Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

To be honest, I think Mouse's reply to my 'question' was correct, and that's going to be the issue. Not many players play the game to be a target or a 'victim'.

In CQC players of the opposing team are targets and they have fun. Players who want to PvP and know that the other players want to PvP and all in a more or less balanced setting.

Maybe the majority of the ED player base doesn't want consensual PvP. I thought that my idea would provide a way for players to engage in consensual PvP and a reason not to attack those who don't want to PvP but want to play in Open Mode.

PvP'ers have the possibility to organize themselves if they wish right now, and I'm sure many actually do.…

Understand that I don't think your suggestion(s) are bad, but I think that players who genuinely want to play together have plenty of tools to do that right now.

In my opinion there are no in-game reasons for PvP. Without in-game reasons PvP feels shallow and empty in ED (my feelings, highly subjective). My intention wasn't to give PvP player groups ways to organize or play together. It was more about in-game reasons and ways to make Open Mode a more interesting place for PvP players without attacking PvE players.

PvP player groups organize themselves and they find PvP in Open Mode - but how often do they especially target players who don't want to PvP? It's not the type of gameplay I'm interested in.

Players can switch modes to avoid unwanted PvP or they can play in Open Mode and go to a lonely planet or system where no other CMDR find them. They can make private groups to play with friends.

Players already complain that Open Mode is empty. With Horizons those complains will just get more and more and with them demands that all players should be forced into Open Mode. In a year we will discuss the same things in Mk. V of this thread.

 

[Jockey79]

As you love a good quote.

From the ED main site.

Massively Multiplayer
*Large picture of lasers pew pew pew*
Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous’ vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.

Now you would have to be pretty special or nieve to not expect PVP in the game.
You might not want it but you would expect it.

I said "clearly states Elite: Dangerous is a PvP game" - that does not "clearly" state anything. As you said yourself;

It very clearly hints at it on the main site.

To clearly state something and to hint something are two very different things.

Folks just click "I accept" at all the screens that explain stuff without reading it, and folks don't even read the main website description of the game (how many times have I posted it now?).
Though the game developers can be blamed for that, as they refuse to use clear wording on what a game is or is not. For example;

War Thunder about page reads: "War Thunder is a cross-platform MMO combat game for PC, PS4, Mac and Linux, dedicated to World War II military aviation, armoured vehicles, and fleets. You will take part in many of the major combat battles fought during World War 2 and the Korean War, fighting with real players from all around the world." - with real players... as opposed to *against* other players (big difference as it is a PvP only game)

Planetside 2 about page reads: "PlanetSide 2 is a revolutionary massive scale first-person shooter where soldiers battle as one in strategic, targeted missions against enemy empires in an all-out planetary war. The game challenges the skill and grit of the most seasoned soldier through intenseinfantry, air, and ground vehicle gameplay. " - does not state who the enemy empires are, human or NPC. (PvP only game)

Even WoW is guilty of vague wording and it has PvE and PvP servers so it could use a clear description of it's game play.

"What is World of Warcraft? World of Warcraft is an online game where players from around the world assume the roles of heroic fantasy characters and explore a virtual world full of mystery, magic, and endless adventure." - Does not state who you're killing on your adventures.

So when the game devs won't even commit to an accurate description of their own games, I'm not surprised you cannot find a clear example of it saying PvP anywhere - there isn't one.
Mix that with how lazy people are when it comes to researching a game. It is not surprising this thread will not die. As new players turn up expecting the typical MMO features like global chat, raids, PvE and PvP servers.....

Only to find a lack of what we expect from an MMO plus you waiting for them to get your easy new player kills.

But for a normal person, looking at buying ED.

Really, a normal person? Here?
Prove it

 

[Faded Glory]

In CQC players of the opposing team are targets and they have fun. Players who want to PvP and know that the other players want to PvP and all in a more or less balanced setting.

Yes, but they are 'equal' targets, all flying combat ships of a similar size and capability, hence they all have a reasonable chance (dependent on skill), and additionally no appreciable (as I understand it) penalty for losing. I imagine if you enjoy PvP that would indeed be fun.

Maybe the majority of the ED player base doesn't want consensual PvP. I thought that my idea would provide a way for players to engage in consensual PvP and a reason not to attack those who don't want to PvP but want to play in Open Mode.

In my opinion there are no in-game reasons for PvP. Without in-game reasons PvP feels shallow and empty in ED (my feelings, highly subjective). My intention wasn't to give PvP player groups ways to organize or play together. It was more about in-game reasons and ways to make Open Mode a more interesting place for PvP players without attacking PvE players.

PvP player groups organize themselves and they find PvP in Open Mode - but how often do they especially target players who don't want to PvP? It's not the type of gameplay I'm interested in.

Players can switch modes to avoid unwanted PvP or they can play in Open Mode and go to a lonely planet or system where no other CMDR find them. They can make private groups to play with friends.

Players already complain that Open Mode is empty. With Horizons those complains will just get more and more and with them demands that all players should be forced into Open Mode. In a year we will discuss the same things in Mk. V of this thread.

I'm guessing that those that want consensual PvP, or are happy with it, are out there playing it. Others clearly want non consensual weak targets to have their fun. Those that don't want that but experience it either work through it until they are no longer weak targets, move to a different mode, or quit the game (perhaps).

Yes, we hear about some PvP groups who get together and attack other CMDRs without consent, and they, among others, are the a potential reason that people will keep coming here to complain that Open is barren and empty, and suggest that players be bribed into going there (to be targets) through higher rewards. I'm quite sure that this thread will continue until the game ends.

That however was not what I was suggesting when I say that players are free to organize themselves. Some cite the 'emergent gameplay' that they seek, such as attacking / defending convoys of traders, so why don't they try to organize such an 'event' with the tools available? That is what I am suggesting, and have suggested often before. I really don't see why FD need to expend resources on trying to do this for them, and even if they did, I'm not sure it would work.

The often stated rebuttal to such suggestions is that the rewards aren't worth it, but I'm afraid I don't really buy that as the game is about having fun, not making money, and most players who have been at it for a while have enough credits to finance that fun if it's really what they want.

If Open is empty, it's for two main reasons IMHO. One is that the game canvas is vast. If every person on the planet was playing that would still be only one person for every 50 or so systems. The other reason is that players don't have enough interest in what player interaction can offer and prefer to spend their game time playing without interference from others. Nothing will entice those players into Open, and I imagine that there are quite a number of such players.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Yes, but they are 'equal' targets, all flying combat ships of a similar size and capability, hence they all have a reasonable chance (dependent on skill), and additionally no appreciable (as I understand it) penalty for losing. I imagine if you enjoy PvP that would indeed be fun.

This ^^^ sorts out the PvPers from the rest. Oh... wait a minute... CQC is empty, I hear you say... Funny that.

[Edit@ Yes, I know. You're a Pirate. I get it. ]

 

[Leto Thule]

Regarding descriptions....

Jockey, in your post you cited some examples with other games and their description. You are indeed correct, nowhere does it state that you will be playing "against" other players.

However...

When my group of friends looks over a new candidate for purchase, the VERY first thing that comes up for discussion is usually "is there multiplayer?"

In my group, the term "multi player" is indicative as to if we can play versus each other, or others. I realize this is not the websters (or urban, lol) dictionary definition, but the general idea of multi player games is that there is some sort of fight against other players. Be it as a team of us, or us vs each other.

Nobody I know of buys a multiplayer game with the intent on fighting nothing but bots. Nobody watches the gaming championships (I dont anyhow) to see players fight bots. World of warcraft perhaps focuses on group PVE above most other games.

I guess the point that I want to make here is that it depends on the game you purchase as to what type of player interaction you should expect. In planetside, of course I would expect to fight other players. Fighting bots in a shooter is anti-climactic, and doubtfull that most gamers would play more than a few matches before growing VERY bored. Warthunder as well.

For Eliteangerous, I expected the ability to engage in conflict with other players. While I may be on the "expected too much" end of the table, I doubt "multiplayer" in ED meant "wave hello to someone in the black" the way so many have talked about. We keep seeing quotes from dev speeches about choosing to play with whom, and that pvp would be "SHOULD" rare and meaningful. Well, I think people are confusing the use of "should" with "will".

I know you didnt say this yourself, but many of the participants in this thread seem to be of the mindset that the devs dont want PVP and were somehow forced into adding it. They arent. Why? Because they made a statement saying combat logging is considered and exploit and plan on implementing penalties in the future. That tells me they support open conflict between pilots, and would prefer that pvp SHOULD mean something when it happens.

Just my two cents, as always.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I don't think the Devs and DBOBE were forced at all. However, I saw their vision of a community of Pilots that had respect for one another - which is the mantra of the Elite Pilots Federation. The "Rare and Meaningful" interaction, like Community Goals to bring people together, Wings to deal with PvE situations like the gold waiting in the SSS with 3 NPC Anacondas waiting and not for Wings to hunt down lone traders. Combat Zones for players to square off against each other...

But as always, people will be people - and worse when it is anonymous, they become animals and forget... Okay - I'm going a bit far. But you get the idea. The fact is, as many a woeful tale on this forum tells, people just don't like being content.

 

[Lateralus]

I would only support the inclusion of an official open PvE mode if FD brought in a 'time in open' bonus (only available in regular open) to encourage people into open play. Without that an open PvE mode would just hurt open numbers even more.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I would only support the inclusion of an official open PvE mode if FD brought in a 'time in open' bonus (only available in regular open) to encourage people into open play. Without that an open PvE mode would just hurt open numbers even more.

The only thing that hurts numbers in open at the moment is other players. If you want to encourage people in to Open play, deal with those players. Carrots only last as long as someone doesn't rip it from your teeth and spank your botty.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
That however was not what I was suggesting when I say that players are free to organize themselves. Some cite the 'emergent gameplay' that they seek, such as attacking / defending convoys of traders, so why don't they try to organize such an 'event' with the tools available?…

There are almost no tools available. Those events would be player-generated events and not in-game content. And I never mentioned "emergent gameplay".

FD will add content to the game. We will see what type of content they will add. I think they will have to add PvP related content to the game that keeps PvP under control and allows PvP players to find other players who are interested in PvP - if FD wants PvP to remain part of the game.

 

[Leto Thule]

I don't think the Devs and DBOBE were forced at all. However, I saw their vision of a community of Pilots that had respect for one another - which is the mantra of the Elite Pilots Federation. The "Rare and Meaningful" interaction, like Community Goals to bring people together, Wings to deal with PvE situations like the gold waiting in the SSS with 3 NPC Anacondas waiting and not for Wings to hunt down lone traders. Combat Zones for players to square off against each other...

But as always, people will be people - and worse when it is anonymous, they become animals and forget... Okay - I'm going a bit far. But you get the idea. The fact is, as many a woeful tale on this forum tells, people just don't like being content.

Lol, true, sir.

So, what do you make of this quote, taken right now, from the ED website?

"Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous’ vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy."

Id say that is telling people such as myself that open world PVP is encouraged. -- But people often see what they want.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Lol, true, sir.

So, what do you make of this quote, taken right now, from the ED website?

"Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous’ vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy."

Id say that is telling people such as myself that open world PVP is encouraged. -- But people often see what they want.

Highlighted

 

[Faded Glory]

There are almost no tools available. Those events would be player-generated events and not in-game content. And I never mentioned "emergent gameplay".

FD will add content to the game. We will see what type of content they will add. I think they will have to add PvP related content to the game that keeps PvP under control and allows PvP players to find other players who are interested in PvP - if FD wants PvP to remain part of the game.

I understand what you are asking for, and if you thought that I was attacking you, I assure you I'm not. Nor am I accusing you of anything, but plenty of posters on this thread have said that Solo and Group are killing emergent gameplay... I wasn't talking about you.

I would disagree that there aren't tools to enable players to organize themselves, as it would seem that quite a few players do just that. There is a friends list, there is the possibility to create groups, there is the possibility to post on the forums to find like minded players to play with.

If those players that want this kind of thing aren't willing to organize themselves, then there will always be the chance that the player they are interacting with did not want said interaction, and I'd have thought that was even more likely to occur if FD just created faction based conflict without explicitly making it clear that joining a faction would make you a legitimate target for other players.

 

[Leto Thule]

Highlighted

Haha, fair enough.

I guess thats why we have this thread, eh?

 

[Jockey79]

Jockey, in your post you cited some examples with other games and their description. You are indeed correct, nowhere does it state that you will be playing "against" other players.

However...

When my group of friends looks over a new candidate for purchase, the VERY first thing that comes up for discussion is usually "is there multiplayer?"

In my group, the term "multi player" is indicative as to if we can play versus each other, or others. I realize this is not the websters (or urban, lol) dictionary definition, but the general idea of multi player games is that there is some sort of fight against other players. Be it as a team of us, or us vs each other.

Nobody I know of buys a multiplayer game with the intent on fighting nothing but bots. Nobody watches the gaming championships (I dont anyhow) to see players fight bots. World of warcraft perhaps focuses on group PVE above most other games.

I guess the point that I want to make here is that it depends on the game you purchase as to what type of player interaction you should expect. In planetside, of course I would expect to fight other players. Fighting bots in a shooter is anti-climactic, and doubtfull that most gamers would play more than a few matches before growing VERY bored. Warthunder as well.

For Eliteangerous, I expected the ability to engage in conflict with other players. While I may be on the "expected too much" end of the table, I doubt "multiplayer" in ED meant "wave hello to someone in the black" the way so many have talked about. We keep seeing quotes from dev speeches about choosing to play with whom, and that pvp would be "SHOULD" rare and meaningful. Well, I think people are confusing the use of "should" with "will".

I know you didnt say this yourself, but many of the participants in this thread seem to be of the mindset that the devs dont want PVP and were somehow forced into adding it. They arent. Why? Because they made a statement saying combat logging is considered and exploit and plan on implementing penalties in the future. That tells me they support open conflict between pilots, and would prefer that pvp SHOULD mean something when it happens.

Just my two cents, as always.

Glad you and your group have your own understanding of what you mean and what you are looking for.
I'm the same with my social group, though to use the word "multiplayer" with us, it equals co-op play where we can team up - as for target types, we judge that on a per game basis.

As for what people "should" expect, well again, that is down to the wording.
I have seen people ask in Planetside (the first one) where the NPCs were, so they could fight those before jumping in to the big 3 way battles.
In Planetside 2 just hang around the main spawn points and watch the chat, sometimes it can be quite funny to read as someone who knows and understands what the game is.

This is why, if a game peaks my interest I jump on YouTube and Google to find out more about it and what it is. There really is not an excuse to avoid doing that in my opinion, but alas people do avoid it (hence the "Wall of Information" was born, to show people what they should have read before buying the game).

As for PvP, it most definitely was intended to be part of the game. When DBOBE was pressed over how FD will deal with "Griefers" in an interview his first comments were along the lines of "The community can team up and deal with them" (something like that) - he advocated that in 2 separate interviews as well as talking about Shadow bans if needed. He also does not want there to be any "right" way to play the game (quote in the Wall of Information).

I just feel that FD didn't understand just how many would want to be the care free killer or how many just want to be left alone to enjoy the scenery and game mechanics without others messing about or interrupting.
I think they were expecting more of the middle of the road player (if there is such a thing) and got two very different groups.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

And I'm back! How is everyone?

 

[DaveB]

The thing about ED is that almost every play style is allowed, but none are explicitly encouraged or discouraged. Pretty much the only thing not allowed is exploiting game mechanics in a way that FD didn't intend to disrupt other players experience. Open PvP is allowed, but don't expect FD to balance the game specifically for it. Group PvP is similarly allowed by FD, but there are groups out there that have their own rules about the circumstances where you can do it without getting booted from the group. Open and group PvE is similarly allowed, but again FD won't cater to this play style specifically either - I wouldn't hold your breath for a "PvE only" flag of any kind that changes your game experience in any way.

Anyone advocating that FD change the way the matchmaking modes work or the unity of the galaxy and BGS across all play styles is on a hiding to nothing whether they are motivated to that opinion from wanting "better PvP", "better PvE", "more player encounters in open" or any other reason whatsoever. FD will never (intentionally at least) cater to one allowed play style to the detriment of another in the main game. The closest they'll get is the introduction of side attractions like CQC for folks that really want to focus on certain aspects of the game.

 

[Jockey79]

Lol, true, sir.

So, what do you make of this quote, taken right now, from the ED website?

"Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous’ vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy."

Id say that is telling people such as myself that open world PVP is encouraged. -- But people often see what they want.

Unpredictable encounters;

Fuel Rats
Hutton Truckers G.I.M.P.P. challenge (I've run Hutton Mugs out to Sag A to give to another player)
Elite Racers
The Canonn Research Group

None of what these folk do on a day to day basis was predictable when the game launched, and none require PvP to join in.
Emergent game play without the need for guns /ammo

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

And I'm back! How is everyone?

Doing well buddy. Welcome back, how are you doing?

We should organise a tea and biscuits club for how long we all spend in this thread

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…

If those players that want this kind of thing aren't willing to organize themselves, then there will always be the chance that the player they are interacting with did not want said interaction, and I'd have thought that was even more likely to occur if FD just created faction based conflict without explicitly making it clear that joining a faction would make you a legitimate target for other players.

I agree that there is a chance of "unwanted interaction" if players organize themselves to create PvP and indeed it would be very problematic if FD decided to create faction (as in Alliance/Empire/Federation) based conflict.

I was thinking about a system where players who want PvP could find others who want it, as a way to protect others from unwanted interaction. It would have to be absolutely clear that joining or accepting a mission from a PvP organization will - or could, depending on number of participants - result in PvP. Those PvP organizations (not player controlled) would have to be of zero interest for PvE players.

 

[DaveB]

...We should organise a tea and biscuits club for how long we all spend in this thread

You bring the coffee and I'll supply a bottle of something suitable to add to it in order to both mellow the thread a little and keep out the cold. It can get chilly out there in the black

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

You bring the coffee and I'll supply a bottle of something suitable to add to it in order to both mellow the thread a little and keep out the cold. It can get chilly out there in the black

I still have a few bottles of Pearl Whisky a pirate once gave me - don't ask - always good in a tea or coffee without the tea and coffee.