

FD are holding player interaction hostage, for the benefit of PvP. Emergent does not mean PvP. It means players using the game mechanics is unexpected ways. The gist if it is 'If you want to meet others, you have allow them to shoot you in the face. No face, no players". If this were to change, the PvP'ers would cry foul, and claim FD has abandoned them, when they just plain omitted the PvE'ers from the start.

Vote with your feet. Boycott open, until there is a viable Co-Op mode offered.

 

[Commander Debic]

I personally have wanted an open PVE mode since the game began. Many of us spoke on the original forums in KS days that open mode without control would deteriorate into what open has become these days. But there would be PVP cooperation, and PVP combat would be rare and meaningful, and constant player killing without good reason would be treated harshly, with big fines, fast NPC police responses, and ultimately a naughty persons dark group that bad players would be dropped into for a cooling off period. Yep that happened did it not, I don't think.

But what FD could do is instigate another talked of but long forgotten discussion. Allow players to have more than one Commander. That way a player could have a Trader, Smuggler, BH , Missioner, Explorer, Miner etc in a PVE open, that group would always be immune to other commanders fire. While your second Commander would be a PVP choice for those who wished to take that course, following all of the above interests with the added risk of PVP thrown in.

This system would be following the same as many other games do with servers providing the appropriate all PVP or PVE choice. This would obviate the need for an open PVE group occupying the same territory at the same time as the open PVP group.

Of course it may mean that the PVP group would have no lambs to slaughter for their fun but that's not a bad idea.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Just something I'd like to point out here. There are some of us here, albeit a very small minority, who really wouldn't stand a chance in a PvP dogfight.

This is because of medical factors. I myself suffer much slower reactions than normal because I'm on a heavy dose of anti-psychotic drugs prescribed by the NHS. I'm sure there are others here who refrain from any form of PvP for similar reasons. Do you really think I fancy my chances in the fast-paced situation that is a PvP dogfight, when I'm gimped by a drug that I have to take as per the NHS's orders, that if I don't take I risk being sectioned? Of course I don't. Why then, should I play in open and be expected to serve as cannon-fodder for some lucky & healthy whipper-snapper with lightning-fast reflexes and the eyes of a hawk?

Sorry, I'll stick to Mobius thank you very much. There are people in my situation, and we would be grateful for FD to recognize that some of us players LITERALLY can't compete in PvP, by implementing an OFFICIAL mode for social PvE. Again, I really appreciate the work Mobius does, but wouldn't it be so nice for FD to lift the burden of his shoulders? He deserves that at least, for what he's done for the community.

 

[Fryrish]

well, i wouldn't mind, if you could not differentiate between players and npc (as long they don't chat). if obvious things like the hollow blink or the CMDR name would go... that would add up to my experience.

Yeah, I'd love that! I mentioned in one of the other threads on this, that I'd like to have some ship transponder options, where we could set if we're identified as a CMDR. Maybe even let us change the name that's broadcast, but with that part being illegal, and resulting in fines, if scanned by police.