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

[kofeyh]

I still don't see how adding choice leads customers to believe that one mode is proffered over another. Currently open, group and solo are on the main menu. None of those are promoted or believed to be the right way to play, they are simply options that will allow players to chose which they prefer. Player choice, I don't see how open PvE would be different.

I have been playing games for the best part of 30 years. I heard the term PvP and PvE for the first time last year thanks to ED. (Im not an online gamer). I'm sure I'm not alone, so I disagree that players should have to search for how they want to play the game and I disagree that anyone who prefers a PvE experience should be at the mercy of one player to run the group. If möbius had a few thousand members it would be different, but no company should be relying on a single individual for 20 thousand customers.

Exactly. We have choice as it stands. By adding frontier managed PVE, you are asking the developer to assign resources (staff) compute (more servers in the Private Group pool) to manage something we already have, because apparently it's just too hard to join the myriad of groups using the method Frontier expressly created for that purpose.

Namely, private groups managed by the community, for the community. That's choice. This request can be distilled to "I want an official PVE" where presumably CMDRs are not permitted to shoot each other, and without dramatic changes to group servers to disable CMDR damage to other CMDRs, frontier staff have to spend time managing this entire thing.

Again, the simplest method to join a group exists. You can get to it from the main menu already. It shows up as a server join option the minute you are accepted into a group, or make your own.

I have no problem with Frontier making it easier to access and find and join existing groups. Or to make your own. I see no compelling reason for a dedicated PVE instance that mirrors open, when groups already provide this!

 

[Lestenio]

Again, the simplest method to join a group exists. You can get to it from the main menu already. It shows up as a server join option the minute you are accepted into a group, or make your own.

I have no problem with Frontier making it easier to access and find and join existing groups. Or to make your own. I see no compelling reason for a dedicated PVE instance that mirrors open, when groups already provide this!

A lot of groups show up when you visit the groups list. None of them however tell you what the group is or the rules. As a new player that would be pretty intimidating. Groups are great, but I don't think FD ever imagined that möbius in particular would get so big. What happens when it has 50 thousand or 100 thousand members? Should they continue to have a single player responsible for that amount of players.

As for adding more servers to accommodate a PvE mode. Unlikely it works that way, it's just a flag at the end of the day.

The one thing we agree on is FD shouldn't drop everything to do it. But at some point they will need to do something.

 

[Commander Debic]

FDev have insisted they'll try to implement private group mode for us, personally, I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure there's a Micro$oft problem there somewhere, but we'll never know since information from Fdev is a very rare occurence on our side of the divide.

Yep with you completely there. FD don't even feed us the normal MMO well we will try this but do something else completely different line. They just totally ignore us, after all we are only the customer.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

I have no problem with Frontier making it easier to access and find and join existing groups. Or to make your own. I see no compelling reason for a dedicated PVE instance that mirrors open, when groups already provide this!

If only they really did provide. Unfortunately, private groups have been joined by griefers who abused the group trust. As for all this server nonsense, you make it sound soooo complicated when it's just a flag, a single bit, on or off. Ever play a game where you can damage the enemy but not your teammates? It's so simple that even bargain basement indie first person shooters make use of it. Let's not pretend that it's a gigantic undertaking for a developer the size of Frontier.

 

[Gedemon]

If only they really did provide. Unfortunately, private groups have been joined by griefers who abused the group trust. As for all this server nonsense, you make it sound soooo complicated when it's just a flag, a single bit, on or off. Ever play a game where you can damage the enemy but not your teammates? It's so simple that even bargain basement indie first person shooters make use of it. Let's not pretend that it's a gigantic undertaking for a developer the size of Frontier.

Then you agree that you need a mecanism against griefers first, there is no point to make a PvE mode before that. But once it's done the private group will be enough.

And the "bit flag" is not as simple as that, see the last page on friendly fire.

 

[Robert Maynard]

From what I've seen, the biggest complaints about ED are that it's dull or lacks emergent content - not that it's full of griefers. Enticing players away from open mode is going to make the game duller for those looking for an emergent experience.

It should be noted that emergent gameplay does not necessarily require PvP for it to either be possible or enjoyable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Exactly. We have choice as it stands. By adding frontier managed PVE, you are asking the developer to assign resources (staff) compute (more servers in the Private Group pool) to manage something we already have, because apparently it's just too hard to join the myriad of groups using the method Frontier expressly created for that purpose.

Servers are required for the number of players playing and are not dependent on which game mode they play in.

 

[AndiBcool]

I dont see a need for a open PvE. If you want to play with people and dont want to do PvP you can join a group or create one and invite your friends.
On a side note, there isnt really much you can do in a wing or with other players anyway.

 

[Drunk Si]

Nope, he isn't content for me, and could never be. He is just someone set on ruining the experience for me, even if unwittingly. And I will do without that kind of player one way or another.

But he is content, just because you don't like it doesn't mean he isn't. Random encounters in a jrpg are content; you might just want to walk to the other side of a room and open a treasure chest but lo and behold you take two steps, the screen goes black and you're dumped into a random fight. NPC interdictions in ED are content, you might want to do whatever but you get interdicted. Same with player interdictions and piracy.

Sounds like you just have an aversion to any sort of obstacle or difficulty that comes your way.

Which is why in such shows there often are different sections for the audience, typically including a standing section like you described, a seated section where you will be surrounded by other fans but much stricter standards of behavior are enforced, and in some cases even private boxes where you can watch the show either alone or with just select friends. And each fan intent on seeing the show can choose which experience he prefers. You want to be standing close to the band, be my guest; I will be back in the seated section, where the volume is at a more reasonable level, I don't have to pay attention if someone else might hit me, I don't have to take care to not hit others, and the experience for someone like me is just better in every possible way.

(Actually, I don't go to shows. Loud music gives me such a headache that I wouldn't be able to enjoy it. But the example stands.)

But there is a trade off; they can't be right at the front, they can't feel the heat of the pyrotechnics on their brow they sacrifice half the experience to just sit miles away from the show, probably drinking carlsberg out of a massive plastic cup that cost them a tenner, barely able to see anything.

Open: you're at the gig, in the thick of it, anything can happen but you get the full experience.

Solo: listen to the album at home on your own

Groups: invite some friends round to listen to the album!

And that's fine, as it is. I think it divides the players too much but fine. What wouldn't be is;

Open PVE - be in the thick of the action, feel the heat of the pyrotechnics on your face, get the full experience but as soon as anything you personally don't like or don't feel like dealing with at the time happens a magical forcefield protects you because this is a safe space!

Content alone is a not a good thing. I have like 3/4 of a billion cable channels, but most offer content that I'm just never going to watch. Someone out there loves the dog grooming channel, but it's not entertaining for me. Likewise your pirate content is not wanted on this computer. The choice right now, solo or you, is tolerable, as I can choose solo, but it is not ideal. Ideally, there would be a mode for the COMMUNITY of people who aren't into the competitive epeen/gloating/trashtalk aspect of multiplayer, but there is not. Mobius is not the answer because it's been invaded multiple times, therefor off limits as far as I'm concerned. We just want a game mode where we can play with our own. Surely that is not difficult to understand.

Honestly I have no idea what any of that has to do with pirates and your posts suggest to me that you have a bit of a victim complex.

of course the below quote only covers players who are clean... so this would not fix the issue for some wanting PvE, however for many (myself included) it would be a huge step in the right direction. Attack me and i do not have a bounty, you get auto kicked from the group.

You'll get tons of incidents where people get auto kicked for accidentally shooting someone who strays into their line of fire. Not to mention the people that will go out of their way to fly into your line of fire to banish you from safe space.

 

[Lowievisser]

Guys please be honest for 1 time.

We want ban all forms of pvp cause those are pubbie killers in real life screams this tread.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There seems to be a desire, among some of those who oppose the introduction of an Open-PvE mode, to restrict players' access to a random population to Open mode only. Given that Open allows PvP, the inference is that there is a trade-off - if a player wants to play among a random population then they must accept the possibility of PvP.

The reluctance to accept an additional game mode where some players would be able to play with rather than against other players, i.e. not enter into combat with other players, suggests that part of the motivation of opponents to an Open-PvE mode in their opposition is to restrict the (attractive for some) possibility of playing in a mode with a random population to one game mode and use that attraction to encourage players to play in that mode (even if their experience in that mode is not what they really want) to boost the number of players in that mode.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

You'll get tons of incidents where people get auto kicked for accidentally shooting someone who strays into their line of fire. Not to mention the people that will go out of their way to fly into your line of fire to banish you from safe space.

well it was FD who came up with it, i imagine there would be a weighting, so a few hits happening once in a blue moon you would be let off, significant damage happening regularly would be treated differently i presume.

as for people doing it deliberately.... well, much like (illegal) combat logging, this should be considered cheating and be bannable.

PS Si, i dunno what settings you have (i do not think it is my end as i think i am on default display) but you are showing as grey text on a black B/G for me which is not ideal..

Guys please be honest for 1 time.
We want ban all forms of pvp cause those are pubbie killers in real life screams this tread.

not at all!. Some people just do not like player conflict in some games,

and others (this is where i fall) bought into DBs vision of the game where Multiplayer play would be the for the most part co-operative and PvP rare and with heavy consequences for those who insist on it.

this part of the game is absolutely not working as advertised and bordering on broken imo, so a PvE mode has been suggested as a low hanging fruit way of getting closer to what we bought into, as long as FD are unable or unwilling to implement a believable workable law and order structure.

(again, this bit is not the reason for everyone, like life there are multiple gamer types here, some never ever want PvP no matter what happens to the law and order and just want to play together, something which has been bandaided on PC but is currently not possible on xbox)

 

[Drunk Si]

as for people doing it deliberately.... well, much like (illegal) combat logging, this should be considered cheating and be bannable.

The thing is it's surely going to be impossible to make an automated process that can distinguish between whether the person who fired was in the wrong or the person being fired on were doing their best to get hit.

PS Si, i dunno what settings you have (i do not think it is my end as i think i am on default display) but you are showing as grey text on a black B/G for me which is not ideal..

Ah... I had not realized this. For me the background is white and my text is black; although whenever I quote someone when I post from my phone the text field seems to want to change the text colour. I'll have to have a butchers at the settings in a bit, that sounds pretty annoying for anyone trying to read my rambling. Cheers for pointing that out.

 

[Cmdr Cunomaglus]

you have a bit of a victim complex.

Speaking of victim complex...

Guys please be honest for 1 time.

We want ban all forms of pvp cause those are pubbie killers in real life screams this tread.

If I was honest in response to this pap, I'd get banned from the forum. I mean, seriously? That is all you get out of this thread? And people wonder why we don't want to share our game time with you...

 

[Lheim]

There seems to be a desire, among some of those who oppose the introduction of an Open-PvE mode, to restrict players' access to a random population to Open mode only. Given that Open allows PvP, the inference is that there is a trade-off - if a player wants to play among a random population then they must accept the possibility of PvP.

The reluctance to accept an additional game mode where some players would be able to play with rather than against other players, i.e. not enter into combat with other players, suggests that part of the motivation of opponents to an Open-PvE mode in their opposition is to restrict the (attractive for some) possibility of playing in a mode with a random population to one game mode and use that attraction to encourage players to play in that mode (even if their experience in that mode is not what they really want) to boost the number of players in that mode.

I said that pages ago; PvPers wanting to hold social interaction hostage to force people into open is wrong on a lot of levels.

Implicit.. absolutely implicit in every statement of this type, is the fear that people would FLOCK to an open non-pvp mode, and that all that would be left in the current open mode would be the rough crowd. And I see that; I really do see that possibility. I can see the damage it'd do the current open mode.. but c'mon. Trying to prevent something because it'd be too popular and take people away from your little unhappy niche - that's one of the worst instincts. Might as well try and build a giant wall along your border to prevent people fleeing to the other acknowledgely better and more desirable country across the way..

We already have a sorta-kinda open pve mode, though. AND a real PvE only mode in Solo. The fright is that making something so attractive as co-op mode much more visible would cause ruin to pvp mode.

 

[eza]

and others (this is where i fall) bought into DBs vision of the game where Multiplayer play would be the for the most part co-operative and PvP rare and with heavy consequences for those who insist on it.

this part of the game is absolutely not working as advertised and bordering on broken imo, so a PvE mode has been suggested as a low hanging fruit way of getting closer to what we bought into, as long as FD are unable or unwilling to implement a believable workable law and order structure.

(again, this bit is not the reason for everyone, like life there are multiple gamer types here, some never ever want PvP no matter what happens to the law and order and just want to play together, something which has been bandaided on PC but is currently not possible on xbox)

There was no such statement by DB that I remember hearing or reading.
Have a look at the original campaign page:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/description

"Our galaxy. Its an awe inspiring, beautiful, vast place; with billions of star systems, planets, moons and asteroid fields just waiting to be explored, and exploited. The triumverate superpowers of the Empire, Federation and Independents dominate their core system volumes and constantly skirmish to outmaneouver one another on their frontiers. Outside their influence, in the vast majority of the galaxy, anarchy reigns supreme and spectacular discoveries await the bold.

Its dog-eat-dog out there – you need to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

"Your second-to-second actions could have you taking the roles of trader, pirate, bounty hunter, leader, team player, opportunistic assassin, grand schemer, and more.

Starting with a few credits and a basic starship, carve your own path through the richest, largest gaming sandbox ever created, set against a backdrop of raw anarchy, galactic powerplays and intrigue. Do whatever it takes to upgrade your ship’s hull, engines, weapons, defences, cargo hold; constantly improve your capabilities and influence on your journey towards the most coveted rank in the history of gaming - ‘Elite’."

"And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours... "

 

[excalibus]

I thought it was pretty clear. Adding groups directly in the main menu means favouritism, intentional or not. It means compromising on Open in favour of singular groups.

It's not building community. It's making groups the defacto because that is what is being asked to be added. It is all these things and it's very clearly all these "please make selective PVE groups appear in the main menu" type threads are essentially asking the same thing (wether people intend, or not).

Namely, "please make PVE the default". I realise that might seem hard to grasp. And I'm sure it's not always intentional. But it's the same question that keeps coming up. A portion of the community dislikes open enough, to effectively place specific player groups in the same location.

This will naturally make new commanders believe frontier officially endorse private groups, versus open. And that is compromising the idea of a huge open universe.

Groups are easy to find, and join. Adding them to the main menu necessarily means encroaching into favouritism, endorsing private groups and all the other unnecessary political garbage that goes with doing such things.

Make search easier, or perhaps add something to the game launcher (weekly group highlight or something). Make it more something the community can own and drive, rather than clutter up the main menu with yet another way to interact with groups, that will lead to confusion and division.

Much better ways to handle it, IMHO.

I thought it was pretty clear too that this would not be a promotion of a 'selected group' but a mode of play supported and endorsed and managed by frontier. Ergo no 'group' favouritism.... And how would a PVE only multiplayer mode become the 'defacto mode' people play in when we have a broad diversity in player types already in the game (across all modes of play)

How can you search for a group if you do not know at least part of its name (moot point because it has nothing to do with my proposal)

 

[excalibus]

It's the constantly reoccurring question on this thread

and your 'recurring answer' equates to people should not be allowed to play the way they want to.. by making them 'play' in a mode they would prefer not to play in for greater social interactions...

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

Exactly. We have choice as it stands. By adding frontier managed PVE, you are asking the developer to assign resources (staff) compute (more servers in the Private Group pool) to manage something we already have, because apparently it's just too hard to join the myriad of groups using the method Frontier expressly created for that purpose.

Namely, private groups managed by the community, for the community. That's choice. This request can be distilled to "I want an official PVE" where presumably CMDRs are not permitted to shoot each other, and without dramatic changes to group servers to disable CMDR damage to other CMDRs, frontier staff have to spend time managing this entire thing.

Again, the simplest method to join a group exists. You can get to it from the main menu already. It shows up as a server join option the minute you are accepted into a group, or make your own.

I have no problem with Frontier making it easier to access and find and join existing groups. Or to make your own. I see no compelling reason for a dedicated PVE instance that mirrors open, when groups already provide this!

Umm do you understand how the server architecture is structured for the game? because from what I have learned about it through the AWS video that frontier highlighted how the amazon web server technology they are using is set up, they would not need to add more 'servers' for a start... that is a fallacy from what I can ascertain, their would even not be any more instances needed most likely as the in game population density would not change, just the mode in which instance they are in would change, so when players move from one mode to another, the instance in the first mode winds down while the instance in the second mode ramps up...

Essentially I have seen no arguement based on 'server cost' that is effective because frontier do not run the game of their own servers, the servers they lease are setup to run all modes of the game and manage as many instances as the game needs including scaling factors for increased in game population densities ergo there would be no actual increase in cost out of line with scaling factors as more players buy and enter the game...

Next...

 

[excalibus]

Guys please be honest for 1 time.

We want ban all forms of pvp cause those are pubbie killers in real life screams this tread.

lets be honest, no that is not why this is being asked for at all...

Now you be honest, you fear that if there is an open PVE only mode, that the 'easy targets' will choose to play there instead?

Actually please don't bother to answer that, as it would be not be conducive, and would be bordering on venturing off topic...

 

[Roland2]

There was no such statement by DB that I remember hearing or reading.
Have a look at the original campaign page:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/description

"Our galaxy. Its an awe inspiring, beautiful, vast place; with billions of star systems, planets, moons and asteroid fields just waiting to be explored, and exploited. The triumverate superpowers of the Empire, Federation and Independents dominate their core system volumes and constantly skirmish to outmaneouver one another on their frontiers. Outside their influence, in the vast majority of the galaxy, anarchy reigns supreme and spectacular discoveries await the bold.

Its dog-eat-dog out there – you need to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

"Your second-to-second actions could have you taking the roles of trader, pirate, bounty hunter, leader, team player, opportunistic assassin, grand schemer, and more.

Starting with a few credits and a basic starship, carve your own path through the richest, largest gaming sandbox ever created, set against a backdrop of raw anarchy, galactic powerplays and intrigue. Do whatever it takes to upgrade your ship’s hull, engines, weapons, defences, cargo hold; constantly improve your capabilities and influence on your journey towards the most coveted rank in the history of gaming - ‘Elite’."

"And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours... "

No where in your quote does it say PvP, so by your reasoning, PvP was a mistake that needs to be fixed. An open-PvE mode would be a "fix" without removing PvP from the main game.

Edit: also note, the last line of the part you quoted states "with your friends..." not "against".