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

[excalibus]

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... "

Well there you have it DBOBE has said you can do it with other elite pilots 'like yourself', ergo those that want a PVE only multiplayer experience should be able to play with other pilots like themselves....


Next...

(sorry my time is short tonight)

 

[Loetmichel]

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.

And THIS is te reason why we need a PvE mode. Some people only read wat they want to read and bed the facts so they fit to their predjuce.

EVERY argument against a pve mode has been debunked as simple fear that the PvPers wioll lose targets that cant defend themselves, and still they cry foul.

If they cant admit a defeat in the forum: how likely is it that they would use any measure possible to assure that they "win" ingame?

And we PvE players should be the content for this kind of irresponsible players and LIKE it?

Some people have a imagination of other peoples "fun" that is beyond any reason to me.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Okey so let's look at the poll. It is just like the old poll and the results are relatively equal. This means we can not find a solution that pleases both sides so we better do nothing right now and come up with different ideas.

I have lost the point in this discussion. From my point of view, Open PvE isn't because of friendly play but because people don't want to pay insurance.
Just today I have seen a dude shouting out "Griefers" on reddit. I was so amused by this since this dude got destroyed by an enemy in a PowerPlay expansion system which is nothing more but the game itself.

Why should we be allowed to destroy NPCs but not PCs especially (in this case) when destroying PCs has way more influence as they lose tons of merits.

For me this discussion is dead and I hope our nice dev team comes up with good ideas rather than implementing a cheat. Sandro already made a good start so let's see what he will build.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

i gotta admit i have looked for the quote from DB where he stated the elite federation of pilots looked badly upon attacking its own members (players) and that it would reign down hard on those doing it.

but i cant find it.

neither can i find the quote where DB said any PvP that DID happen he wanted to be in game context and rare and meaningful.

sadly i am at work so i need to give up on that one. it does not mean i am conceding that he never said it however

i did however find multiple times him saying players who just live to blow up other players would be instanced with each other.... that has not happened however to my knowledge.... but that is not relevant

Then we have to say that it is the complete opposite at the moment. PvP is common and influences nothing. Literally nothing.

I am not a PvPer outside of CQC so I bow to your experience on that one on what influences it has gamewise..... i can absolutely say it influences the players who are not interested in it and have it forced on them however.

imo PvP / PvE(PWP) gamers are oil and water imo, however ED ups the anti even more due to the whole asynchronous side of things.

on the xbox, not only does a player who wants to play with their mates get forced into open, but on top of that, if they are a trader they are expected to risk millions and millions of credits, where a potential aggressor risks a few 1000 (even less really when you consider the chance of losing a fight against a trader is practically zero).

because so much is put on the line, by players who do not like PvP and therefore wont be equipped to handle it, it is even more important than most other games to have a PvE(PWP) mode.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

i gotta admit i have looked for the quote from DB where he stated the elite federation of pilots looked badly upon attacking its own members and would reign down on those doing it.

but i cant find it.

neither can i find the quote where DB said any PvP that DID happen he wanted to be in game context and rare and meaningful.

sadly i am at work so i need to give up on that one. it does not mean i am conceding that he never said it however

Then we have to say that it is the complete opposite at the moment. PvP is common and influences nothing. Literally nothing.

 

[Lateralus]

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...

People can play the game in the way they want, but they have to do it within the framework provided by the devs... not in the way they think they should be able to play it. FD obviously see a problem with Open PvE, otherwise it would be there already.

 

[excalibus]

Okey so let's look at the poll. It is just like the old poll and the results are relatively equal. This means we can not find a solution that pleases both sides so we better do nothing right now and come up with different ideas.

I have lost the point in this discussion. From my point of view, Open PvE isn't because of friendly play but because people don't want to pay insurance.
Just today I have seen a dude shouting out "Griefers" on reddit. I was so amused by this since this dude got destroyed by an enemy in a PowerPlay expansion system which is nothing more but the game itself.

Why should we be allowed to destroy NPCs but not PCs especially (in this case) when destroying PCs has way more influence as they lose tons of merits.

For me this discussion is dead and I hope our nice dev team comes up with good ideas rather than implementing a cheat. Sandro already made a good start so let's see what he will build.

The poll has a month to run and really is only indicative of the forum players views not the game base as a whole isn't it (I think we can agree on that) and the fact that it is 'close' tells me that there are seems to be a significant number that want this option and there are a significant number that don't want it is all.

Now, just hypothesizing, what if the poll was 90/10 in favour / against, would you be claiming the OP was 'rigged' or that the poll was irrelevant? and if it was 10/90 in favour / against, would you be claiming 'victory' that the poll vindicates you?

 

[Robert Maynard]

People can play the game in the way they want, but they have to do it within the framework provided by the devs... not in the way they think they should be able to play it. FD obviously see a problem with Open PvE, otherwise it would be there already.

.... or they were hoping that the consequences for PKing were adequate in Open to retain a desired population. Given that Sandro has been sounding out opinions relating to increased consequences for PKing, I would expect that the results of the experiment have not quite met with Frontier's expectations....

 

[Lateralus]

.... or they were hoping that the consequences for PKing were adequate in Open to retain a desired population. Given that Sandro has been sounding out opinions relating to increased consequences for PKing, I would expect that the results of the experiment have not quite met with Frontier's expectations....

Even so, he doesn't sound too keen on going down the open PvE route.. I'd expect new crime & punishment mechanics if anything.

 

[excalibus]

People can play the game in the way they want, but they have to do it within the framework provided by the devs... not in the way they think they should be able to play it. FD obviously see a problem with Open PvE, otherwise it would be there already.

Well I would disagree that they see a 'problem' with PVE because they allow solo and group modes to exist that also impact on the BGS yes? So I would not say that they have a problem with an Open PVE mode (I see no red wings against your post) as no official statement one way or the other has been made to that effect has it... Sooo... that leads us back to where we are, with a request for an option on the main login menu for a PVE Multiplayer game mode

And as Robert Maynard replied to you, I won't reiterate what he says but I would like to echo the same sentiments...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Even so, he doesn't sound too keen on going down the open PvE route.. I'd expect new crime & punishment mechanics if anything.

As another step in seeking a way to keeping a sufficient number of players in an Open game mode, yes.

Possibly not the last step in that process though.

 

[CMDR Reaper]

I would't mind if they change the current open/solo/private modes to something like this:

PVP
Play PVP mode if you want to be able to shoot other CMDRs
You can see all other PVP players here and shoot em down if you wish.
Don't whine if you get shot here


PVE
Play this mode if you want to see other CMDR's but in here you cant shoot them or be shot
Shots just passes though you.
You can ram each other but, you wont take damage doing so.


Private groups
Create you own private groups (as many as you like)
You can use this as classic-solo or if you want to play only with your friends.

 

[Loetmichel]

I would't mind if they change the current open/solo/private modes to something like this:

PVP
Play PVP mode if you want to be able to shoot other CMDRs
You can see all other PVP players here and shoot em down if you wish.
Don't whine if you get shot here


PVE
Play this mode if you want to see other CMDR's but in here you cant shoot them or be shot
Shots just passes though you.
You can ram each other but, you wont take damage doing so.


Private groups
Create you own private groups (as many as you like)
You can use this as classic-solo or if you want to play only with your friends.

Would be OK with me.

 

[Lateralus]

Here's an interesting comment on the subject from Erimus back in the pre-alpha days, which seems to back up my point quite nicely.: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6521&page=5&p=127018&viewfull=1#post127018

I remember playing a game called Ultima Online. It was probably the very first mmorpg - released back in 1997. The game was a true sandbox. The only safe places in the game were in the towns. Once you set foot outside of town you where fair game and could be killed at any time.

What happened was the game became a magnet for all sorts of cyber-psychos who mercilessly butchered players, new and old, with little consequence. But early on what this did was cause people to band together and begin working in teams. A real community spirit was born. If player killers were nearby a band of anti-player killers (bounty hunters) would go out and fight them or chase them away. Communities sprang up and stuck together for protection.

However the player killers numbers grew since at the time there wasn't adequate negative consequences for playing a 'bad guy' in the game. Eventually the PK's got out of hand and people quit en-mass.

The developers then decided to split the world in two and have one world with the original rule set and one with new rules - effectively eliminating non consensual PvP altogether.

I was one of the people who called for a new rule set - one where I could play the game in peace without worrying about whether the guy behind me was trying to steal from me or kill me. But within a few months I regretted what the developers had done, and I wasn't alone. What had happened is all risk had been taken from my gameworld and it became a shadow of what it once was. I hated dying, but I also missed that adrenalin rush or that tentative moment when I met someone new in-game for the first time.

On the non PvP server the social aspects broke down. No one needed anyone else anymore to survive. It became a glorified chat room game where people would get filthy rich by resource gathering with no worry of losing anything. It was a server of all reward and zero risk.

On the old ruleset server the lands became deserted too. The game was never the same again the day the developers split the playerbase. I still read the old forums to this day, and nearly everyone agrees (PvEs and PvPs alike) that the game should never have had such a drastic change made to it like it did in the summer of 2000.

It was the consequences of mercilessly killing other players that needed to be better though out and implemented, not splitting the player base and having different rulesets that was the mistake with hindsight.

 

[AJW]

Just a thought, but there may actually be a case that an Open PvE option could increase long-term participation in a properly-regulated Open PvP mode. As it stands, with the 'groups' option being so well hidden, anyone not keen on the current open free-for-all ends up in solo mode by default, and never gets to see the benefits of playing alongside others at all. A more visible open PVP mode could act as a gateway for players as they get more confident - clearly not all of them will chose to move to open PvP, but it could well be that more end up there than is the case now. This will obviously also depend on what effect FDs changes regarding player-on-player 'crime' have, but needs at least bearing in mind as a possibility.

 

[jabokai]

Here's an interesting comment on the subject from Erimus back in the pre-alpha days, which seems to back up my point quite nicely.: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6521&page=5&p=127018&viewfull=1#post127018

Not sure how one person's opinion and unconfirmed anecdotal evidence counts as backing up your point but, whatever.

 

[Roybe]

Here's an interesting comment on the subject from Erimus back in the pre-alpha days, which seems to back up my point quite nicely.: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6521&page=5&p=127018&viewfull=1#post127018

I would point out that there is a huge difference between these two games. Mainly that in E: Dangerous the main point of the gameplay is for large groups of players to outcollect PvE trophies in almost every aspect of the game, whether CG's, BGS/faction play, or PP.

This will provide the necessary scaffolding for PvE players to NOT disperse into single player entities desiring to increase personal wealth. Obviously, there will be some of this...however, the fact that people can attack others across the modes really is an attempt at redefining PvP play.

 

[Lateralus]

Not sure how one person's opinion and unconfirmed anecdotal evidence counts as backing up your point but, whatever.

Because it sounds like people are trying to drag ED down the same ruinous path as Ultima online for the same reasons, I'd say that's relevant.

It might be anecdotal, but he's making the exact same point as me based on a previous game that suffered for making the same decision. If what he said is inaccurate then I guess it's up to people arguing against it to prove. I never played Ultima Online.

 

[Loetmichel]

Here's an interesting comment on the subject from Erimus back in the pre-alpha days, which seems to back up my point quite nicely.: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6521&page=5&p=127018&viewfull=1#post127018

Funny thing is that even IF we would see his experiens as universal viable: THIS game here already has all the rules implemented. An open PvE mode would not introduce ANYthing new, it would just make already aviable things much more visible and manageable. THats all.

And as such cant "split the playerbase". At best it can make the non-foum newbs aware of the already existing alternative to solo.

Also there is no "band together to grief the griefers" in open to speak of at all. its just the pirate and griefer groups that tend to be in wings and kill single traders or explorers.

So that part of his referece is also not viable in ED.

 

[AJW]

Because it sounds like people are trying to drag ED down the same ruinous path as Ultima online for the same reasons, I'd say that's relevant.

Oh, the draaaaaamah!!!!!!