Those NPCs put up a much better fight then I could
Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen
- Thread starter excalibus
- Start date
No, I said what I said... you're trying to twist it into the tired old "You want numbers in open, you must be a griefer" argument... yawn..
Happened only once for me since alpha, and it was during the alpha.
And what about the third kind ?
The single gamers? We have to make do with Solo.And what about the third kind ?
It shouldn't be about "PVPers" and "PVErs". Open should be the defacto game mode with everyone just playing the game and "blazing their own trail in a cutthroat galaxy" taking what comes, rolling with the punches and maybe throwing a few of their own here and there. PVE will be part of it and so will PVP.
Great, there's two games I can think of then that immediately lend themselves to that sort of gameplay; Euro Truck Simulator and American Truck Simulator. Have at it.
I don't get it. It's ok for NPCs to attack/interfere but not other players. ...Right.
Let's put it this way; when people write articles about Dayz or post videos of their encounters to show off what they like about the game how many times is it along the lines of "here we are on a pve server, killing some zombie npcs and scavenging for beans" and how many times is it some sort of tense standoff with other players? I'm pretty sure it generally would be the latter.
Such a victim
Darkwalker said:
Great, there's two games I can think of then that immediately lend themselves to that sort of gameplay; Euro Truck Simulator and American Truck Simulator. Have at it.
I don't get it. It's ok for NPCs to attack/interfere but not other players. ...Right.
Let's put it this way; when people write articles about Dayz or post videos of their encounters to show off what they like about the game how many times is it along the lines of "here we are on a pve server, killing some zombie npcs and scavenging for beans" and how many times is it some sort of tense standoff with other players? I'm pretty sure it generally would be the latter.
Loetmichel said:
Such a victim
IGN said:
20,000 out of 1.4 million
1.42%
Numbers would probably be different if we could get FDev to give a statistic on just how many of those accounts were active in, say, the last 2 months but the point is there. Mobius makes up less than 2% of the existing user group based off of accounts sold.
I will repeat the counter question I used in another thread: what is the difference between you accidentally dropping a hammer on your own toe and having your toe intentionally hammered by another person? Isn't the end result the same?
Even if you aren't directly a griefer, you are basically arguing for forcing players that want a bit of social interaction into confrontational situations they never wanted and that could ruin the experience for them. Sincerely, I don't see much difference, and seeing players use argument such as yours against implementing an Open PvE mode only make me more certain that such a mode should exist.
Forums not only represent just a small part of the player base (apparently less than 10% in ED's case), they are typically heavily skewed towards the PvP end of the player spectrum. If you want a pool that has even a slight chance of representing what the player base actually wants, it would need to be asked outside the forums, preferably on the game launcher itself.
A long time ago Star Citizen did something of the kind. Back then forum pools were typically showing more PvP than PvE players, and then CIG did an official pool about it on their front page; end result, about three quarters of the players that answered that pool were more interested in PvE than in PvP, despite forum pools showing the opposite.
That would be the fourth (or the first/second/third, I'm not trying to create a classification), I was talking of the kind of player that just want to play MP without distinction.
I don't wan't every player I meet in game to attack me because they'll think that "open" means "PvP only" if there is a "PvE only" group, but I still want Elite to be at least potentially a bit dangerous...
My answer would be yes. The result is the same wheather it is by accident or intentionally.
But there is a catch: how many of those players were even aware that the Mobius group exists? Less than 10% of ED's players are in the forums. When you consider that only a small percentage of players is even aware that Mobius exists, and that joining Mobius requires asking another player for authorization (which can prevent many of the most shy players from ever doing it), the size of the Mobius group is surprisingly huge.
Plus, you need to take into account that the XBox players aren't able to join the Mobius group at all.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
And, for me, they are intrinsically different.
Just like, for me, fighting a NPC and fighting a player have nothing in common, even if everything else — including the difficulty — is the same. What's more, fighting a player when I explicitly consented to fight is completely different from non-consensual PvP for me. Fighting NPCs, or fighting players when everyone has explicitly agreed to fight, is enjoyable; fighting players in non-consensual PvP is a purely bad experience, with no redeeming quality whatsoever, and something I will not accept anymore in any game I play.
Sure. They also would be different if Mobius would not be hidden from anyone that doesent frequent the forums or reddit.
50,000 players is less than 4%.
100,000 is 7.4%
200,000 is 14.2%
There is no catch. The PvE only crowd is a minority percentage. Like I said though, we could really reign in the image clarity of that thought if Frontier were to release a figure that showed how many of those 1.4 million accounts were actually active accounts in the last 2-3 months. Then we'd have to figure out a way to distinguish alt accounts to really get close to an exact figure to represent the PvE / Everyone else statistic. It would also be nice to split the figures between PC/Mac and Xbox to see just how big the console crowd really is.
Either way. Original point stands. Even if we quadruple the current Mobius membership, that crowd is still a vast minority, no matter how vocal they become here on the forums. That is why Frontier hasn't implemented a PvE Open mode. It's not needed. 95% of the player base (Give or take) is content to play the game the way it is, apparently.
100,000 is 7.4%
200,000 is 14.2%
There is no catch. The PvE only crowd is a minority percentage. Like I said though, we could really reign in the image clarity of that thought if Frontier were to release a figure that showed how many of those 1.4 million accounts were actually active accounts in the last 2-3 months. Then we'd have to figure out a way to distinguish alt accounts to really get close to an exact figure to represent the PvE / Everyone else statistic. It would also be nice to split the figures between PC/Mac and Xbox to see just how big the console crowd really is.
Either way. Original point stands. Even if we quadruple the current Mobius membership, that crowd is still a vast minority, no matter how vocal they become here on the forums. That is why Frontier hasn't implemented a PvE Open mode. It's not needed. 95% of the player base (Give or take) is content to play the game the way it is, apparently.
If it's such a minority why is there so much fear where 2% of the games population goes? It won't have any impact in the open numbers at all
Since I never hear complaints about too many players in an instance, I can only assume that the large percentage of that 1 million number are not in open but are in groups and solo.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The fact that Sandro has dropped into the "Yes PvP is unfair" thread with tentative proposals for increased consequences for PKing might suggest that Frontier have looked at the relative populations of the three modes and are concerned enough about what they saw to propose changes that would seem to be designed to encourage players into Open.
Last edited:
I'd be very surprised if Open PvE isn't already in development. But all the existing modes are based on the same ruleset, with the only variable being the number of players. Open PvE will require significant rethinking and retooling of the ruleset to account for the myriad ways in which players can negatively impact other players without firing a single shot. I wouldn't expect any official confirmation that it's being worked before the 2017 season, and certainly no roll-out before Q3 of that year. But I'd be pleased to have those projections shattered by an earlier announcement, perhaps by the Q4 2016 surprise they've alluded to.
This I like and/or an anarchy system should have high risk but high profit for missions say 20-30 mil per mission but you have the high risk of getting pvp/pve and if you lose to another cmdr they collect your mission and profit..
(#1) The fear of where players go as transcribed here on the forums:
The forums hosts a very limited number of actual players when the amount of existing accounts is taken into account. I know there's probably a technical term for it but we on the forum assume the vocal majority that supports either side of the argument is much larger than it actually is because it's condensed into the 200 or so players that regularly contribute to the various discussion threads.
(#2) Complaints about too many players in an instance:
That is not how P2P instancing works. Not at all. You will never hear a legit complaint about "too many" because it won't happen with the current way instancing is built. Though Paladin Consortium complained to Diamond Frog leadership that the we were over-saturating their instances and they wanted us to back off because of such. This was last night, by the way. Of course, this only goes to show that the person who did the complaining doesn't understand how the instancing works.
If you have any understanding of instancing, turn on verbose logging and then go fly around some other players. Once you've done that, read through the log and watch the pairing mechanics at work and you'll understand.
Sandro was handed a document early on that, from my understanding, would have offered up quite a few fixes for the current crime and punishment system and yet nothing from it was implemented. I take what he says with a grain of salt. At the same time, upping the punishment for PKing is not going to deter any of the more aggressive members of the PvP crowd. They play this game to pvp whether their target is a willing participant or not.
Just look at station sniping. A speed limit was instituted and within a day of it being pushed into the game the work around to troll and kill people hiding behind station defenses was found and, to this day, continues to be exploited when the need is there. If anything, they made it easier to kill players in a station.