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

[kofeyh]

Well yes, if by that you mean the argument from a section of PvPers who can't get their head round the simple idea that not everyone who wishes to play alongside others considers player-to-player combat necessary. As far as I can see, nobody else is saying anything about there being a single right way of doing anything. It's about giving paying customers clear options, and allowing them to chose for themselves.

Weirdly, i don't disagree. However claiming one side is wrong, and the other is right, does sort of make my point for me.

Making the entirely of open acquiesce to a PVE model, isn't really open. It's sort of open but not really. Adding a PVE flag to groups as a short term middle ground, with longer term discussions between frontier and commanders of either (or any) persuasion to find a workable solution for the most amount of people possible - strikes me as a better idea.

 

[AJW]

Weirdly, i don't disagree. However claiming one side is wrong, and the other is right, does sort of make my point for me.

Making the entirely of open acquiesce to a PVE model, isn't really open. It's sort of open but not really. Adding a PVE flag to groups as a short term middle ground, with longer term discussions between frontier and commanders of either (or any) persuasion to find a workable solution for the most amount of people possible - strikes me as a better idea.

A multiplayer mode where anyone can participate is 'open'. That's what 'open' means. It doesn't have to mean 'no rules' - or do you think that competitors in the British Open golf championship are allowed to hit each other over the head with their clubs?

 

[Faded Glory]

A multiplayer mode where anyone can participate is 'open'. That's what 'open' means. It doesn't have to mean 'no rules' - or do you think that competitors in the British Open golf championship are allowed to hit each other over the head with their clubs?

Presumably only those playing in the Happy Gilmore group...

 

[Kyokushin]

Yes - there should be separated PvE mode without possibility to shoot to other Player and without a possibility to interfere in Open PvP BGS, and vice versa.

Clear rules.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

if you had read the thread kain, you would know that there is a lot more to it that 'just paying the insurance' or wanting to 'protect progress'... PVE players pay the insurance when they die to NPC's and they do it gladly... there are some people, who, for very valid and understandable reasons, cannot do PVP at all, and some for whom, PVP causes serious psychological issues that affect them in the real world...

Should those players be relegated to a solo only mode because you want PVP? Should those players be continually told 'go to mobius' when private groups cannot negate the possibility of any PVP?

What if it was your son, daugher, sister or brother, father or mother that had these issues but really wanted to play ED in a multiplayer environment where they could enjoy meeting other commanders and be enriched by those social encounters without worrying about PVP?

Tell me, are you personally so caught up with your 'desire' for PVP that you cannot take a step back and think about these sorts of players and the benefits an OPEN PVE mode would have for them?

Everyone has issues and problems. I don't expect these people to be a majority but ofcourse it is sad that they get 'harmed' by the game. However, what does it have to do with PvP? For example if one can't handle the strss of one player, they probably can't handle the stress of an Anaconda wing engaging on them as well.

IMO there should be tools to avoid PvP for example a warning that appears when you enter a hotspot for killing CMDRs or other defensive tools but not a mode that completely blocks PvP. Elite: Dangerous isn't about meeting other players, you can do that in any given multiplayer game. If my son or daughter would have issues and they want to play Elite: Dangerous, I'd tell them to open a private group with their friends and meet for co-op missions. Or if one would be colour-blind ... there are ways to provide other colour themes so colour-blind people can play the game but that doesn't mean that the ones who can see normal should get affected by that -> that ALL players will see now the colour-blind theme even though only a small group of people benefit from that.

So Open PvE? No. Other stuff that can contribute to avoid PvP? Yes. Example: CMDR warnings, map hotspot highlighters, etc.

 

[kofeyh]

A multiplayer mode where anyone can participate is 'open'. That's what 'open' means. It doesn't have to mean 'no rules' - or do you think that competitors in the British Open golf championship are allowed to hit each other over the head with their clubs?

If the rules of the British Open say it's okay to hit each other. Then within those terms, they are free to hit each other (currently in elite dangerous British open, it's okay to hit each other. It's not okay to breach the ToS though, which is an actual set of rules).

You are making an analogy based on PVP being incorrect in open. PVP is incorrect in groups like möbius because of a group rule; not because of game design.

Again you are reinforcing my point that the only valid option is PVE (insert reason or analogy why open should be PVE only here), rather than realising there is a current game mode that requires frontier have to redefine the entire notion of open to accomodate more than a PVE flag in groups.

 

[AJW]

Elite: Dangerous isn't about meeting other players, you can do that in any given multiplayer game.

Why isn't Elite about 'meeting other players'? Who says so? And why is their opinion any more valid than anyone else's?

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

If the rules of the British open day it's okay to hit each other. Then within those terms, they are free to hit each other. You are making an analogy based on PVP being incorrect in open. PVP is incorrect in groups like möbius because of a group rule; not because of game design.

Again you are reinforcing my point that the only valid option is PVE (insert reason or analogy why open should be PVE only here).

I'm not making any analogy, and neither am I suggesting that PvP is 'incorrect' - instead I pointed out that there can be different sets of rules regarding things legitimately called 'open'. And if there is a demand for different open modes, there is no reason not to provide them.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
...but that doesn't mean that the ones who can see normal should get affected by that -> that ALL players will see now the colour-blind theme even though only a small group of people benefit from that.

So Open PvE? No.

But no-one is suggesting that any player be forced into an Open PvE mode, so there's no reason it would affect anyone's game in Open. Except if a requirement of that game is to have unwilling targets to attack...

[snip]
You are making an analogy based on PVP being incorrect in open.

Has anyone actually suggested that PvP in Open is not correct, not explicitly allowed?

To be honest, I've not seen anyone seriously suggest that.

 

[kofeyh]

I'm not making any analogy, and neither am I suggesting that PvP is 'incorrect' - instead I pointed out that there can be different sets of rules regarding things legitimately called 'open'. And if there is a demand for different open modes, there is no reason not to provide them.

Give me a moment to unpack this.

The analogy of tennis players beating each other up (as an example rules being broken in open) actually isn't?

Beating each other up isn't actually a rule breach in open; player behaviour is an independent thing to people just shooting at each other.

The better example would be suggesting official boxing associations (which have rules and codes of conduct) should instead offer a boxing ring where boxers could punch computers instead.

That is an actual analogy, because open has the defacto stance that player combat is a potential activity, which is permitted and coded into the game - but there are rules and people who are abusive get kicked out of the ring.

Is there a genuine case for PVE? Sure. But I'm pretty sure frontier could start adding that sort of feature, without resorting to lumping all PVP actions as being pretty much interchangeably bad and having tennis players attacking each other.

 

[Blackcompany]

There is literally no reason NOT to allow an open PVE option. No legitimate reason exists to bar people from choosing a strictly PVE option if they so choose.

There are, however, numerous, lore friendly reasons for open PVP to NOT exist:

-Elite is a simulator, not EVE Online with a flight stick. Ships dont drop loot, ergo, attacking with the aim to blow them up is literally pointlessly psychotic behavior. This ruins immersion and has no place in Elite.

-Consequences for needlessly hostile acts are not yet present in the game to any significant effect but the ability to commit said acts is. PVP is completely one sided in favor of attackers right now.

-We are ALL members of the pilot's federation. I am certain they would not only frown on such activities but would come down hard on the psychos who get their kicks out of blowing up other Pilot Fed affiliated ships (and the game needs to reflect this)

There are, furthermore, technical reasons PVP should not exist in Open:

-Quite against the wishes of many of their initial backers, Frontier forced an always online mode for the game that they could neither truly afford financially nor for that reason support technically. Dedicated servers do not exist, and instead encounters rely on peer to peer networks. For this reason, players can, and I am certain, HAVE died to lag as opposed to superior skill.

-Just as they lack sufficient punishment for needlessly aggressively actions, Frontier lack consequences for Combat logging. As well they should, since no reliable method exists for determining the legitimacy of a sudden connection drop during play. Power goes out; ISP's do too.

Nonethelss, I DO NOT begrudge those who would enter into a no holds barred, play at your own risk, Open mode. If you would like to do so fine.

But a PVE Open mode should exist. I understand concerns with Power Play and even to a much lesser extent the BGS. I do. On the other hand you knew going in that Frontier was going to allow this. And given that people can already choose solo - which should ALWAYS be an option - as well as private groups, I see no reason NOT to allow people to play with other people in an environment that forces more immersion-friendly behavior.

 

[kofeyh]

There is literally no reason NOT to allow an open PVE option. No legitimate reason exists to bar people from choosing a strictly PVE option if they so choose.

There are, however, numerous, lore friendly reasons for open PVP to NOT exist:

-Elite is a simulator, not EVE Online with a flight stick. Ships dont drop loot, ergo, attacking with the aim to blow them up is literally pointlessly psychotic behavior. This ruins immersion and has no place in Elite.

-Consequences for needlessly hostile acts are not yet present in the game to any significant effect but the ability to commit said acts is. PVP is completely one sided in favor of attackers right now.

-We are ALL members of the pilot's federation. I am certain they would not only frown on such activities but would come down hard on the psychos who get their kicks out of blowing up other Pilot Fed affiliated ships (and the game needs to reflect this)

There are, furthermore, technical reasons PVP should not exist in Open:

-Quite against the wishes of many of their initial backers, Frontier forced an always online mode for the game that they could neither truly afford financially nor for that reason support technically. Dedicated servers do not exist, and instead encounters rely on peer to peer networks. For this reason, players can, and I am certain, HAVE died to lag as opposed to superior skill.

-Just as they lack sufficient punishment for needlessly aggressively actions, Frontier lack consequences for Combat logging. As well they should, since no reliable method exists for determining the legitimacy of a sudden connection drop during play. Power goes out; ISP's do too.

Nonethelss, I DO NOT begrudge those who would enter into a no holds barred, play at your own risk, Open mode. If you would like to do so fine.

But a PVE Open mode should exist. I understand concerns with Power Play and even to a much lesser extent the BGS. I do. On the other hand you knew going in that Frontier was going to allow this. And given that people can already choose solo - which should ALWAYS be an option - as well as private groups, I see no reason NOT to allow people to play with other people in an environment that forces more immersion-friendly behavior.

So you want to have PVE, and the reason is that PVP is niether immersive (all those people in Afghanistan shooting computers because actual people is not immersive. I am pretty sure it's incredibly immersive for those involved to be fair and they get to live with that for the rest of their lives) or lore friendly (so all the commanders in different factions that see "enemy" should assume that's incorrect data as well).

Im all for broader PVE if it can be done well. But most of your post, frankly, I find a struggle on basic logic grounds, let alone anything else. The game was and is coded and designed to allow commander combat. Adding PVE to this shouldn't require some kind of "everything is currently wrong" as an argument.

It's a feature improvement. Treat it like one. And people like people.

 

[AJW]

Give me a moment to unpack this.

The analogy of tennis players beating each other up (as an example rules being broken in open) actually isn't?

Beating each other up isn't actually a rule breach in open; player behaviour is an independent thing to people just shooting at each other.

The better example would be suggesting official boxing associations (which have rules and codes of conduct) should instead offer a boxing ring where boxers could punch computers instead.

That is an actual analogy, because open has the defacto stance that player combat is a potential activity, which is permitted and coded into the game - but there are rules and people who are abusive get kicked out of the ring.

Is there a genuine case for PVE? Sure. But I'm pretty frontier could start adding that sort of game mode, without resorting to lumping all PVP actions as being pretty much interchangeable.

Sorry, what I meant to write was I'm not making any such analogy. Nothing I said about the open golf championship in any way asserts that PvP is 'incorrect'. Merely that there can be different rules for legitimate game modes. Not Everyone who plays Elite is interested in player-versus-player 'boxing'. I know I'm not - because as far as multiplayer 'combat' goes, I can find more interesting and meaningful encounters elsewhere. To put it bluntly, I consider it arcadeish and not worth the effort.

 

[jgm]

And if there is a demand for different open modes, there is no reason not to provide them.

This is not true. There are a number of reasons not to provide them.

• It involves development effort and takes resources away from other features
• It confuses new players who won't know which of the two 'opens' to choose
• It creates any number of corner cases that would be exploitable and cause ongoing problems
• It opens the door to every other request for alterations to the ruleset, creating bad feeling if they are not in turn implemented

And that's just off the top of my head.

There are valid reasons for asking for an open PvE mode (although I don't agree with the idea) but it is certainly not the case that "there is no reason not to provide them".

 

[Deathwatch]

There is literally no reason NOT to allow an open PVE option. No legitimate reason exists to bar people from choosing a strictly PVE option if they so choose.

There are, however, numerous, lore friendly reasons for open PVP to NOT exist:

-Elite is a simulator, not EVE Online with a flight stick. Ships dont drop loot, ergo, attacking with the aim to blow them up is literally pointlessly psychotic behavior. This ruins immersion and has no place in Elite.

-Consequences for needlessly hostile acts are not yet present in the game to any significant effect but the ability to commit said acts is. PVP is completely one sided in favor of attackers right now.

-We are ALL members of the pilot's federation. I am certain they would not only frown on such activities but would come down hard on the psychos who get their kicks out of blowing up other Pilot Fed affiliated ships (and the game needs to reflect this)

There are, furthermore, technical reasons PVP should not exist in Open:

-Quite against the wishes of many of their initial backers, Frontier forced an always online mode for the game that they could neither truly afford financially nor for that reason support technically. Dedicated servers do not exist, and instead encounters rely on peer to peer networks. For this reason, players can, and I am certain, HAVE died to lag as opposed to superior skill.

-Just as they lack sufficient punishment for needlessly aggressively actions, Frontier lack consequences for Combat logging. As well they should, since no reliable method exists for determining the legitimacy of a sudden connection drop during play. Power goes out; ISP's do too.

Nonethelss, I DO NOT begrudge those who would enter into a no holds barred, play at your own risk, Open mode. If you would like to do so fine.

But a PVE Open mode should exist. I understand concerns with Power Play and even to a much lesser extent the BGS. I do. On the other hand you knew going in that Frontier was going to allow this. And given that people can already choose solo - which should ALWAYS be an option - as well as private groups, I see no reason NOT to allow people to play with other people in an environment that forces more immersion-friendly behavior.

Please don't talk like you know how the game was funded and the views of its player base, their are a lot of supporters whom put in a lot of money that are either active in the PvP scene or won't support your motion.

While i do agree their is a lack of proper punishment, the same could be said for undermining of npc minor factions heck if i was running a corporation and you were affecting my profit line i'd have you killed, the issue is their currently isn't punishment for anything, you can't assume because something is "evil" it would be the only thing being punished.

The Pilots Federation doesn't care mate, if you read the books we are minor minor pieces on the chess board, so don't assume the Pilots Federation would even care about someone so minor.

 

[kofeyh]

Sorry, what I meant to write was I'm not making any such analogy. Nothing I said about the open golf championship in any way asserts that PvP is 'incorrect'. Merely that there can be different rules for legitimate game modes. Not Everyone who plays Elite is interested in player-versus-player 'boxing'. I know I'm not - because as far as multiplayer 'combat' goes, I can find more interesting and meaningful encounters elsewhere. To put it bluntly, I consider it arcadeish and not worth the effort.

Keep on branding various parts of the community. That will increase support.

Honestly how hard is it to simply say "can we have a PVE only full multiplayer experience please?" - without either labelling or verballing entire chunks of the community?

This has all sorts of issues to overcome. Yes they can probably disable player damage, but ramming will still work and technically that's entirely fine. In fact unless it's done where speeding is a crime, or to the point where a player dies, there's no actual bounty.

So how do you prevent ramming? Or any other method that is non-gun related? At best at present frontier might be able to add some kind of constraint to PG's and give owners delegation capabilities and better management tools.

Redeveloping the game to effectively disable a core mechanic isn't something we can just assume is the flick of a switch. At all.

 

[AJW]

Keep on branding various parts of the community. That will increase support.

Honestly how hard is it to simply say "can we have a PVE only full multiplayer experience please?" - without either labelling or verbal long entire chunks of the community?

I'm not labelling or branding anything. I'm explaining why I'm not interested in a PvP player mode. You, on the other hand seem intent on attributing things to me that I've never said.

 

[kofeyh]

I'm not labelling or branding anything. I'm explaining why I'm not interested in a PvP player mode. You, on the other hand seem intent on attributing things to me that I've never said.

It's cool. You don't need to explain to me why you don't need PVP. In a game that ships with it. Talk to frontier. They even offered to talk more to the community about it - but it was drowned out by people asking for PVE.

So now we have endlessly threads about how PVE needs to happen, as apposed to simply listening to frontier who seem to have said they aren't apposed to the idea.

I'm sure another thread will be raised again on this topic though. And frontier will be wondering why people keep asking for the thing they say they aren't apposed to, and probably confused why people don't just do that (talk to frontier, rather than at them) instead.

Just an observation.

 

[Roland2]

This is not true. There are a number of reasons not to provide them.

• It involves development effort and takes resources away from other features
• It confuses new players who won't know which of the two 'opens' to choose
• It creates any number of corner cases that would be exploitable and cause ongoing problems
• It opens the door to every other request for alterations to the ruleset, creating bad feeling if they are not in turn implemented

And that's just off the top of my head.

There are valid reasons for asking for an open PvE mode (although I don't agree with the idea) but it is certainly not the case that "there is no reason not to provide them".

For me, only your first point has merit. I agree that some development effort, and resources would be needed. IMO, a PvE mode should have priority over "other features".

New players are already confused. IMO, having two open choices, one labeled "Open-PvP" and the other "Open-PvE" would reduce confusion not cause more.

Your last two "reasons" happen all the time. Introduce SCBs, add SCB time delay, add SCB heat, change effectiveness of SCBs. Percieved "corner" cases that caused ongoing problems, bad feelings the way they were implemented or changed, and by some, considered exploits. As long as the game develops you're never going to get away from your last two "reasons".

 

[jgm]

For me, only your first point has merit. I agree that some development effort, and resources would be needed. IMO, a PvE mode should have priority over "other features".

And IMO a PvE mode should be bottom of the pile. Having an opinion means nothing, what matters is resource allocation and this would be a very significant one.

New players are already confused. IMO, having two open choices, one labeled "Open-PvP" and the other "Open-PvE" would reduce confusion not cause more.

In your opinion, again. But in general having more options to choose from increases confusion rather than decreases it.

Your last two "reasons" happen all the time. Introduce SCBs, add SCB time delay, add SCB heat, change effectiveness of SCBs. Percieved "corner" cases that caused ongoing problems, bad feelings the way they were implemented or changed, and by some, considered exploits. As long as the game develops your never going to get away from your last two "reasons".

Not comparable. SCB changes are alterations of the mechanics of the gameplay but are consistent with what the devs want them to do.

PvE is putting a very significant additional rule in place that players will expect to be adhered to in all situations. This goes far beyond a simple "take no damage if the source is another player" and has knock-on effects all over the codebase, not to mention all of the existing mechanisms by which one player can "hurt" another player in ways that are within the rules of a strict PvE definition. The more I think about it the less likely that I can see it ever happening: it's too hard and FD have other priorities.

 

[DHMeyer]

The poll asks voters if they want to see an official Open-PvE mode added to the mode selection menu. It is not directly to do with facilitating MMO type gameplay (although, if introduced, would very probably facilitate co-operative play) - more simply about the introduction of a game mode where PvP is not permitted*.

*: probably - or possibly in particular areas only, e.g. Combat Zones.

Yes.

Dont forget DB himself is quoted as saying he does not feel ED is an MMO, certainly not in the traditional sense. imo the only reason they use the MMO tag is because they realise that in the modern day games like warthunder and WOT ARE marketed as mmos, therefore if they managed it then Frontier would be silly not to as well.

if you look at ED, it does tick all mmo boxes, just the BGS alone manages this, even before we get onto the meat of the game flying space ships.

its massive
its multiplayer
its online
every single person playing in the game effects the BGS therefore it IS masssively multiplayer

whether it is a GOOD MMO is another discussion however

for me I do not look at it as an mmo, I look at it as an rpg where i role play the life as a spaceman in 1000+ years time. Even then however some would argue it is not an RPG either.... which is fine, but that is what it is to me.

=======================================================

There’s been some confusion as to exactly what the multiplayer in Elite: Dangerous will entail, whether it will be a full-scale MMO or more like a large-scale drop-in drop-out co-op. The game that people keep using as a point of comparison is EVE Online…

It’s not [like EVE online]. One of the things I’ve done today is to put a load more stuff on the FAQ explaining how it’s different and how, in some ways, it’s an MMO, because we expect a massive number of players to play it. But in most ways that people will judge it, Elite: Dangerous is not an MMO.

Yes again. The bottom line is that the game itself is rather OK, with issues here or there, but the foundation is good, the ideas are good, the universe is good. There are certainly things that need improvement and building up, but then again, it is supposed to be expanded with time, so I have no problems with that. Whether they want to make it into MMO or not though, it sure could use the Open PVE mode and that's what I voted for.