Modes The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Because there is no way for PvE players to avoid PvP in a 'public space'. The PvE players are requesting an Open equivalent without having to be concerned about PvP.

Although I can see the logic for the request...

Why should they request for a pure PVE in Open, if they have Private Groups? And where should the PVP Players go, when Open would be pure PVE? I dont understand.
 
Because humans just love tribes.
It's currently a fight between the PvP tribe versus the PvE tribe. Both tribes try to define what the other tribe is about as a way to show how wrong they are and that they are heretics.

And probably because it's just fun to argue about completely irrelevant stuff.

I think we are perfectly representing the two parties system in the United States, we are vivid image that reflects the Legislative branch of the government...
 
But open isnt PVP. Just because you guys say its a PVP mode does not mean that's what it is. Yes, I agree, its a mode where PVP is possible. But its also a mode where PVE is possible. If open, as it stands, was a "PVP" server in the form that your side of the room is claiming it is, I could log in and be guaranteed to find some targets -- willing or otherwise. Thats not the case. Open mode is just open mode.

By your argument, League of Legends, and the whole MOBA genre, would be as much PvE as they are PvP. Much of the game, after all, is killing NPC minions.

Using the term PvP to refer to a game mode, server, game, etc that allows both PvP and PvE is the common stance in the industry. Look, for example, at what are called PvP servers in most MMOs; they are normal servers as far as PvE availability is concerned, but atop that allow PvP to happen. Hence, by having both PvE and PvP, they are called PvP servers, in contrast with the PvE servers where all PvP is either removed or made optional.

But isn't that too easy of a criteria to fulfill?

By your definition, Mobius is a PvP mode. (Yes I know about their CZ rules)

Consent is the basic difference. You can PvP in Mobius, but only in a way where every player must actively choose to engage in PvP. The same way, in other MMOs, game servers that only allow PvP by mutual consent are called PvE servers.

Of course, Mobius isn't a true PvE group because the devs didn't provide us with the tools to completely prevent unwanted PvP. Which is a flaw we really want fixed, preferably by adding a true Open PvE mode, though merely providing the tools to disable PvP in a group would already be a great help.
 
Because humans just love tribes.
It's currently a fight between the PvP tribe versus the PvE tribe. Both tribes try to define what the other tribe is about as a way to show how wrong they are and that they are heretics.

And probably because it's just fun to argue about completely irrelevant stuff.

This is the truth.
 
Why should they request for a pure PVE in Open, if they have Private Groups? And where should the PVP Players go, when Open would be pure PVE? I dont understand.


The request is not to remove PvP from Open (Although there was a movement a few months ago that explored this possibility, with a few converts that still frequent these environs), but to create a different mode, where all the PvE players can go, congregate, and not have to worry that someone will find their congregation an excuse to start firing upon them!

Private groups are not a 'public' PvE zone. They also do not prohibit PvP from occurring. To get into a Private group, you have to know someone in the group. The groups long term existence is also up to a player maintaining that group over the life of the game OR breaking the ToS by sharing their login information/account with others for the maintenance of the group.
 
The request is not to remove PvP from Open (Although there was a movement a few months ago that explored this possibility, with a few converts that still frequent these environs), but to create a different mode, where all the PvE players can go, congregate, and not have to worry that someone will find their congregation an excuse to start firing upon them!

Private groups are not a 'public' PvE zone. They also do not prohibit PvP from occurring. To get into a Private group, you have to know someone in the group. The groups long term existence is also up to a player maintaining that group over the life of the game OR breaking the ToS by sharing their login information/account with others for the maintenance of the group.

I remember this, and I warned it of its potential to fragment the community even further. I made a proposal to push for a flag system.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Im sorry, but how, exactly, is this ANY different than asking for an "open PVE" mode? Its ok to cater to one group's wishes but not another? Allow me to summarize, for summary sake.

OPEN PVE proponents: Want an "open" mode, that will disallow PVP through some as-of-yet determined mechanic, be it through magic shielding or some type of automatic kick feature. Removing the "undesired" aspect from their chosen game mode.

OPEN proponents (some of them): Want open mode to be seperate from the influence of solo and groups. This would remove the "undesired" ability of solo/group players to affect their chosen game mode.

PVP proponents (some of them): Want to FORCE everyone into open mode and do away with solo and groups. This would remove the "undesired" ability for players to avoid the conflict they wish to impose upon them.

Whats the common denominator here? That any group is obviously going to campaign for its own interests, seldom seeing the points made my others in favor of their own. Asking for an open PVE mode is no different than asking for solo/groups to have influence removed from open play. All sides are asking for drastic changes to the core mechanics of how the game works.

Dont throw stones in your glass house.

Those seeking an Open-PvE mode are not seeking a separate galaxy state all to themselves. Open-PvE would simply be another machmaking setting with an autokick on attacking/destroying another player (who would presumably be fully reimbursed).

That's quite different from those who want to increase running costs with the implementation of a separate galaxy state to develop, host and curate.

Those who wish to remove the freedoms of other players for their own gratification would have probably not been with regard to their requests to force unwilling players to be their targets simply because Frontier seem to value all players' freedoms - not just the freedoms of those who wish to prey on other players.

To have the pure PVE multiplayer mode you just need to make 5 jumps in either directions. Apparently this is too hard for so many players.

Why should players move out of interesting areas of the game just because PvP players congregate there?
 
By your argument, League of Legends, and the whole MOBA genre, would be as much PvE as they are PvP. Much of the game, after all, is killing NPC minions.

Using the term PvP to refer to a game mode, server, game, etc that allows both PvP and PvE is the common stance in the industry. Look, for example, at what are called PvP servers in most MMOs; they are normal servers as far as PvE availability is concerned, but atop that allow PvP to happen. Hence, by having both PvE and PvP, they are called PvP servers, in contrast with the PvE servers where all PvP is either removed or made optional.



Consent is the basic difference. You can PvP in Mobius, but only in a way where every player must actively choose to engage in PvP. The same way, in other MMOs, game servers that only allow PvP by mutual consent are called PvE servers.

Of course, Mobius isn't a true PvE group because the devs didn't provide us with the tools to completely prevent unwanted PvP. Which is a flaw we really want fixed, preferably by adding a true Open PvE mode, though merely providing the tools to disable PvP in a group would already be a great help.

And I dont want that. I dont want the devs spending time figuring out how to tell the core mechanics of the game to disregard gunfire from another player, separate that damage from NPC's, allow that damage through, disregard ramming damage from other player ships, but allow that of NPC's, allow "clipping through" another player ship, but not NPC (because that WILL come up if open PVE is allowed), and many, many other factors that would have to be researched, changed, added or removed. It may not even be possible, as you so correctly pointed out when you said the player driven economy wouldnt work because the GAME WASNT DESIGNED THAT WAY. We dont even know if its POSSIBLE to turn off PVP! In MY viewpoint, I want the devs working on content for all players. Not just the PVE crowd. Give us bounty hunting tools. Give us better NPC cargo to pirate. Give me some REAL penalties for being a pirate. You know, stuff thats important to everyone... not just the PVE open mode crowd.
 
Wow, thats complicated for somone who is not native english: Do you mean something like this?

PVEvPVP.gif
 
Wow, thats complicated for somone who is not native english: Do you mean something like this?

View attachment 89235

Nope (well that was your original diagram anyway!)! Not separated from the galaxy...everyone still affects the states of stations, systems, etc. just as it is now...just a new state, either within the current Open system that flags PvE only or a separate PvE only mode, similar to Open, where no PC can injure another.

I would also point out that currently, the top two PvE choices do not exist at all...so the game is designed as offering PvP to everyone except those in Solo mode.
 
Last edited:
Those seeking an Open-PvE mode are not seeking a separate galaxy state all to themselves. Open-PvE would simply be another machmaking setting with an autokick on attacking/destroying another player (who would presumably be fully reimbursed).

That's quite different from those who want to increase running costs with the implementation of a separate galaxy state to develop, host and curate.

What about accidental fire? What about ramming damage? What about kill stealing and mission blocking? What about jerks who sit in the docking zone so others cannot pass? You would need a reworking of game mechanics to prevent these. THAT is griefing. And you would see MUCH more of it as soon as that mode went live. How does the computer tell the difference between someone who doesnt really know how to fly and someone intentionally blocking a docking mailslot? It cant. It would have to be worked out, reprogrammed, tested, patched -- time and money, my friend.

Those who wish to remove the freedoms of other players for their own gratification would have probably not been with regard to their requests to force unwilling players to be their targets simply because Frontier seem to value all players' freedoms - not just the freedoms of those who wish to prey on other players.

Why should players move out of interesting areas of the game just because PvP players congregate there?

YOU ARE REMOVING the freedoms of other players by advocating this. Its the same thing! Why do they get theirs, but I "have CQC" that has nothing to do with ED, and thats MY answer? No thanks, mate. How is it ok for a wing of T9's to alter trade route value for me, but NOT OK FOR ME TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT by stopping them? Because they are doing it through market PVP and not with guns? That makes it ok?
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom