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

[excalibus]

I voted no.

Keep the options that exist at the moment, but make Open more meaningful, appealing and of consequence by:
- improving the crime and punishment mechanics (various options discussed elsewhere) so that any playstyle, including piracy and killing clean players, is possible but doesn't essentially mean nothing as it does now
- Making it so that BGS / Powerplay / CG actions only count in Open

I realise the second point is going to be (very) unpopular, but ... it can only happen if the first point is addressed fully and properly first so that people are willing to play in Open knowing that, yes they still can be killed by others, it is a Dangerous universe after all, but that the perpetrator has had to properly consider the consequences of their actions and will be treated as a criminal.

(In my opinion) it just feels wrong to be able to affect the universe, and hence how everyone else sees it, while hiding in a closed group or Solo

what hiding do you mean? People either play Solo, Open or Private Group, there is no hiding involved... If on the other hand that was intended as some derogatory remark at people who play any mode other than open then I think you are totally on the wrong page as to what the different play modes are for and why each play mode still affects the universe as a whole...

 

[Suohhen]

Game Disclaimer: "No PVP players were harmed in the making of this mode".

 

[Gedemon]

The following proposal relies on removal from Open-PvE (whether temporary or permanent) and a "points system" on the player's Pilot's Licence. Once a points threshold is reached, player is moved to Open at the next instance change / destruction, i.e. removed from Open-PvE.

1) When a player attempts to interdict another player - "FSD-Interdictor Failure" and player drops to normal space in Open, i.e. removed from Open-PvE.
2) Player destroys another player - damage / rebuy / cargo / etc. refunded to target with no loss of missions, etc. - player is moved to Open at the next instance change / destruction, i.e. removed from Open-PvE.
3) Player attacks another player - points are added to the attacker's Pilot's Licence.
4) Players collide - points are added to the Pilots' Licence for each player.

The duration of any exclusion and the number of points gained before exclusion would require to be defined. If players, by their actions, show that they cannot be trusted to abide by the PvE nature of Open-PvE then their exclusion from that game mode would ultimately become permanent.

Other proposals are available, of course.

IMO the development time for those rules would be better used to balance the actual open mode (real penalty for crimes, penalize only the fastest ship in a collision at >100m/s, etc...) instead of adding even more gamey mechanisms to a game that was supposed to be immersive.

And if FD agrees to spend this development time on an "open PvE mode", then to be fair there should be an "open PvP mode" with it's own rules (like exclusion when combat logging for example) and an "open free mode" for players like me that does not want to be forced on one type of gameplay only.

Then, once they've accepted to report season 3 for a few months to code all that, maybe they could also add an offline mode while they're at it...

 

[Roybe]

IMO the development time for those rules would be better used to balance the actual open mode (real penalty for crimes, penalize only the fastest ship in a collision at >100m/s, etc...) instead of adding even more gamey mechanisms to a game that was supposed to be immersive.

And if FD agrees to spend this development time on an "open PvE mode", then to be fair there should be an "open PvP mode" with it's own rules (like exclusion when combat logging for example) and an "open free mode" for players like me that does not want to be forced on one type of gameplay only.

Then, once they've accepted to report season 3 for a few months to code all that, maybe they could also add an offline mode while they're at it...

None of that offers a PvE player somewhere to go to play with others without PvP being possible.

 

[Gedemon]

None of that offers a PvE player somewhere to go to play with others without PvP being possible.

Moebius is no more a viable option ?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Moebius is no more a viable option ?

sure.... but it is a lot to expect 1 person to do, and what if he moves on? without help from FD mobius dies as no one else can organise the group.

ps what about xboxers?

 

[AJW]

Moebius is no more a viable option ?

Moebius doesn't appear on the menu. It isn't documented anywhere in the game, or the manual. The only way a new player could find out about it is via a forum - and we know that only a minority of players even register.

And why should an individual player be forced to act as unpaid administrator of something that the game itself should be providing?

 

[Marra Morgan]

I voted no.

Keep the options that exist at the moment, but make Open more meaningful, appealing and of consequence by:
- improving the crime and punishment mechanics (various options discussed elsewhere) so that any playstyle, including piracy and killing clean players, is possible but doesn't essentially mean nothing as it does now

Totally with you up to here and I think this is where the devs will go with it.
But then...

- Making it so that BGS / Powerplay / CG actions only count in Open

Never going to work; way too easy to exploit. The devs know this and it's probably a good reason as to why they keep all the play modes equal.

 

[Gedemon]

Moebius doesn't appear on the menu. It isn't documented anywhere in the game, or the manual. The only way a new player could find out about it is via a forum - and we know that only a minority of players even register.

And why should an individual player be forced to act as unpaid administrator of something that the game itself should be providing?

Well I disagree on the last part, this is not something that the game should provide, it's an option some would like to see, but was never a selling point, like offline was.

On the contrary, I've backed the game because it was proposing something else than all other MMO that I've never been interested in with their separate PvP/PvE/PvP after levelling/etc instances.

So if they actually create a PvE mode (I don't think they should, but it's your right to ask, their to listen and act, I've no problem with that) with specific rules for PvE, I want to be sure that there will also be a PvP mode with rules for PvP to attract PvP only players AND still an open mode to preserve the spirit game I've backed because I'm also afraid that if they work on a open PvE then they will stop work on the crime system for the normal open and all PvP player will (even more than know) assume that if I am in open I want PvP only...

 

[Deadspin]

If they did though they should change log ogg timer in open to 1 min and start handing out proper punishments for combat logging. They should do this anyway tbh.

I saw this a few pages back and decided it needed to be commented on:

Even with the current 15 second timer a player ship stops taking damage when they log off. There are numerous vidoes out there right now of people combat logging while their ships are under fire yet they do not take any more damage once the player has logged out. Pushing it to 1 minute wouldn't accomplish anything with the way it's currently implemented. Right now the system is great for grabbing some footage and names to post on youtube, nothing more.

The following proposal relies on removal from Open-PvE (whether temporary or permanent) and a "points system" on the player's Pilot's Licence. Once a points threshold is reached, player is moved to Open at the next instance change / destruction, i.e. removed from Open-PvE.

1) When a player attempts to interdict another player - "FSD-Interdictor Failure" and player drops to normal space in Open, i.e. removed from Open-PvE.
2) Player destroys another player - damage / rebuy / cargo / etc. refunded to target with no loss of missions, etc. - player is moved to Open at the next instance change / destruction, i.e. removed from Open-PvE.
3) Player attacks another player - points are added to the attacker's Pilot's Licence.
4) Players collide - points are added to the Pilots' Licence for each player.

The duration of any exclusion and the number of points gained before exclusion would require to be defined. If players, by their actions, show that they cannot be trusted to abide by the PvE nature of Open-PvE then their exclusion from that game mode would ultimately become permanent.

Other proposals are available, of course.

This is great and all but your destruction flag alone negates it. If destruction instantly rates a banishment from open pve mode in your world then all I have to do is scrape a sidewinder along a station wall for a few seconds and then settle in next to the gate and I'll be able to push half of the approaching players (Who are no doubt speeding *wink*) right out of open PvE and into regular open.

There doesn't need to be an open pve mode. I'll go back to my comment from a few pages back now that I've thought about it a bit more and say that, on top of administrative controls, Frontier needs to add a pvp flag type option to private group administrator control panels that will keep players from destroying other players. Whether this is through ramming, gunplay or some other behavior, the flag will prevent a player ship from being reduced to zero hull or zero module health by another player. Lets negate hull and weapon damage right there.

This still allows piracy because at that point a pirating player can still shoot down the HP on a cargo hatch to force the other player to dump cargo but cannot kill the other player. Now traders are only losing cargo instead of their ship as well.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well I disagree on the last part, this is not something that the game should provide, it's an option some would like to see, but was never a selling point, like offline was.

The ability to play in an Open "group" with different rules *was* included in the sales pitch for the game:

FAQ- Elite: Dangerous​

How does multiplayer work?

You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.
​

How do we plan to address PvP (player vs player) “griefing”?

An obvious danger is an advanced player with a big well-armed ship in a busy system spends their time just picking off beginners, for fun.

To understand how this will be stopped requires a little bit of understanding how real player ships will be treated slightly differently to non-player ships. Players will automatically be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” and will be identified as such, together with their ranking and name. Bounties are paid by this Federation – something that is therefore much higher for those that kill other Federation members. It will be balanced so that this cannot be used as an exploit (so a beginner killing a beginner is taken less seriously than an Elite pilot killing a beginner – it will be based on the ranking difference).

There are four separate ways we will address this:

1. The offender will very quickly get a serious price on their head (bounty) and criminal record. That price on their head will attract bounty hunters.

2. Local police or military will respond very quickly and strongly to them.

3. It will be legitimate for other players to attack them for the attractive bounty without attracting a bounty for themselves, as once there is a bounty on their head they are officially a pirate and ‘free game’ for everyone.

4. If enough players complain about the offender's behaviour in a certain time, then they will be banned from this group​

.... as were more meaningful punishments for PKing that have not been implemented.

 

[Lateralus]

It is one approach and is consistent with Frontier's apparent desire for players to share Open. Whether it is the correct approach remains to be seem. Frontier have access to all of the play statistics and know which players play in which ways and in which mode - they already know the relative populations of the game modes and what players are doing in them.

Keeping Open populated would seem to be important, from the perspective of not acknowledging that the idea that either the rule-set or the population would regulate Open was optimistic (to say the least), yes. If neither of these works (and they haven't so far), it might be time for a different approach.

I agree that so far the way in which open is managed (from a security perspective) is poor and needs to change. System security ratings don't protect non-combat players as they should do. But there is an opportunity to create a better experience in open for all here, with a few significant changes to the mechanics:

Spoiler

• Increase bounties 10x for murders of clean players (except for self-defense where it should stay as it is)
• Make the security response quicker at reacting to crimes in high-security systems
• In high-security systems, security NPCs should fly strong ships and always be in wings of 3 upwards
• Allow players to officially assume the role of security officer when they are friendly or allied to a minor faction (only one minor faction at a time)
• Security players should be given a crime report feed in their jurisdiction; if someone is attacked they can react to it quickly (bounty hunters would end up following security players for leads which would make the security response twice as effective)
• Catching criminals (pirates, murderers or smugglers) when playing as security, players should get paid 'security bonds' with the amount dependent on the profile of the criminal (ranks, bounty etc).

These improvements would make places like Eravate and Eranin far safer for newbies, traders, miners and explorers while keeping them in open at the same time. To me that is a much better option than luring all the non-combat players into a separate mode where there is only danger from NPCs.

I realise this suggestion will probably be dismissed with "you're trying to force us into your game against our will" type comments, but hey-ho.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The ability to play in an Open "group" with different rules *was* included in the sales pitch for the game

FD obviously realised it would be a bad move as it would polarize player types into separate game modes.

 

[eza]

I voted no. An open PvE mode isn't compatible with FD's vision.

Personally I'm not a fan of pushing the rebuy cost onto the criminal. Not that it's a bad idea. It makes sense in many ways, but for me, trivialises ship destruction, which is part of the intended risk of flying a ship in Elite: Dangerous. It also further stretches the difference between AI and players (which as a general principle I'd like to minimize), unless we had free re-buys from AI murders.

Open PvE is at odds with the developers' view of the game.
It further trivialises ship destruction and further stretches the difference between AI and players.

 

[Commander Debic]

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.



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 what is this perks of open you refer to. Open was never meant as a PVP only environment. Go check the early ideas quoted by DB and the Devs. It is along the lines of , and I am paraphrasing here as I don't recall the exact statements from that murky past.

"We expect ED to be more of a player with player cooperative game with strong incentives for the game to be played in that manner. Although you may come across player killers it should only ever be rare and meaningful within the context of the game. Those who abuse this will suffer strong punishments, like stiff fines, fast responses from security services and continual player killing would result in the player concerned being placed in a dark group with like minded players."

Needless to say this never happened and Open play was pretty much hijacked by the ganker croud. I don't mean ganker as an insult, but used to describe the type of player who believes they have the god given right to slaughter any player they come across regardless of whether consent to the PVP action is granted. In other words, to me a ganker is the player who will want to make me his/her victim to get their game Jollies.

So because this type of player plays in open, unless of course they need to earn money trading to pay for their next murderous onslaught, They seem to think that all perks should only be granted to them exclusively.
Oh and as for you quoting the poll to back up your faulty argument you should recheck it as it has gone the other way now. You can never trust forum polls and quoting them to reinforce ideas is a foolish pastime.

 

[excalibus]

I agree that so far the way in which open is managed (from a security perspective) is poor and needs to change. System security ratings don't protect non-combat players as they should do. But there is an opportunity to create a better experience in open for all here, with a few significant changes to the mechanics:

Spoiler

• Increase bounties 10x for murders of clean players (except for self-defense where it should stay as it is)
• Make the security response quicker at reacting to crimes in high-security systems
• In high-security systems, security NPCs should fly strong ships and always be in wings of 3 upwards
• Allow players to officially assume the role of security officer when they are friendly or allied to a minor faction (only one minor faction at a time)
• Security players should be given a crime report feed in their jurisdiction; if someone is attacked they can react to it quickly (bounty hunters would end up following security players for leads which would make the security response twice as effective)
• Catching criminals (pirates, murderers or smugglers) when playing as security, players should get paid 'security bonds' with the amount dependent on the profile of the criminal (ranks, bounty etc).

These improvements would make places like Eravate and Eranin far safer for newbies, traders, miners and explorers while keeping them in open at the same time. To me that is a much better option than luring all the non-combat players into a separate mode where there is only danger from NPCs.

I realise this suggestion will probably be dismissed with "you're trying to force us into your game against our will" type comments, but hey-ho.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



FD obviously realised it would be a bad move as it would polarize player types into separate game modes.

interesting proposal man... really it is...

no buts

It still does not negate the idea of my OP as far as having a choice on the login screen for a PVE only mode for people to choose from does it though?

Because there are people who (as has been posted here in this thread previously) play either solo or private group for reasons that they do not want the possibility of PVP at all for various and quite understandable reasons and no I am not talking about 'just cos' reasons I am talking about considered and reasonable reasons... and the proposed idea of allowing a mode for people like that, that is not reliant on a player to administrate, which if you are honest, it is not an ideal situation for any professional software company to have for a large number of their player base in. Yes 19K might be a minority when compared to the total licences, but its still a very significant number of players in and of itself and I would hesitate to guess how many other smaller private groups there are that play PVE because they don't have any other choice at this time...



And just so you know, I want open (in fact all game modes) to have a much more in depth and granular crime and punishment system, seriously it is needed not only for open, but for the whole game...

 

[Commander Debic]

I agree that so far the way in which open is managed (from a security perspective) is poor and needs to change. System security ratings don't protect non-combat players as they should do. But there is an opportunity to create a better experience in open for all here, with a few significant changes to the mechanics:


These improvements would make places like Eravate and Eranin far safer for newbies, traders, miners and explorers while keeping them in open at the same time. To me that is a much better option than luring all the non-combat players into a separate mode where there is only danger from NPCs.

I realise this suggestion will probably be dismissed with "you're trying to force us into your game against our will" type comments, but hey-ho.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



FD obviously realised it would be a bad move as it would polarize player types into separate game modes.

And that never happened did it?...oh yeah my mistake of course it did.

Perhaps I should make it clear why I am so against open play non-consensual PVP. There was a post from a previous poster here who has a sight handicap, I sympathise greatly with that person as they too do not wish to be victim for another's, probably young and quick witted with fast reflexes and a sharp mind, pleasure.
I will be 70 in just over two months time and that is my handicap, not necessarily a recognized one, as it really only applies to a natural dimming of sight and senses as I age. It is common to many older people. But it does mean my reflexes have slowed quite a lot, which is why older people often do not see danger both in real life and in the gaming world.
This also affects decision making as one can become confused fairly quickly when events happen rapidly around you.
However I played Elite when it was first on the market and when I was already approaching my forties.
Those of my generation purchased enough of the games of those days to produce the embryo that has grown into this massive market we all enjoy.
As such I think I am entitled to the perks of the game being granted to me in almost the same way as those who play in open, and want the pleasure to gank me as an easy mark. That is why I play in a PVE group and I would love to see a PVE only section in Elite.

 

[JesusOnEez]

Wow! This is really split!

There are decent arguments for both sides. Personally (and this given I'm an '84er and bought up on 'Solo' Elite and Frontier) I believe that Open has made Elite a better game. I've been playing for about a year, and I generally travel all over the place. I've been murdered for no reason twice in that time, and genuinely pirated twice as well. So, interaction with other players has been minimal in that year and I very much play a 'Solo' game...BUT. Playing in 'Open' and knowing the risk is there of an encounter (good or bad), adds a level of tension that I love and believe the game needs. Those moments of being pirated and yes, even murdered, are standout moments for me. I was murdered in a T6, and decided to head back to the same system just to see if I could evade the same CMDR a second time around. I did, and it was great fun!

I've done a lot since then, mostly exploring, but now I'm back to running rares in a T6 in open...effectively an open invitation to any pirates out there.

I don't want it to be safe from maniac CMDRs or genuine pirates...safe is boring for me. I want to test my evasion skills, so I vote 'No'.

 

[Lateralus]

So what is this perks of open you refer to. Open was never meant as a PVP only environment. Go check the early ideas quoted by DB and the Devs. It is along the lines of , and I am paraphrasing here as I don't recall the exact statements from that murky past.

"We expect ED to be more of a player with player cooperative game with strong incentives for the game to be played in that manner. Although you may come across player killers it should only ever be rare and meaningful within the context of the game. Those who abuse this will suffer strong punishments, like stiff fines, fast responses from security services and continual player killing would result in the player concerned being placed in a dark group with like minded players."

Needless to say this never happened and Open play was pretty much hijacked by the ganker croud. I don't mean ganker as an insult, but used to describe the type of player who believes they have the god given right to slaughter any player they come across regardless of whether consent to the PVP action is granted. In other words, to me a ganker is the player who will want to make me his/her victim to get their game Jollies.

So because this type of player plays in open, unless of course they need to earn money trading to pay for their next murderous onslaught, They seem to think that all perks should only be granted to them exclusively.

See my last post above this one for solutions to all that... (it's not been hijacked by the 'ganker crowd' that's a massive exaggeration - in 99% of the bubble you won't see any other players)

Oh and as for you quoting the poll to back up your faulty argument you should recheck it as it has gone the other way now. You can never trust forum polls and quoting them to reinforce ideas is a foolish pastime.

You've just done the same... It doesn't matter which result edges it though, it's pretty clear that the swing is between 45% and 55% either way - meaning that there are enough players against the idea to make Frontier think twice before going down that route.

 

[JesusOnEez]

NB: I spent the first four weeks playing the game in Mobius to get used to things and entered Open when I bought a Hauler.

 

[excalibus]

I voted no. An open PvE mode isn't compatible with FD's vision.

Open PvE is at odds with the developers' view of the game.
It further trivialises ship destruction and further stretches the difference between AI and players.

and how would ship destruction from AI be trivial? The effects are the same as if a PC destroyed you with regards to rebuy cost, lost cargo etc, so please do educate me how it would be trivial?