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

[excalibus]

Voted no because not seeing a compelling argument. Let's have a looksee...

New players to the game would have zero information about Mobius unless the come to the forums first which is quite unlikely for them to do so really.

Google "elite pve" and look at the first result. Is Google making history guesses for just me, or are you saying new players don't use Google to learn more about their games?

Access to Mobius takes time to get given the approval etc.

Took me about a day and a half? I wasn't really playing between making the request and seeing it accepted.

A hard coded PVE with Limited PVP version of the game that is available to all players to choose from at the start menu...

There already is one, it's called Open. Space is pretty big.

Rules regarding PVP for the PVE environment could be enforced...

Wait, do you want chocolate on your peanut butter, or are you trying to keep them separated? This is confusing.

PvP only being able to occur in conflict zones / war zones

There's already a mode for that too, called CQC.

zero PVP is possibe and no damage would be taken from being fired on by another player.

Sounds like there's still hard feelings about Offline promises.

This would remove the need for one of the largest 'private groups' in the game to be continually moderated by one person.

Better tools and permissions for managing private groups is a separate issue that deserves to be addressed; not brought up here as a mercy argument.

The current Open environment would still exist without changes

How about renaming Solo Play to Ungrouped PVE Play, thus inspiring people to realise a grouped option exists?

Hope this helps. Sorry it took 47 pages before I got here.

So let me get this straight, first you had to search for something that you had an 'idea' might exist, using out of the game third party toolset (web browser)

Then you had to find a group that suited your goals and apply for membership and then wait a day and a half before you could play the game the way you wanted to?

As for the rest of your dissection, I am going to not bother responding because the 'various' ways such a mode could be implemented would be entirely up to frontier to decide which is best and they were just written as different ideas that had been suggested previously by others and meant to show that it could be implemented in different ways...

I agree that groups need better administrative tools, but to suggest that it was brought up as a 'mercy arguement' is false at best, it was listed as a fact on how the current group mode works.

 

[DarkWalker]

I still think this is an insanely petulant stance (or reductio ad absurdum if you're a smartarse ), but it's your opinion and I can dig that much. Opinions are only worth holding if they have empirical evidence to back them up though; otherwise, put on your tinfoil hat and embrace your inner loony. You've heard of WoW, right? With its (RP-) PvP and PvE servers, and its Horde servers and its Alliance servers and its Troll only servers and its Night Elves in Goldshire only servers? However did they manage to produce such a popular game with such fragmentation?!*

*Note that of the 40 most populated servers, 25 are PvE. The next hundred or so are almost all PvE, while just about all the lower population servers are PvP. PvEers and PvPers just. don't. mix.

Edit: also, yes, as Mohrgan said, this option does not currently exist. Imagine a new player who a. enjoys being sociable and b. doesn't enjoy PvP. Which option does s/he choose from the Start menu to fulfill those two simple criteria?

More like I had to learn some Latin at college

BTW, want to see something interesting? Go to that list of WoW realms you linked and see the faction ratios for the largest PvP servers:

Sargeras: Alliance 28:1
Ragnaros: Horde 1.4:1
Emerald Dream: Alliance 1.6:1
Tichondrius: Alliance 1.5:1
Illidan: Horde 13.1:1
Nemesis: Alliance 3.9:1
Azralon: Horde 10.4:1
Kel'Thuzad: Alliance 16.2:1
Darkspear: Alliance 5.2:1
Bleeding Hollow: Horde 2:1
Frostmourne: Alliance 7:1
Korgath: Alliance 4.2:1
Kil'Jaeden: Horde 3.4:1
Arthas: Horde 5.1:1
Mal'Ganis: Horde 20.5:1

In other words, of the fifteen biggest PvP servers, eleven have a 3:1 faction imbalance or worse, and five have a 10:1 faction imbalance or worse. Sincerely, I'm not sure you can get much PvP done with such an imbalance; if you go join the already winning side of a server that imbalanced, it's because you just want the rewards for winning in PvP without having to bother with fighting. WoW is more about PvE than its 40% PvP to 60% PvE split in the player base would suggest. And that in a game where PvE servers were added almost as an afterthought for what the devs expected to be a small number of players that didn't want to have anything to do with PvP.

---

That link earlier was a real eye opener. The PvPers blatantly didn't want to face equal opposition. They must have known, prior to Trammel, that their actions were killing the game? What did they think was going to happen? I know Trammel came out of left field, but even without it their days of griefing had a definite limit, the game was bleeding out...

Not sure most knew. UO wasn't seeing a decrease in its subscription numbers yet, thanks to large numbers of players being willing to purchase and try the game, so the issues with player retention weren't very visible without privileged information. Of course, keeping the subscription numbers stable while having a lot of players leaving the game meant the game was burning fast through its potential player base, which is bad.

Though of course there are always the bad apples, players that know they are harming the game and simply don't care; I don't think the players that eschew community to go grief others would be worried about killing the game. Some people just want to see everything go down in flames. Heck, there were players that basically wanted to drive others from the game and didn't even bother trying to hide it.

 

[excalibus]

Glad to see this getting more legs around here. It is a gem of a video about how this game works...and why 'things' are the way they are!

Yes it is a very in depth and great explanation of how the whole infrastructure works and puts to bed many peoples claims of 'server cost' as a reason not to implement certain things such as a Multiplayer PVE mode...

You can readily identify people who are talking without knowing how it really works when they come out with comments claiming 'server costs / server load increases etc'

 

[DarkWalker]

- Why is this game P2P and not server based?

Because P2P is cheaper and with lower latency (going down to zero latency for when the player is alone in the instance). And because the core concept of the game's multiplayer is that you get to choose who you play with (the first thing Frontier said about multiplayer was, literally, "you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends?"); since the intent was to allow players to remove anyone unwanted from their gameplay anyway, the potential disadvantages of P2P, when it comes to not being able to force players to see each other, just don't matter.

- This game is game is advertised as an MMO game and blazing your own trail.

It's also advertised as a single player game and as a co-op game. And, to make things more interesting, as a game appropriate to 7 years old kids (thanks to its European PEGI7 rating), which makes it even harder to remove Solo (to do so Frontier would have to guarantee that every encounter with another player will be appropriate for a 7 years old kid, something I don't think feasible).

- People are both good and evil both in real life and in how they play games, and this game should allow for all types of players to interact in this huge universe. If you want the game to last 10 years then something needs to be done. It seems FD wants to please everyone and in doing so they haven’t pleased anyone. This game has great potential if it can have a unified community and identity.

Unified community between the PvP and PvE players? As in, all in a single mode? Sorry, I doubt that is even possible. If you tweak Open to be minimally acceptable for the players that want to eschew PvP, you will make it unusable by those that want random PvP combat to be possible, and vice versa.

If you mean a community of players, no matter where they play, that is very much why Frontier insists that every player, regardless of mode, should influence and be influenced by the same galaxy simulation. Yes, even the solo players (there are some dev diaries, and assorted dev posts across the years, that explicitly say that Solo players will get to influence the galaxy simulation). Everyone is part of the same community, even those that will never meet face to face.

 

[Gedemon]

That is reductio ad absurdum. And completely contrary to the intent to boot. PvE players want an Open PvE mode so it can attract all the PvE players spread across the myriad PvE groups that were created, as well as many of the Solo players (remembering that a Solo player is basically a private group of one person); thus, the creation of an Open PvE mode should eliminate a huge amount of groups, concentrating all its former players into a single place (and a more enjoyable for them to boot).

Is there a list of those group somewhere ? How many people are concerned exactly ?

Why aren't they all in Moebius, what's wrong with it ?

What is being discussed does not exist. There is no Co-Op option on the log in screen. Are you confusing this discussion with another one?

There is not, because it's not needed as long as private group exist. The base game is mostly solo with a very little bit of PvP and PvE, development resources would be wasted on that option.

I'm certain that people who don't want PvP at all aren't stupid, they would never have bought a game without knowing that they can play PvE, they know that private group exist, and as they know that they can find Moebius in 5 seconds, if they are play Elite, they also have internet.

The game is advertised indeed as a game that you can 'play your way' but to play in a multiplayer PVE only environment, if that is the way you want to play, you currently can't

And you can't play with rainbow firing unicorns. Not even in Private Groups.

 

[Raylion]

I don't play in 'Open' because I don't want the possibility of PVP, its never been something I've been interested in throughout the years I've played other MMOs and certainly not something I can see myself pursuing in the future.

Due to this I play in Solo which is a great shame as I would much prefer to play in an environment where I could come across other players and in get involved in co-operative activities. Until such time an option can be implemented where players in an Open environment cannot harm each other then I'll stay in Solo (with occasional ventures into Mobius etc).

Its incredulous to me such an option is not already available and hope its something that can be remedied by Frontier sometime in the future.

 

[Pluvialis]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6521&page=5&p=127018&viewfull=1#post127018

So presumably the PVE server died off, its population fading away as people gave up on a boring and challenge-free game or transferred back to the PVP server so they could enjoy the true experienced with the rush of genuine danger?

 

[dxm55]

Meh, just give these guys their PVE servers.

It's a 32 player instance anyway. There's always somebody out there to engage and kill if you want to, whether it'd be a newbie or a vet.
Just needs some searching. The galaxy is a large place. On some days you don't even meet anyone in Open.
You can always find people around stations and RES sites, if not Nav beacons. Or you can try your luck at CG locations.

 

[excalibus]

Is there a list of those group somewhere ? How many people are concerned exactly ?

Why aren't they all in Moebius, what's wrong with it ?


There is not, because it's not needed as long as private group exist. The base game is mostly solo with a very little bit of PvP and PvE, development resources would be wasted on that option.

I'm certain that people who don't want PvP at all aren't stupid, they would never have bought a game without knowing that they can play PvE, they know that private group exist, and as they know that they can find Moebius in 5 seconds, if they are play Elite, they also have internet.


And you can't play with rainbow firing unicorns. Not even in Private Groups.

well if you go by the 'poll' and extrapolate, I guess around 50% of the player base are concerned yeah I know that is a reach but the reality is only FD would really know a 100% accurate answer to that question just the same as you have no real hard evidence as to how many players would really prefer a PVE option on the main menu...

Perhaps mobius does not give them the total type environment they are looking for as there is still PVP allowed in Mobius or perhaps they are not wanting to 'overload' the player Mobius with more requests for entry into his group. There are a number of reasons why people who play PVE have not joined the Mobius PG I am sure, including not even knowing about the group.


As for rainbow firing unicorns, well that was never an option touted as a reason for buying the game now was it... Soo... Please think up an actual valid and constructive arguement and come back and elighten us all

 

[Robert Maynard]

Meh, just give these guys their PVE servers.

It doesn't require servers - Open-PvE would just be one more game mode for the matchmaking system to take into account (along with every single Private Group and Open, of course) - along with a few simple rules.

 

[Gedemon]

well if you go by the 'poll' and extrapolate, I guess around 50% of the player base are concerned yeah I know that is a reach but the reality is only FD would really know a 100% accurate answer to that question just the same as you have no real hard evidence as to how many players would really prefer a PVE option on the main menu...

Perhaps mobius does not give them the total type environment they are looking for as there is still PVP allowed in Mobius or perhaps they are not wanting to 'overload' the player Mobius with more requests for entry into his group. There are a number of reasons why people who play PVE have not joined the Mobius PG I am sure, including not even knowing about the group.


As for rainbow firing unicorns, well that was never an option touted as a reason for buying the game now was it... Soo... Please think up an actual valid and constructive arguement and come back and elighten us all

The last argument was a necessary step.

Yes unicorns were never meant to be a part of the game, but neither was a open pve group AFAIK that's the point.

What was suggested however is specific ruleset with private groups, which is also why Moebius as it is now can't be ideal.

Specific ruleset for PvE is more important than the option on the main screen, it's a prerequisite.

And, say that the option is available, what would be the fixed rules that would feder all PvE players AND could be applied on the same BGS than open without allowing exploit ?

Because the core of the problem is here, we agree that PG without rules is not the solution for PvE people, they/you ask for rules.

And debatting about the position of the button that set the rules is hidding the real difficulty for it's implementation.

In an ideal world, private server with specific rules on independant Galaxies would be possible and every one would play exactly as they want with everyone wanting to play like them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes unicorns were never meant to be a part of the game, but neither was a open pve group AFAIK that's the point.

What was suggested however is specific ruleset with private groups, which is also why Moebius as it is now can't be ideal.

What then did Frontier intend when, in the FAQ posted at the beginning of the Kickstarter, they talked of "open groups" where the "rules in each can be different"?

 

[Mohrgan]

The last argument was a necessary step.

Yes unicorns were never meant to be a part of the game, but neither was a open pve group AFAIK that's the point.

What was suggested however is specific ruleset with private groups, which is also why Moebius as it is now can't be ideal.

Specific ruleset for PvE is more important than the option on the main screen, it's a prerequisite.

And, say that the option is available, what would be the fixed rules that would feder all PvE players AND could be applied on the same BGS than open without allowing exploit ?

Because the core of the problem is here, we agree that PG without rules is not the solution for PvE people, they/you ask for rules.

And debatting about the position of the button that set the rules is hidding the real difficulty for it's implementation.

In an ideal world, private server with specific rules on independant Galaxies would be possible and every one would play exactly as they want with everyone wanting to play like them.

Are you now attempting to link PvE-Open with separating the BGS? There is no justification for that except as a punitive action. "Ok, I guess you can have a Co-Op mode, but you have to give up the BGS, because that's ours." Is that how I should take the post above? If so, let me tell you, that is just crazy. It will never happen.

 

[Dr Wookie]

PVE has to be by intention rather than baked in, otherwise players in that mode would never have to worry about friendly fire, magically.

 

[Gedemon]

What then did Frontier intend when, in the FAQ posted at the beginning of the Kickstarter, they talked of "open groups" where the "rules in each can be different"?

Noted, open as in "can join freely" I suppose, I'm good with that, I thought Moebius could already be set that way.

But then note "groups" not "group", and rules set by players, not by FD.

Then ask yourself how it could (or not) be applied on a global BGS.

 

[Winterwalker]

I actually disagree, as an open player since beta, I can say that unprovoked PVP does hapeen, and it happens often enough...

Voted no. Don't think I can think of anything more dull than knowing all Commanders I meet are going to be friendly. For me the insecurity of not knowing, with associated handshaking, trust building and present risk of double cross is exciting, interesting and much more fun. New players in small ships are more vulnerable yes, but I'd encourage them (and anybody else) to play with stealth and nouse, but with the hyenas and the lions, in the jungle.

 

[Gedemon]

Are you now attempting to link PvE-Open with separating the BGS? There is no justification for that except as a punitive action. "Ok, I guess you can have a Co-Op mode, but you have to give up the BGS, because that's ours." Is that how I should take the post above? If so, let me tell you, that is just crazy. It will never happen.

No, I'm saying that it's not as simple as putting a bit flag on a player, the rules for a PvE mode have to be carefully designed because of the way the whole game is designed.

And how can you see a separate BGS as a "punishment", I would love to have access to my own to play with a few likeminded players, without the heresy that is powerplay.

 

[Mohrgan]

Noted, open as in "can join freely" I suppose, I'm good with that, I thought Moebius could already be set that way.

But then note "grous" not "group", and rules set by players, not by FD.

Then ask yourself how it could (or not) be applied on a global BGS.

Yeah, you are trying to tie a PvE-Open to separate BGS's. There is no reason, especially when you look at the current design of the game, that adding one more matchmaking choice should have any affect on the BGS. This isn't a trade. We get one thing we like, but have to give up another. That's ridiculous. If a PG like Mobius, or all of the players in solo have an influence on the BGS now, what should cause another option on the log in screen to create any kind of break at all?

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

No, I'm saying that it's not as simple as putting a bit flag on a player, the rules for a PvE mode have to be carefully designed because of the way the whole game is designed.

And how can you see a separate BGS as a "punishment", I would love to have access to my own to play with a few likeminded players, without the heresy that is powerplay.

All of the activities we have now are designed to be used by all of the players who have bought the game. They have been since the beginning, including those on consoles. With all of this going on, one more option doesn't make one bit of difference. Nothing that affects the BGS has anything to do with PvP. Not even Power Play. No, there is simply no reason to attach any separation of BGS's to the request for an PvE-Open, except one that seeks to punish those that won't offer themselves up as sacrificial content.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Noted, open as in "can join freely" I suppose, I'm good with that, I thought Moebius could already be set that way.

But then note "groups" not "group", and rules set by players, not by FD.

Then ask yourself how it could (or not) be applied on a global BGS.

Open as in equivalent to the single Open game mode that we have. Mobius has controlled access precisely because no in-game rules can be set in the group to deter PKers, therefore they need to be able to be kicked on transgression.

All of what we have now as game modes are "groups" - Solo = group of one; Private Group = Private Group; Open = "all" group as mentioned in the linked FAQ. There was no mention that Frontier would be in control of the rule changes in groups - equally, no mention that they would not.

We have a single shared galaxy state, experienced and modified by all players - that is also clearly illustrated in the linked FAQ under single player:

The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.

The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.

The addition of an Open-PvE mode would not change that any more than the existence of Solo / Private Groups.

 

[Gedemon]

Yeah, you are trying to tie a PvE-Open to separate BGS's. There is no reason, especially when you look at the current design of the game, that adding one more matchmaking choice should have any affect on the BGS. This isn't a trade. We get one thing we like, but have to give up another. That's ridiculous. If a PG like Mobius, or all of the players in solo have an influence on the BGS now, what should cause another option on the log in screen to create any kind of break at all?

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




All of the activities we have now are designed to be used by all of the players who have bought the game. They have been since the beginning, including those on consoles. With all of this going on, one more option doesn't make one bit of difference. Nothing that affects the BGS has anything to do with PvP. Not even Power Play. No, there is simply no reason to attach any separation of BGS's to the request for an PvE-Open, except one that seeks to punish those that won't offer themselves up as sacrificial content.

You want a button without new rules ??? Really ?