Modes Why no passive mode?

[FNLWA]

What do you guys think about "passive mode" for ED? Other games do it with great success, GTA V first of all.
If you're not familiar with the concept: You basically enable or disable "passive" mode with an adequate delay (perhaps 60-120s for ED). Once activated you can no longer damage or get damaged by other players. An opt-in for pvp in short.

One could argue that solo mode is basically the same as a passive mode and that by playing in open you agree to pvp. A passive mode however could potentially bring back many people from solo into open, leading to a more active galaxy and more random encounters. I once met a commander near Betelgeuse who forgot to bring an ADS who kindly asked me to escort him to the nearest planet. That's the kind of encounter that makes the galaxy feel alive, however, according to the ED Mega Survey only 49% (!!) of all players choose to play in open.

Passive mode cons:
-Breaks immersion
-Less "prey" for pirates (even though I'd argue that piracy in its current form is still broken, even after the C&P update)

Passive mode pros:
-No need for anyone to hide in solo mode anymore leading to a more lively galaxy
-No more "combat logging"
-It brings people together who actually do want to pvp. No hard feelings and no frustration on either side

Most importantly though: I don't think a passive mode would change much. The people playing in open already accept pvp as part of the fun, the other ~51% could simply join in and enrich the galaxy in other more meaningful ways than shooting each other down.
It wouldn't take anything away. We already have a choice. A choice that needlessly divides the playerbase in two halves.

------------------------------

PS: Before anyone asks, yes I currently play in solo. Mainly because I'm on PS4 with no PS+. I did play in open a few times in the past and it was actually fine. Nothing bad happened to me. There were a few times though where I specifically switched to solo because I was not willing to risk my invested playtime.

 

[Ethaidan]

Not only would this not address some of the main complaints about the mode system, it would potentially make things worse.

One of the oft recurring and main complaints rehashed over and over on the forums is the (perceived) unfair advantage Player groups (PP or BGS focused) can employ by working solely or primarily in Solo - unseen and unopposable. It is hard to quantify the amount of salt that has been cried over this. Now just imagine if groups who have worked PP or BGS in Solo took advantage of this 'passive' mode in open, all the time... haha, you can see me now, but you can't touch me!

 

[FNLWA]

I don't really see how BGS manipulation relates to this, the situation and outcome is the same in any case.

 

[Julio Montega]

Passive mode, or PvP flagging works in games where players have a common goal,
working together to achieve it, mostly designed as region/instance based games.
Here we got a single galaxy/system per CG often with contrary goals
resulting in competitive situations.

Flagging would simply shred the whole game experience,
if people are not interested in seeing the darker side of players
there are always the modes to separate from the no-filter zone of open.

So my categorial NO to any flagging,
and also the wish to restrict CGs to open only,
for the sake of a consistent galaxy.

 

[FNLWA]

Passive mode, or PvP flagging works in games where players have a common goal

So my categorial NO to any flagging, and also the wish to restrict CGs to open only

Isn't a CG just that though? It's literally called a -community- goal where commanders work together towards a common goal. If people go to the CG's for the pvp I'd assume they'd want to meet other commanders with the same goal? Unless shooting defenceless traders is your thing I guess. Even then I'm sure there's quite a few traders who enjoy the risk. Literally those who already do CGs in open plus I don't think they'd combat log. Win-Win?

 

[Evanitis]

Other games do it with great success, GTA V first of all.

It's cool to peacefully observe the psychos as they slaughter, but it's also a griefing tool there, generating much much salt and controversy.

Here pirates and PP guys already have a hard enough time for people can just do their thing in solo-pg. They wouldn't cheer if they also had to chase phantom-plips on the radar to find pvp-resistant players.


How about stopping to be poor and eating every rebuy gladly for the enjoyment of being wolfed down? I can't wait for the first time for it to happen with me, and I only ever played in open.

 

[Ethaidan]

I don't really see how BGS manipulation relates to this, the situation and outcome is the same in any case.

Really? Ok, I come to your player factions main system and park my gunship in a CZ killing your faction ships all day long with no chance of dying, because PvE is too easy and I've got 'passive' mode on so even you do find me I can just sit there mocking you. Or, I come on a murder spree right in front of your station, again with 'passive' mode on I can kill your faction ships all day long and you can't touch me.

As for CGs, well occassionally (especially two recent ones) there can been pretty compelling reasons to oppose a CG, but with 'passive' mode, this would be impossible - numbers wise, it's always futile to oppose a CG, but why should idea/opportunity be simply taken away at the push of a button?

 

[Jockey79]

Passive mode pros:
-No need for anyone to hide in solo mode anymore leading to a more lively galaxy
-No more "combat logging"
-It brings people together who actually do want to pvp. No hard feelings and no frustration on either side

Just because someone isn't playing open, it does not mean they are hiding.
I play Elite with friends in a PG, I'm not hiding from anyone when I play in our PG, I'm being sociable with my friends.

Nothing will change with "combat logging", if people are going to cheat, then they will cheat. No PvP flag will change that.

People already can come together for PvP, there is even the PvP Hub (link in sig).
PvP flagging will not help people find PvP.

It would also make it harder for genuine pirates and people playing murderers to find targets to interact with.
So it would restrict the game play of some players.

If people want to reduce the odds of being killed by random PvP encounters, don't add random people to your friends list, also add to your block list known PvP'ers the moment you see them in your contacts tab.
That will help filter out the bulk of encounters you may not want to have.

 

[FNLWA]

Here pirates and PP guys already have a hard enough time for people can just do their thing in solo-pg. They wouldn't cheer if they also had to chase phantom-plips on the radar to find pvp-resistant players.

Passive mode players could always be indicated by a green circle or something on the radar, so noone wastes their time chasing them. To avoid griefing switching passive/active could be made only possible whilst docked at a station.

All the other arguments I've read are already possible due to different reasons. Solo mode is never going to go away completely due to console players without PS+/Gold sub. Actually just the mere fact that someone is playing on a different platform literally renders you unable to stop them from whatever BGS manipulation they're up to. A passive mode doesn't make things better or worse.

 

[Mouse]

Passive mode players could always be indicated by a green circle or something on the radar, so noone wastes their time chasing them. To avoid griefing switching passive/active could be made only possible whilst docked at a station.

All the other arguments I've read are already possible due to different reasons. Solo mode is never going to go away completely due to console players without PS+/Gold sub. Actually just the mere fact that someone is playing on a different platform literally renders you unable to stop them from whatever BGS manipulation they're up to. A passive mode doesn't make things better or worse.

This I find interesting, "A passive mode doesn't make things better or worse." So why would you have one? What is the purpose of bringing people to Open through a "passive" system when it changes nothing. To me this goes back to play the mode you enjoy and quit trying to get everyone else to stop playing the one they enjoy and just let them bloody enjoy it.

 

[FNLWA]

This I find interesting, "A passive mode doesn't make things better or worse." So why would you have one? What is the purpose of bringing people to Open through a "passive" system when it changes nothing.

To be more precise, what I meant in the context of the previous sentence: "A passive mode doesn't make things better or worse regarding BGS manipulation".

My personal reason is that I do find the idea of playing in a shared universe appealing I just don't really enjoy the pvp aspect of it. It's just my way of playing. Same in Dark Souls, I prefer crazy pve challenges and co-op over pvp.
Also I've seen and enjoyed this concept in other games and see no reason why it couldn't work in ED, bringing everyone together whilst everyone can still enjoy the game however they like.

 

[Mouse]

To be more precise, what I meant in the context of the previous sentence: "A passive mode doesn't make things better or worse regarding BGS manipulation".

My personal reason is that I do find the idea of playing in a shared universe appealing I just don't really enjoy the pvp aspect of it. It's just my way of playing. Same in Dark Souls, I prefer crazy pve challenges and co-op over pvp.
Also I've seen and enjoyed this concept in other games and see no reason why it couldn't work in ED, bringing everyone together whilst everyone can still enjoy the game however they like.

Well there is Mobius at the moment. And when you say Passive and mention GTA 5 you have to remember that there is a lot in GTA 5 online that while passive you can't do, same for the none public online sessions. I know many who would salivate if that was in ED because they want THEIR version of the game. You play their way or you can't do things, in GTA 5 that is essentially how it is, but ED wisly didn't follow that route.

Instead of a passive ability in Open, why not just a PVE mode?

Open PVP
Open PVE
Public Group
Solo

people can play their way

 

[FNLWA]

I really like that idea too! It would still divide the community but in a sensible way. I suppose it would be easier to implement as well.

 

[Mouse]

I really like that idea too! It would still divide the community but in a sensible way. I suppose it would be easier to implement as well.

To me the "divide the community" is kinda a myth. Many games have PVE and PVP servers and not sure I've seen a lot of "they are dividing community" arguments over that.

 

[FNLWA]

To me the "divide the community" is kinda a myth. Many games have PVE and PVP servers and not sure I've seen a lot of "they are dividing community" arguments over that.

I meant it quite literally in the sense that not everyone would be playing together. Like right now where only 49% play in open and the rest in PG/solo. Mainly because the universe is vast and it's hard enough as it is to meet other people outside of CGs and such.

 

[Mouse]

I meant it quite literally in the sense that not everyone would be playing together. Like right now where only 49% play in open and the rest in PG/solo. Mainly because the universe is vast and it's hard enough as it is to meet other people outside of CGs and such.

Yet many games have servers so that not everyone is playing together, and even if there was only open... Xbox and PS4 are not "together" with PC. Add in instancing as well ^,^

 

[voodoochile73]

i think its a great idea, i always played in Open an enjoyed seeing other player ships around until recently when i got interdicted by someone in a vulture. Never happened before and was totally unprepared flying a stripped down Krait, panicked as not done any combat for a while and although should have got away I didnt. Secondly i went to Shinraza Dezra in open and had some nuthead trying to hump my ship i assume to get me killed by the station in some way.
Ive no problem with being interdicted at all as it is very much part of the game, the second incident was childs behavior. however as I was busy trading, and now unlocking engineers with limited time ive only played in Solo as im visiting more busy systems and dont want to chance a repeat of these , once ive done this i will go back to Open as i like the unexpected to happen but not right now. I would much rather play in Open overall and to fly passive would suit me.

 

[Jockey79]

Like right now where only 49% play in open and the rest in PG/solo.

This is wrong, Sandro has clearly stated open has the majority of players.
So please fact check before trying to pass of figures as facts.

https://youtu.be/52kOyADxK5E?t=3101

 

[FNLWA]

This is wrong, Sandro has clearly stated open has the majority of players.
So please fact check before trying to pass of figures as facts.

https://youtu.be/52kOyADxK5E?t=3101

First of all he starts off with "we don't give out numbers", so that's that. The 49% come from the ED Mega Survey (see first post), where 12601 commanders participated, so it's a very good estimate. The result of they survey was that 49% of commanders play in open and 51% in solo+pg (it doesn't distinct between those two). If you count solo and PG separately then yes, open would be the most popular. How are the 49% wrong again?

 

[Marra Morgan]

I really like that idea too! It would still divide the community but in a sensible way. I suppose it would be easier to implement as well.

No, I don't think changing anything about the current mode structure is easy to implement.

It would require a re-work of the game's mechanics to adjust for hit-damage, collision detection, obstruction etc. This takes up dev and QA time, which means while they are working on a PvE Open mode, they are not progressing with their roadmap for Beyond or beyond Beyond.

Furthermore, I haven't seen any recent suggestion from the devs that they are even entertaining the concept of a PvE Open mode - that should tell you something about their stance on the matter. It's not really surprising, given that there are private groups that can have their own in-house rules and police their own members accordingly. Why would the developer invest the time and effort into a solution that already exists?