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

[Crank Larson]

And then you have guys attacking My BGS systems, when they dont have a system to retaliate against. And if you could retaliate you cant even seen them. And what, am I supposed to call off from work or school because they has more time than others?

This appears to be what your complaint actually comes down to: that others have more time than you and so are affecting the BGS more. This is nothing to do with modes, it doesn't matter what mode people play in for the BGS. It is a simple fact that if more people are able to dedicate more time to the BGS, they will have a greater effect. This is balanced - you can't expect the game to take into account real world limitations on your play time.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

This appears to be what your complaint actually comes down to: that others have more time than you and so are affecting the BGS more. This is nothing to do with modes, it doesn't matter what mode people play in for the BGS. It is a simple fact that if more people are able to dedicate more time to the BGS, they will have a greater effect. This is balanced - you can't expect the game to take into account real world limitations on your play time.

We have over 500 people in our player group. Again just like balancing PVP aspects of the game with RNG/credit balancing and so forth. Why would we want to take the advantage away from ourselves?

We recognize the the imbalances because we take part in them.

People that dont, will never see the imbalances. But they have no problem saying, "meh it doesnt effect me. So we dont need to make changes."

 

[Crank Larson]

What advantage to yourselves? Just a post ago you were complaining about not having enough time. Now you have 500 players in your player group... Which is it? Presumably 500 players is enough? What are you trying to do?

 

[thirstyfish]

<snip>

I want to play a game, yes. I don't care about "context" for being shot, I hate PvP intensely. I don't care about powerplay, not even for the modules.

Deal with it. People are going to be jerks. Find some other systems to prop up in the BGS. Different people are going to have different amounts of time anyway, that isn't unique to this game. Even the "player factions" are populated entirely by NPCs, no one can pledge to a player faction and have it show up in game. I can't pledge to the Earth Defense Fleet or the Fuel Rats Mischief, just to name a couple of "player factions". So that has to be consistent across all game modes. So no one has a "faction," outside of Powerplay. It isn't your faction, as far as the game is concerned, just one that you choose to prop up and gain rep with via BGS actions.

Why fret over something that you can't control? Is it going to change because you are fretting over it? No, its not. So what is the point? Worry about what you can control, the rest will sort itself out one way or another.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

What advantage to yourselves? Just a post ago you were complaining about not having enough time. Now you have 500 players in your player group... Which is it? Presumably 500 players is enough? What are you trying to do?

Here is the problem.

Those same people have jobs and a life. Someone or a group with more time than you will win be default. Lets say it is 500 vs 500 people. Not everyone is going to participate. Not everyone is going to colonia. And not everyone gives a crap about grinding ships.

Right now there is an exploit happening in colonia. It goes like this,

1. Fly to system A that is controlled by Faction A.
2. Kill Faction A ships till rep reaches Hostile.
3. Fly to System B which is controled by Faction B but Faction A is present.
4. Fly around and see if Clean faction A ships attack me turning themselves wanted, and Faction B ships attack them.

You collect the bounty off the cops attacking you> You can sit in an instance free bounties off cops all day. And the only way to defeat something like that. Is time and use the same exploit hes using, Which would me break the pact colonia has with its members.

 

[thirstyfish]

Here is the problem.

Those same people have jobs and a life. Someone or a group with more time than you will win be default. Lets say it is 500 vs 500 people. Not everyone is going to participate. Not everyone is going to colonia. And not everyone gives a crap about grinding ships.

Right now there is an exploit happening in colonia. It goes like this,

1. Fly to system A that is controlled by Faction A.
2. Kill Faction A ships till rep reaches Hostile.
3. Fly to System B which is controled by Faction B but Faction A is present.
4. Fly around and see if Clean faction A ships attack me turning themselves wanted, and Faction B ships attack them.

You collect the bounty off the cops attacking you> You can sit in an instance free bounties off cops all day. And the only way to defeat something like that. Is time and use the same exploit hes using, Which would me break the pact colonia has with its members.

Different people are going to have different amounts of time to play. Nothing new there, not unique to ED. Devs aren't going to have a way to deal with that. Open mode won't fix it either. Timezones, and instancing mechanics make it so that even if all of your people were in open, and all of those other guys were in open, that there is a chance that your guys won't ever get instanced with theirs. Bad ping times, instance limits, blocking function, and other stuff that I don't know about all factor into instancing.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Different people are going to have different amounts of time to play. Nothing new there, not unique to ED. Devs aren't going to have a way to deal with that. Open mode won't fix it either. Timezones, and instancing mechanics make it so that even if all of your people were in open, and all of those other guys were in open, that there is a chance that your guys won't ever get instanced with theirs. Bad ping times, instance limits, blocking function, and other stuff that I don't know about all factor into instancing.

If World of warcraft can balance it. If guildwars 2 can balance it. If rohan can balance it. If multiple games can balance this. So can this one.

This comes down to RNG balance, This comes down to players effecting others and winning by default because of time played. And not what is done with that time played. There huge difference here.

All of this can be fixed by simple mission board locking by the way. No effect against other factions in private and solo. Pick up missions in open and you are locked to the game and cant logout of open until mission is completed or abandoned. Missions in private and solo wont be offered against other player factions, and possibly powerplay in the future.

Everything else in the game including engineers is fine. money is fine. I would like to see more reward for the risks people take in open.

But right now, just stopping a persons influence rate vs others.

I think some are under the impression that people want solo or private groups all together gone or punished. And we dont. All that needs to be done is gate powerplay and player factions missions and rewards for open play. Giving "meaningful pvp" Like braben said. Cause I can agree right now its really not "meaningful". Piracy is dead. CG's people still dont understand its supposed to be a war between Feds vs imps vs alliance. And complain about getting shot.

There is so much PVE in this game while PVP people want to take part it in obviously. But some cant due to that same time factor. It takes too much to maintain and to get there to begin with. Thats a big reason of why open in unbalanced, And PVE content you dont really need to balance around that. Again look at diablo 3 and all that over powered DPS.

The games built around conflict. Make it meaningful. Reward people for their risks. And all this Private Solo and OPEN nonsense will go away while still having Private/solo/Open modes still available to everyone. Just remove the PVP aspects from Solo and Private and no one will complain ever again.(well someones bound to complain. but you get the idea.)

This way PVERs can still make money and take part of every experience in this game thats not PVP. I mean again they went out of their way to join mobius so they wouldnt be involved in PVP. SO why should they get to impact others from it?

 

[Kruger]

If World of warcraft can balance it. If guildwars 2 can balance it. If rohan can balance it. If multiple games can balance this. So can this one.

This comes down to RNG balance, This comes down to players effecting others and winning by default because of time played. And not what is done with that time played. There huge difference here.

All of this can be fixed by simple mission board locking by the way. No effect against other factions in private and solo. Pick up missions in open and you are locked to the game and cant logout of open until mission is completed or abandoned. Missions in private and solo wont be offered against other player factions, and possibly powerplay in the future.

Everything else in the game including engineers is fine. money is fine. I would like to see more reward for the risks people take in open.

But right now, just stopping a persons influence rate vs others.

I think some are under the impression that people want solo or private groups all together gone or punished. And we dont. All that needs to be done is gate powerplay and player factions missions and rewards for open play. Giving "meaningful pvp" Like braben said. Cause I can agree right now its really not "meaningful". Piracy is dead. CG's people still dont understand its supposed to be a war between Feds vs imps vs alliance. And complain about getting shot.

There is so much PVE in this game while PVP people want to take part it in obviously. But some cant due to that same time factor. It takes too much to maintain and to get there to begin with. Thats a big reason of why open in unbalanced, And PVE content you dont really need to balance around that. Again look at diablo 3 and all that over powered DPS.

The games built around conflict. Make it meaningful. Reward people for their risks. And all this Private Solo and OPEN nonsense will go away while still having Private/solo/Open modes still available to everyone. Just remove the PVP aspects from Solo and Private and no one will complain ever again.(well someones bound to complain. but you get the idea.)

You seem dead set on screwing over other people in Solo and PG but still don't take into account that some people don't have access to the best of connections therefore doing so will not fix anything but annoy more people. And again, the greater rewards for playing in open can still be exploited by people configuring their routers and such to manipulate instances to where you never meet another player despite being in Open.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You seem dead set on screwing over other people in Solo and PG but still don't take into account that some people don't have access to the best of connections therefore doing so will not fix anything but annoy more people. And again, the greater rewards for playing in open can still be exploited by people configuring their routers and such to manipulate instances to where you never meet another player despite being in Open.

Nothing would be screwed up for you. You can still play the same game with no PVP aspects in your favor. If you arent PVPing anyways. Whats the difference?

This is the problem with cherry picking. People take one thing out of context. When I went through and explained how easy and simple this would work.

The only people that would be against this is the people that knowingly attack people through the BGS such as UA bombing, ect.

Remember when the starter system was going to get shut down when the ps4 launched? Ya'll were on board for BGS changes then? How about we UA bomb EVERY SINGLE CG in the future and shut it down? Would you guys be happy with that? And there would be no way to stop us if we really wanted to do it. Remember that.

People still have the option to prove the point by a demonstration. And you can do it all behind a private group with no risk!

Is that really what needs to happen here?

 

[Crank Larson]

Here is the problem.

Those same people have jobs and a life. Someone or a group with more time than you will win be default. Lets say it is 500 vs 500 people. Not everyone is going to participate. Not everyone is going to colonia. And not everyone gives a crap about grinding ships.

Right now there is an exploit happening in colonia. It goes like this,

1. Fly to system A that is controlled by Faction A.
2. Kill Faction A ships till rep reaches Hostile.
3. Fly to System B which is controled by Faction B but Faction A is present.
4. Fly around and see if Clean faction A ships attack me turning themselves wanted, and Faction B ships attack them.

You collect the bounty off the cops attacking you> You can sit in an instance free bounties off cops all day. And the only way to defeat something like that. Is time and use the same exploit hes using, Which would me break the pact colonia has with its members.

What's any of this got to do with having time (or not) to play the BGS?

 

[Mercy Killing]

Still the same old circular arguments going on, I see.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

What's any of this got to do with having time (or not) to play the BGS?

Everything. If we sent him to a rebuy screen multiple times, he would have stopped. But proxy PVP is just fine I guess.

This has been going on for two months, and hes found an exploit where he can collect money off the cops. We have our members, we have multiple members from other groups outnumbering him.

While we dont mind the wars. As a matter of fact if you cant tell. I WELCOME THEM. But its certainly unbalanced, and in this case certainly exploited.

In order to keep up with his endless supply of cop bounties. Two things need to happen.

#1, If we were to combat his tactics legit, We would have to spend more time than he does looking for bounties rather than them coming to us.

#2, we would have use his same exploit and go to war with other factions in colonia by getting negative rep with factions so the cops interdict us and collect the bounty.

Just because they are exploiting the system, Doesn't mean we are going to. And it doesn't me they win either.

A great example of this is the g1 Sulfur rolls. People were able to use g1 mats for g5 rolls. They got the max roll with the best secondary stats out there. And had an advantage over every other player. Now some of these guys still grind it out legit. And I have some pretty powerful ships. RNGeers also has that same bad time factor which is a turn off for open play.

I made a balancing thread about Open play, that left private and solo out of the equation because once again. You dont need to balance this game around PVE content. When its the players interacting with each other. Cops, hell even the thargoids might be tough at first. But I bet with all these materials im sitting on. Ill be able to get those caustic resistances and wreck them day 1. Then even those thargoids wont mean anything. They are just NPC's.

This whole game is built around player interactions. And some of it is unbalanced when it comes to others. Remember, david braben thinks its cool other players go after wanted people in the game.

As you can see in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

They are also putting time into the Pilots Federation, Crime and Punishment and are also working around powerplay to make it meaningful. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I see huge changes brewing in the future when it comes down to balancing this stuff.

If there wasn't 4-5 pages of hotel California threads wouldn't continue. They wouldn't be working on balancing the game over PVP actions. And they wouldn't be giving us player factions to battle with. Dont even get me started on powerplay and why it failed. I'll say this though. When they introduced that stuff and when they created this game. They didnt see Mobius becoming as big as it is. They wanted people to fight over territory. They wanted people to use powerplay, and it shows because they are balancing around powerplay through the crime and punishment system.

Ya'll think changes arent coming. You're gonna be in for a huge surprise. I dont know how long its going to take. But because of its balancing issues. its inevitable.

 

[thirstyfish]

<snip>

WoW and other games had/have 100% client-server architecture for everything. ED has client-server for things like the BGS, the planetary forge, mission boards (kinda, but I don't know all the details), matchmaking, and other things that every player is going to need. But actual player interaction is all handled on Peer-to-Peer connections. WoW and the like could just designate a PvE server that was separate from a PvP server. ED can't do that. There are no "PvE" servers. Modes simply restrict P2P connections. Solo mode blocks all p2p connections, open allows all connections from others in that mode, and PGs allow connections from others in that PG. There is a fundamental difference in architecture choice between ED and the games you listed.

Most missions have some effect on other factions, locking solo and PG users out of those isn't balanced for them. Preventing someone from logging out of the game has security concerns involved with that, most missions give you nearly 24 hours to complete them (as a minimum) for a reason, its so that you can log off, do other things IRL, and come back. Not to mention that the servers are mode blind, they don't detect game mode.

PvE is the primary factor in this entire franchise. Look at previous titles, look at what is actually required in ED to do anything. PvP is 100% optional, PvE is mandatory. And I recall that the intent for open mode was cooperation with other players with occasional PvP encounters. I don't have the exact quote, but I'm sure others do. Not all CGs are fed vs. imp either.

This game isn't built around conflict. Combat is only one of 3 ways to become elite (cqc is a bad joke). 2/3 of the ways to get to elite ranking doesn't require anyone to fire a shot.

All of the modes are intended to be equal in all respects except for instancing with other players. Been this way since the KS. And your ideas are easily exploitable by anyone who can google "how to block p2p connections on a router."

PvE players, PG players, solo players all work the BGS too, and they should be allowed to do so. What you are suggesting is to punish those players for not being in open mode. Open isn't the "one true mode." That was never the intent, and FD would be foolish to try to make it so.

 

[Jockey79]

These threads were around long before I was around.

Yes and I've been in all of them - nothing has changed regarding the mode system.

Seems like facts are hard to swallow around here.

Here are some facts for you to swallow;


Before we get in to Frontier promoting and defending the mode system and mode switching for Elite: Dangerous (plus other related information), a quick look at the history of; and tech used to bring you this game (explains why some things are not possible).

[video=youtube_share;EvJPyjmfdz0]https://youtu.be/EvJPyjmfdz0[/video]

Thanks to Roybe for for the link to the video.

The Wall of Information;

From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

Some Dev comments from the Kickstarter;

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1681441
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705397
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705551

The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."

About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.

There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have:
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."

The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."

Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."

Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (Twitch Video now removed, YT link for it below)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c EGX2014 Video, 30 minutes long)

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .

The Steam Store page;

Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"


Dev comments;

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.

Michael

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

E3 2015 Interview (17th June 2015);

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/0...-david-braben/

View attachment 98946

PowerPlay AMA related links regarding Modes and Powerplay;

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=106524&page=27&p=1663438#post1663438
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140032&page=22&p=2145448&viewfull=1#post2145448
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140032&page=25&p=2145528&viewfull=1#post2145528

The overall thread topic (+ How XB1 fits);

On that last point, Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.

And regarding the game design;

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

To highlight something from that above quote;

“You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play."

Here is a quote from Zac Antonaci for the "game is dying" pro-claimers.
Dated 10th July 2015;

They need to be.


Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.

Hey Fred,


I wanted to reply to this honestly if I may.


I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.


<snip>


Zac

And a nice, clear, concise comment from Michael Brookes regarding the modes;

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

Dev Update 6th August 2015 (https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248);

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

(I added the bold / underline in the quote to highlight the last line)


Reddit AMA from X-Box One launch, in relation to the Back Ground Simulation and Modes;
https://np.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/3nlmdg/its_frontier_developments_developers_of_elite/

^^ So PC/Mac and X-Box One impact the same live simulation, but cannot actually play together or see each other.

^^ X-Box One also has "Solo Mode" and is recommended by FD Devs for when you do not want to play with other people.

Horizons Live Stream;
(RE: Question about ED being an MMO)

DB was asked a question "Is Elite and MMORPG?" in the LiveStream tonight.

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;RdP1DmRYco8]https://youtu.be/RdP1DmRYco8[/video]

He answered it like this:

19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.

"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."

Ed speaks and then David adds:

"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."

Engineers Live Stream;

[video=youtube;n7tGV7VVlhE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7tGV7VVlhE[/video]

Solo / Group / Open Mega Threads post counts.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=90583 (1st)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=145309 (2nd)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=169599 (3rd)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=216887 (This thread)​

 

[Kruger]

Nothing would be screwed up for you. You can still play the same game with no PVP aspects in your favor. If you arent PVPing anyways. Whats the difference?

First of all, PvP does nothing to affect the BGS, so it's a moot point.

All of this can be fixed by simple mission board locking by the way. No effect against other factions in private and solo. Pick up missions in open and you are locked to the game and cant logout of open until mission is completed or abandoned. Missions in private and solo wont be offered against other player factions, and possibly powerplay in the future.

Right here is what I'm talking about. You want to lock out missions that deal with (Player) Factions. What if, say, I wanted to help or disturb said faction but I'm currently deployed where the internet is crap? Then you just hampered my playtime because I don't have a good enough connection to play in Open. This is not the way to go.

I would like to see more reward for the risks people take in open.

This can still be exploited by configuring your router to the point that you never get instanced with anyone while in Open.

I think some are under the impression that people want solo or private groups all together gone or punished. And we dont. All that needs to be done is gate powerplay and player factions missions and rewards for open play. Giving "meaningful pvp" Like braben said. Cause I can agree right now its really not "meaningful". Piracy is dead. CG's people still dont understand its supposed to be a war between Feds vs imps vs alliance. And complain about getting shot.

I'm all for meaningful PvP, but there's still going to be griefers and as such people will continue to complain about being shot. Plus it completely goes against the lore of the game not that PvPers care.

The games built around conflict. Make it meaningful. Reward people for their risks. And all this Private Solo and OPEN nonsense will go away while still having Private/solo/Open modes still available to everyone. Just remove the PVP aspects from Solo and Private and no one will complain ever again.(well someones bound to complain. but you get the idea.)

Except, there are no PvP aspects in Solo, at least, not directly. But again, this hearkens back to an earlier point I made. Perhaps players want to take part in such activities but can't because of terrible connections.

This way PVERs can still make money and take part of every experience in this game thats not PVP. I mean again they went out of their way to join mobius so they wouldnt be involved in PVP. SO why should they get to impact others from it?

You contradict yourself here. How can PvErs take part of every experience by locking the mission board to not allow missions and influence to factions?

 

[yminale]

Elite will crash and burn before Fdev "fixes" PvP. That's why I suggest we end PvP in Open. It's not that I want to be punitive against PvPer, it's just that Fdev is incompetent and this the simplest fix. There can still PvP Private servers and CQC.

 

[Jockey79]

This whole game is built around player interactions.

Where on earth did you get this idea?

Solo was advertised right from Kickstarter - so the game could never have been about players interacting when FD said we could play alone and still impact the BGS.

Remember, david braben thinks its cool other players go after wanted people in the game.

Yes, if they want to do that - he also thinks it is cool for people to push CGs from Private / Solo - and he uses those modes himself.

I see huge changes brewing in the future when it comes down to balancing this stuff.

I'll just watch that pig fly by......

its inevitable.

Only 2 things in life are "inevitable";

Death and Taxes.

Nothing else has ever been certain.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

First of all, PvP does nothing to affect the BGS, so it's a moot point.



Right here is what I'm talking about. You want to lock out missions that deal with (Player) Factions. What if, say, I wanted to help or disturb said faction but I'm currently deployed where the internet is crap? Then you just hampered my playtime because I don't have a good enough connection to play in Open. This is not the way to go.



This can still be exploited by configuring your router to the point that you never get instanced with anyone while in Open.



I'm all for meaningful PvP, but there's still going to be griefers and as such people will continue to complain about being shot. Plus it completely goes against the lore of the game not that PvPers care.



Except, there are no PvP aspects in Solo, at least, not directly. But again, this hearkens back to an earlier point I made. Perhaps players want to take part in such activities but can't because of terrible connections.



You contradict yourself here. How can PvErs take part of every experience by locking the mission board to not allow missions and influence to factions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo

Certain sounds like PVP to me? Just through the safety of a private group.

You can still lag around the galaxy in solo and private. You can still do all the PVE missions needed to enjoy the game along with Thargoids. You just cant take the missions that effect other players.

Thats really not that bad to meet in the middle here.

Again, people left Open so they wouldn't be effected by others. Then in turn, they shouldn't be able to effect others from it. Bottom line, thats why these threads exist. And that guy above proves that point we are all making.

You wont be punished in any way being a PVEER.

Where on earth did you get this idea?

Solo was advertised right from Kickstarter - so the game could never have been about players interacting when FD said we could play alone and still impact the BGS.




Yes, if they want to do that - he also thinks it is cool for people to push CGs from Private / Solo - and he uses those modes himself.




I'll just watch that pig fly by......



Only 2 things in life are "inevitable";

Death and Taxes.

Nothing else has ever been certain.

its like you guys argue just to do so.

None of the changes I proposed would have an effect on anyone not pvping.

And this guy is certainly pvping https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo

 

[Jockey79]

Thats really not that bad to meet in the middle here.

Where exactly is the "middle" here?

You want a core mechanic advised and funded right from day 1 removing to push Open/PvP.
Yet you're giving up nothing, you're offering nothing in return.

Okay, I'll try one - all missions that push the BGS being restricted to open, but while you have said missions on your list - you become immune to all forms of damage from other players.

There you go, the middle ground. PvE / Antisocial people lose something, and open/PVPers lose something. Win-Win.

 

[thirstyfish]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo

Certain sounds like PVP to me? Just through the safety of a private group.

You can still lag around the galaxy in solo and private. You can still do all the PVE missions needed to enjoy the game along with Thargoids. You just cant take the missions that effect other players.

Thats really not that bad to meet in the middle here.

Again, people left Open so they wouldn't be effected by others. Then in turn, they shouldn't be able to effect others from it. Bottom line, thats why these threads exist. And that guy above proves that point we are all making.

You wont be punished in any way being a PVEER.

BGS work isn't PvP. PvP implies direct interaction between players. BGS impacts everything, including the environment (you know, the "E" in "PvE").

In some way, ALL missions effect other players. Why? because the BGS. You are contradicting yourself now. People left open to get away from the murder hobos, not to get away from the BGS, nice spin there.

What you are suggesting would effectively punishing PvE players. You would lock PvE players out of "missions that effect other players," which is effectively ALL missions because ALL missions impact the BGS and ALL players are effected by the BGS.

And that is just the theoretical stuff. Not even mentioning the implementation issues. Read Jockey's wall of information, in its entirety. Very enlightening stuff.