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

[zombieapocalypse]

While anything that increases player interaction and brings people out of solo is generally a good thing, I can't agree to an open PvE mode.

A mode where you cannot attack another player fighting for the opposing side in a conflict zone just seems rediculous and immersion breaking. Or not being able to collect a juicy bounty on them or fight or pirate them if they are hostile to a faction with which you are aligned.

Surely the real answer lies in implementing a far more meaningful crime and punishment system as well as ramping up security and NPC bounty hunter responses? Personally I'd like to see a GTA-style wanted system that escalates in proportion to your crimes and has serious consequences for travel and docking. Though obviously the life of a criminal would need to be more financially rewarding with some form of decay if they decide to change their ways.

 

[Gedemon]

Fixing 'Crime and Punishment' will only satisfy those that play in open, and are miffed at the number of times they get attacked by a player for no reason. The idea being that the casual griefer would take a second thought on blowing up that Sidewinder due to the penalties. They won;t stop the committed griefer, the ones that enter PG's to kill players who don;t expect it, those that stalk the newbie zones to educate those that aren't aware of open's potential, and the 'Content' creators who favorite brushes are weapons. The punitive measures considered won;t bring the PvE minded back into open. Punishment, after the fact just won;t cut it for many.

No, simply no.

Fixing Crime & Punishment would help to keep people in open yes, but it's valuable in all mode.

Currently there is no punishment for killing players and NPC, I can attack and destroy 10.000 innocent civilian ships in a system, jump 5 Ly et voilà, I'm clean and free to trade tea in a civilized space like any other gentleman. How strange is that ?

Offering a Mode that restricts PvP doesn't automatically make open a PvP only zone. It will still be exactly what it is now. IF you go for that kind of thing. The PvP only mode, we already have mind you, is called CQC. If fighting other willing and equally capable Commanders on a level playing field isn't PvP enough, I can't help you.

Open is the defacto PvP Mode now. You see it proclaimed all over the place. "If you don;t like PvP, play in Solo". "If you want a place to hide you have Mobius." Do those snippets sound familiar? It's not the available options that twisted open into the PvP zone, it's the lack of civility in certain quarters.

Yes it's familiar. And an Open PvE mode without specifics Open PvP mode and Open mixed mode will make things much worse. I don't want that. I'll have to follow you in your artificial PvE mode where I'll miss the "everything can happen" feeling.

The Community is already split. Look at the silly little Poll attached to this thread. A PvE open would only allow the portion of the player base to coalesce in the environment they/we always hoped open could be. Instead of being spread out in private groups, and solo those looking for a Co-Op way of playing would be satisfied.

Vote with your Clicks. Boycott open until a viable PvE option is offered.

You clearly don't care about people that want to play mixed, but you expect everyone to care about people wanting PvE only, how's that ?

 

[Robert Maynard]

While anything that increases player interaction and brings people out of solo is generally a good thing, I can't agree to an open PvE mode.

A mode where you cannot attack another player fighting for the opposing side in a conflict zone just seems rediculous and immersion breaking. Or not being able to collect a juicy bounty on them or fight or pirate them if they are hostile to a faction with which you are aligned.

Surely the real answer lies in implementing a far more meaningful crime and punishment system as well as ramping up security and NPC bounty hunter responses? Personally I'd like to see a GTA-style wanted system that escalates in proportion to your crimes and has serious consequences for travel and docking. Though obviously the life of a criminal would need to be more financially rewarding with some form of decay if they decide to change their ways.

There would be no requirement to play in such a mode, should it be introduced - it would be for players who could accept the limitation of not attacking / destroying other players.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
- fixing the crime & punishment should take priority on everything else (related to this thread I mean)

While many people (myself included) would like to see improvements to the crime / punishment / system security levels in the game, I'm not sure that this will solve unwanted PvP encounters.

Unless the decision is simply to punish player on player damage / destruction, any other changes run the risk of throwing many of the legitimate actions in the game (combat, smuggling, assassinations, planetary base attacks for example) into disarray. All of these actions are permitted in the game, endorsed and encouraged by the developers, so increasing punishments for them would be counter to getting people to play the game.

So if the only changes to the system would be to try to discourage player on player damage and destruction, why not simply create a mode where it cannot happen and be done with it, and leave it as allowed in modes where it is possible, and where players can choose to partake in it? Probably much easier to achieve than messing around with an already somewhat complex crime and punishment system. In fact, it's highly likely that any 'tweaks' to the crime / punishment system in regards to trying to prevent inappropriate player killing will probably also affect genuine PvP play pretty negatively too.

 

[Gedemon]

It is possible that Open would end up that way, i.e. PvP-only, in time anyway - depending on whether any meaningful consequences for PKing are ever introduced.

One of the worst things that happened to Open was the limitation of "wanted" status to the system that issued the bounty. The Major Faction bounties weren't introduced - so players could simply move one system over and start again as if with a clean sheet. Not much of a deterrent.

Exactly, that's exactly what I'm trying to express, thanks.

edit: and that's also the answer to the post just above this one.

 

[Mohrgan]

No, simply no.

Fixing Crime & Punishment would help to keep people in open yes, but it's valuable in all mode.

Currently there is no punishment for killing players and NPC, I can attack and destroy 10.000 innocent civilian ships in a system, jump 5 Ly et voilà, I'm clean and free to trade tea in a civilized space like any other gentleman. How strange is that ?


Yes it's familiar. And an Open PvE mode without specifics Open PvP mode and Open mixed mode will make things much worse. I don't want that. I'll have to follow you in your artificial PvE mode where I'll miss the "everything can happen" feeling.


You clearly don't care about people that want to play mixed, but you expect everyone to care about people wanting PvE only, how's that ?

I don;t agree with your assessment on what a PvE open would do to the current open. If you enjoy the current state of affairs in open, I don;t see that changing. I see those that have already abandoned open reforming in a Co-Op mode. I see a Co-Op mode as a training ground for those interested, but not quite ready for swimming with the big fish.

One argument is that open space isn't meant to be civilized. There is just too much space out there to bring under strict control. Leave open as the wild west, and a Co-Op mode could be 'back east' where there is rule of law. If a player doesn't want PvP interaction just punishing those that commit it won;t make it more enjoyable. If you don;t want to be forced by conditions to out-fit your ship for PvP then a Co-Op mode would allow you to fit your ship out based on your game play interests, not for self preservation.

Everything will still happen in an open that resides nest to a Co-Op mode. But, only with the players that are looking for that experience. That seems overwhelmingly fair. You assertion that open will be tagged as PvP only doesn't hold water.

 

[Midian27]

The problem I see with it is for it to work FD would have to make PVP mechanically impossible in said mode. Thus wasting development time making a game mode with a different rule set. Solo, open, and private group all function under the same rules, yes, you can call a private group a PVE only group but it's up to the creator to enforce those rules by removing those that disobey them.

If you simple want an open PVE mode in name only then what would that really do? Combat logging is against the rules but players do it everyday and very little if anything is/has been done about it. This would simply give the griefers a better place to go where they know they could tick some people off.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
One of the worst things that happened to Open was the limitation of "wanted" status to the system that issued the bounty. The Major Faction bounties weren't introduced - so players could simply move one system over and start again as if with a clean sheet. Not much of a deterrent.

[snip]
Fixing Crime & Punishment would help to keep people in open yes, but it's valuable in all mode.

Currently there is no punishment for killing players and NPC, I can attack and destroy 10.000 innocent civilian ships in a system, jump 5 Ly et voilà, I'm clean and free to trade tea in a civilized space like any other gentleman. How strange is that ?

And that's the reason why there is no major faction wide bounty.

It was fine when you could just pay it off, but now it is persistent, albeit for a short time, then there has to be an alternative for the player than just logging off until the bounty expires, so they made them very localized.

Look at the bulletin boards, look at the percentage of missions that will get you a bounty if you choose to do them. It's a not insignificant percentage, indicating that FD want to not only allow but also encourage the illicit lifestyle, and thus crime becomes trivial, because you can't exactly have a whole load of perfectly valid game play options that actually punish the player for following them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And that's the reason why there is no major faction wide bounty.

It was fine when you could just pay it off, but now it is persistent, albeit for a short time, then there has to be an alternative for the player than just logging off until the bounty expires, so they made them very localized.

Look at the bulletin boards, look at the percentage of missions that will get you a bounty if you choose to do them. It's a not insignificant percentage, indicating that FD want to not only allow but also encourage the illicit lifestyle, and thus crime becomes trivial, because you can't exactly have a whole load of perfectly valid game play options that actually punish the player for following them.

I can see the logic in being careful not to deter players from incurring bounties against NPCs.

However, the "problem" for some in Open is the level of PvP and the lack of consequences. The Pilots' Federation, of which all Commanders are members, is ideally placed to levy bounties / consequences on its members who have crossed the line. They do provide our insurance and also replace our ships as required - that would be an ideal time do extract recompense for transgressions....

 

[Marra Morgan]

What I insist on is very, very, very simple:

- fixing the crime & punishment should take priority on everything else (related to this thread I mean)
- if a PvE only mode is officially created, do not split open in two (PvE only & PvP only) but in three (PvE only, mixed, PvP only)

I agree with you on that first point. Fixing crime & consequences would benefit all the current game modes.
The second one I'm not so bothered about.

I've read some good points from all sides in this thread. And some really bad points from the usual PvP and PvE zealots, who are just as silly, blinkered and prejudiced as each other.

I have no strong feelings for or against an Open PvE mode, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that the devs are considering it, whereas they have been engaging on ideas for crime & consequences. RealisticalIy, I don't think Open PvE is going to happen anytime soon. But that's not to say that it shouldn't be discussed, of course

Personally I'm happy doing my PvE in Open with rare and meaningful PvP every now and again (that was the plan, wasn't it?), so I'm going to stick with my "no" vote. Thanks (to most of you) for posting interesting things

 

[Mohrgan]

I can see the logic in being careful not to deter players from incurring bounties against NPCs.

However, the "problem" for some in Open is the level of PvP and the lack of consequences. The Pilots' Federation, of which all Commanders are members, is ideally placed to levy bounties / consequences on its members who have crossed the line. They do provide our insurance and also replace our ships as required - that would be an ideal time do extract recompense for transgressions....

That is true, but how does that stop PvP when stopping it is the players goal? It doesn't. It would only leave you with the vague notion that they got what they deserved. What fines would be enough to make the very wealthy balk at seal clubbing. IT would just make players interested in pulling others out of SC wait until they ground up many millions of credits. Crime and Punishment will only add flavor to E: D. It won't solve the issues a Co-Op Mode is meant to solve.

Wide player interaction is being held hostage by FD, for the sake of PvP. Playing among throngs of others is the carrot that tricks the players into range of the stick, that is PvP. Vote with your clicks. Boycott open until a viable Co-Op option is offered.

 

[Yukon Sam]

Richard Bartle, one of the architects of the MUD genre that MMOs evolved from, proposed four different player archetypes, two of which depend on other players: socializers and killers. Bartle believed, and some developers take as gospel, that given the correct framework both archetypes would exist in a symbiotic relationship -- the socializers would give the killers someone to kill, and the killers would give the socializers something to socialize about. In practice, however, the socializers just pack up and leave for other games. The more alternatives exist, the faster they migrate. That's fine if you want a niche title where everybody is either a killer or the type of player who finds evading killers to be a rewarding pastime. But if you're trying to foster a broader player community, you need socializers -- they're the glue for recruitment and retention. And if you want to nurture socializers, you need to give them safe space to socialize. ED, in its present state, isn't doing a very good job on that score. But the game has the potential to do much better, and I find it hard to imagine that they're not fully aware and actively working on that.

 

[Vyrsai]

That is true, but how does that stop PvP when stopping it is the players goal? It doesn't. It would only leave you with the vague notion that they got what they deserved. What fines would be enough to make the very wealthy balk at seal clubbing. IT would just make players interested in pulling others out of SC wait until they ground up many millions of credits. Crime and Punishment will only add flavor to E: D. It won't solve the issues a Co-Op Mode is meant to solve.

Wide player interaction is being held hostage by FD, for the sake of PvP. Playing among throngs of others is the carrot that tricks the players into range of the stick, that is PvP. Vote with your clicks. Boycott open until a viable Co-Op option is offered.

I know I said I was finished with this thread but!

Seal clubbing as you put it. So thats when someone in a Python or the like goes to the starter system and blows up new players in sideys? That really isn't common-place. What I think some people have an issue with is they want to outfit however they want with zero chance of being pirated or engaged in PVP. I really tried to stay objective in this thread and the billions of others just like it. It's nearly impossible though, it just seems like a group of players here want to never engage in PVP. Play in a group or solo then, do not try and take valuable time from the Devs to make something that already exists and further split the playerbase of the future.

If players just exercised some caution, they would never be destroyed. So it seems you just want zero consequences. Fine I guess, not sure how thats fun but thats not for me to decide. Groups and solo are there just for that.

 

[Faded Glory]

I can see the logic in being careful not to deter players from incurring bounties against NPCs.

However, the "problem" for some in Open is the level of PvP and the lack of consequences. The Pilots' Federation, of which all Commanders are members, is ideally placed to levy bounties / consequences on its members who have crossed the line. They do provide our insurance and also replace our ships as required - that would be an ideal time do extract recompense for transgressions....

Indeed, that would be one way to tie these things in with the lore, but as Mohrgan points out, while it might upset (and even deter) some PKers, it wouldn't necessarily help the unwilling victim who has still had to face their 'consequences'.

And as I said, even tying such a mechanic to players only would presumably curtail valid PvP gameplay (such as piracy) too, unless there were some mechanism where players consented to the PvP and waived whatever penalties were in place.

Just all seems a bit cumbersome to me. However, as plenty of people have pointed out, FD are not showing any interest in an Open PvE mode, so we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that whatever they do try to do to curtail unlawful PKing doesn't have unintended consequences elsewhere in the game.

 

[xondk]

I know I said I was finished with this thread but!

Seal clubbing as you put it. So thats when someone in a Python or the like goes to the starter system and blows up new players in sideys? That really isn't common-place.

Unfortunately it seems 'fairly' common, at least the last 9 newish people I've asked, have all have it happened , so yeah, maybe not directly in started system but definitely in systems near, so yeah....it is unfortunate.

 

[Vyrsai]

Unfortunately it seems 'fairly' common, at least the last 9 newish people I've asked, have all have it happened , so yeah, maybe not directly in started system but definitely in systems near, so yeah....it is unfortunate.

No offense but you asking 9ish people means little to me of how common that practice is.

I used to patrol there after hearing of people saying it happens and I never see any wanted players there. Lots of Sideys cruising around but no big bad players blowing them up.

 

[Cula-Ta]

It's a must I'm afraid.
As long as players are able to go to starter systems and destroy inferior ships without significant consequences then a Mobius style open system is essential.
Without it I'm sure FD will lose more players than otherwise would be the case.

 

[Faded Glory]

No offense but you asking 9ish people means little to me of how common that practice is.

I used to patrol there after hearing of people saying it happens and I never see any wanted players there. Lots of Sideys cruising around but no big bad players blowing them up.

Could just be that they were not playing at the same time as you, or perhaps they were but were in a different instance to you.

I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong, just that it's hard to verify much on the forums. Presumably FD think it's enough of an issue to start a dialogue about ways to counter unwarranted player killing.

 

[xondk]

No offense but you asking 9ish people means little to me of how common that practice is.

I used to patrol there after hearing of people saying it happens and I never see any wanted players there. Lots of Sideys cruising around but no big bad players blowing them up.

You do realize by the same realization, you cruising around protecting doesn't mean you actually see the ones doing it yes? especially note that I said it didn't happen in starting system.
I'm asking about randomly, yes 9 people aren't much, but 9 random people all having same experience does make for a hint that there might be an issue, which is why I said 'fairly', so yeah, outright dismissing that it might be a problem, seems a bit odd? and I'm not done asking. I'm definitely not pretending to be all knowing and knowing what is actually going on, but again, outright dismissing it seems to be odd.

 

[DarkWalker]

Richard Bartle, one of the architects of the MUD genre that MMOs evolved from, proposed four different player archetypes, two of which depend on other players: socializers and killers. Bartle believed, and some developers take as gospel, that given the correct framework both archetypes would exist in a symbiotic relationship -- the socializers would give the killers someone to kill, and the killers would give the socializers something to socialize about. In practice, however, the socializers just pack up and leave for other games. The more alternatives exist, the faster they migrate. That's fine if you want a niche title where everybody is either a killer or the type of player who finds evading killers to be a rewarding pastime. But if you're trying to foster a broader player community, you need socializers -- they're the glue for recruitment and retention. And if you want to nurture socializers, you need to give them safe space to socialize. ED, in its present state, isn't doing a very good job on that score. But the game has the potential to do much better, and I find it hard to imagine that they're not fully aware and actively working on that.

Those old Bartle papers were done at a time where pure PvE MUDs were rare, and the ones that existed were basically single player games with a tacked chat room. So, back then his reasoning actually worked, because those that wanted to avoid the PvP didn't have anywhere else to go; they could either bear with the PvP in order to experience online gaming, or they could abandon the genre altogether.

This was still true when UO launched. Players that didn't like the PvP activity could either leave the genre or bear with the PvP in order to play. To make things worse, the UO devs who called the shots were very much PvP fans, people who thought removing the chance of PvP (or allowing players to opt out of it) would kill the excitement of the game, who thought having players forced to create groups and collaborate against the "criminals" was good; this is why they spent two years trying every scheme they could conceive to bring PvP under control without allowing players to be completely safe from it, before relenting and adding Trammel, and I believe they only got to adding it because the publisher sent them an ultimatum to either fix the player retention issue or close the game.

Nowadays, though, it's as you say. Many people, including many fans of the old pre-Trammel UO, don't think that kind of environment will ever happen again exactly because the players that become the targets now have options, being able to just leave a game and start playing something else where the rules themselves prevent them from becoming targets. I myself, as my game library grew, went from accepting a little unwanted PvP in the games I play to flat out refusing to even try any game where others can attack me without my consent.