Modes The solution to the different interpretations of the modes and the misunderstandings that are a result of that

The solution to the different interpretations of the modes and the misunderstandings that are a result of that

Tried to make the title as neutral as possible. First off, the disappointment. No, I don't have the solution. So if you were expecting that, sorry about that. But I'm sure you were skeptical to begin with. I can't dictate that solution you see, because that would not be accepted. For this we need a group effort. And to accomplish this we need to put ourselves into the shoes of those we've been arguing with thread after thread after thread. Because we want a solution that is accepted by all.

So, those who don't play PvP, you imagine being a PvPer who is looking for a challenge and engaging encounters. Not looking for a conga line of weak targets.
Those who don't play in Solo/PG, you imagine being a PvEer who likes to engage in PwE, doesn't want to PvP but wants to influence the galaxy in a leisurely way. Not trying to screw over every other PMF and their dog.

If we start thinking towards those stereotypes, we increase the chance to come up with widely accepted solutions. I already hear the sound of many palms making contact with many faces. Yeah, it's a long shot alright. I am fully aware of those who live in very small workds going: "I gots a solution, destroy all the modes I don't play in", or "It's not a PvP game, sucks to be you!".

This thread, it has rules though. Not enforced rules, but gentleperson's agreement type of rules. Hey, there's that sound again.

The conditions for the solution are:
One: The solution needs to maintain continuity.
For example, bonuses are an ugly contrived non-solution that messes with the continuity. You get X for a task, but X+y% for that same task in a different mode. This is not the one Galaxy we signed up for. So whatever the solution, we need continuity. In-game there is no such thing as modes.

Deux: We need to make PvP an integral part of the game.
The features most discussed are those of PP and BGS meddling, and how PvP has no role to play in these PvP activities. In other areas like missions the solution could be much simpler. A mission: kill X CMDRs (meaning pilots in the PF, meaning other players) from faction Y would already make PvP an integral part. Missions also play a part in influencing the BGS, so that may be a contender.

Drei: When providing solutions we need to think about the spirit of these rules.
This is for the lawyer types who spot the loopholes and try to get a fast one over. This aint no court of law.

The thing is ...
As the game is right now, condition One is being fulfilled. So we need to work towards condition Deux in a way which doesn't interfere with One.

The psychology
As I don't expect this thread to deliver any useful content, and I predict it will go down the same dark, sleazy back-alley as all the others. Not even sure if I should post this. What's the point?
The combined intelligence in this forum is completely inadequate to solve this problem. Try to prove me wrong. You can't. Because you're all weak! Therefore this thread will go down as the moist octopus it is.
 
Last edited:
At work on break at the moment, but I've long argued that if you want fun and meaningful PvP in this game, it has to be an opt-in system for the BGS, where players pledge themselves to factions, or declare themselves a "pirate". I favor an ELO system for player ability, game-calculated stats for ship strength and type, and rewards and "victory" conditions based on those stats. This includes "victory" conditions for more than combat (like making it through a blockade).

More details may follow at lunch.
 
At work on break at the moment, but I've long argued that if you want fun and meaningful PvP in this game, it has to be an opt-in system for the BGS, where players pledge themselves to factions, or declare themselves a "pirate". I favor an ELO system for player ability, game-calculated stats for ship strength and type, and rewards and "victory" conditions based on those stats. This includes "victory" conditions for more than combat (like making it through a blockade).

More details may follow at lunch.
Yep, I also came to the conclusion of presenting which faction a CMDR is aligned to. This I think is a must have if PvP is going to have meaning. Especially because it could have bad repercussions if you were to destroy a CMDR from the same or a friendly faction. Or do something else that has a bad impact on the faction. It might even be used against 5th columning.

If a faction noticed a CMDR continually causes the faction to lose influence, that CMDR can be banned from that faction, so CMDRs creating second accounts to undermine factions are limited in their success.
 
And thus Ziggy raises the thread to end all threads; The Holy Answer To All Spiteful Scuffles.

Just don't ask for an acronym.

First off, I am at least 20000% behind the notion that we cannot make Open/PvP meaningful with a few arbitrary bonuses. We need engaging gameplay, not more bloomin' credits. I mean does anyone actually care about them any more anyway?

Secondly, I hate to sound like I am having an affair with your idea, but your PP proposal still showcases the best form of a solution to me. I am not naive; I realise too well that we cannot actively lock anything to Open. However that is not to say that you can't have two different concurrent solutions.

For those that aren't aware, his PP proposal effectively outlined that you can have an ongoing "open objective" and a "PG/Solo" objective. The former can only be completed in Open, and vice versa; however each objective is important in its own right.

IMO the objectives don't have to boil down to "PvP fitez in open and truckin' in solo" - they should cycle. Again, I'm after more engaging gameplay; I can reasonable get a straight up shoot out whenever I like. But meaningful station barricades? Meaningful pirating? Come at me bro.

While that only covers PP, it's reasonably understood even by most PvE players that PP is supposed to be conducive to PvP in some form, so it's an excellent starting block - and the concept can be applied elsewhere. Don't separate the BGS, don't exclude any activity, but do recognise that catering to both "parties" doesn't mean you have to use the same solution.
 
I would think they would have to cycle (probably have the PvP/Trade cycle at least twice for each PP cycle) that way both styles get to affect their powers not just one or the other.

Keeping it fresh would be paramount. Contrary to common perception, I am looking for meaning to PvP engagements, not a mindless abundance of PvP engagements.

Ideally the objective for each would be different - e.g. while there's a combat objective for PG, there is anything BUT combat objective for Open; and the objective could be pretty much anything. I used combat and trade as examples, but there a number of objectives that could be implemented.
 
And thus Ziggy raises the thread to end all threads; The Holy Answer To All Spiteful Scuffles.
You have great faith in humanity :)

First off, I am at least 20000% behind the notion that we cannot make Open/PvP meaningful with a few arbitrary bonuses. We need engaging gameplay, not more bloomin' credits. I mean does anyone actually care about them any more anyway?
Testify brother!

Secondly, I hate to sound like I am having an affair with your idea, but your PP proposal still showcases the best form of a solution to me. I am not naive; I realise too well that we cannot actively lock anything to Open. However that is not to say that you can't have two different concurrent solutions.

For those that aren't aware, his PP proposal effectively outlined that you can have an ongoing "open objective" and a "PG/Solo" objective. The former can only be completed in Open, and vice versa; however each objective is important in its own right.

IMO the objectives don't have to boil down to "PvP fitez in open and truckin' in solo" - they should cycle. Again, I'm after more engaging gameplay; I can reasonable get a straight up shoot out whenever I like. But meaningful station barricades? Meaningful pirating? Come at me bro.

While that only covers PP, it's reasonably understood even by most PvE players that PP is supposed to be conducive to PvP in some form, so it's an excellent starting block - and the concept can be applied elsewhere. Don't separate the BGS, don't exclude any activity, but do recognise that catering to both "parties" doesn't mean you have to use the same solution.
While writing the OP, I wanted to give an example which impacted the BGS, and missions came to mind. Kill X CMDRs from faction Y (not kill CMDR X 16 times, but kill X different CMDRs) where every consequent kill gets a little influence boost. So if you're a small faction which has 10 CMDRs flying for it, it would be very hard to complete that mission. But if the faction is big and has lots of different CMDRs flying for it, it would be much easier. That could go against big factions steamrolling little ones in the PvP department.

The PP proposal has military and civilian merit counters. While hauling merits, and system policing would count towards civilian influence, Pilot Federation members (military) fighting against each other would could towards military influence. So you could get a system where the population supports one Power, but the military regime from another Power performs a coup and subjugates the populace into it being aligned to that instead. Would the civilian pressure get too high, there would be a civil war.

About your affair, I think it's best I arrange a dinner date and we make this thing official. You got my blessing.
 
Ziggy...Ziggy: I was finally getting used to the 'two drunks arguing and nobody caring about a real solution" style in this forum, and then you have to make an attempt at actually achieving a goal? Whilst being civil about it? Tisk, tisk...what is the world coming to? ;)

P.S. I laud the effort, but even if you folks come up with a real stunner of a solution, that doesn't mean that FD will even listen. They do seem to be marching to their own drummer.

Now back to my morning coffee...
 
+1 to the idea.

After much thought and consideration, I've determined I shall stay out of this one.

In my experience with all these discussions, it couldn't be any clearer to me that there are unwavering viewpoints that prevent the ability to concede either way... therefore I personally am unable to do so.

I want a PvP flagging toggle system implemented. Period. This way, the PvPer's who want "meaningful" PvP shall have it, because only those who wish to engage will be available. It will also be very evident just how many those are, too. At least then we'll have a count of how many participate versus how many don't- and there's no more speculation arguments.

No matter how many times we ride this merry-go-round, it's evident that unless we have one, we're going to be at odds.
 
I want a PvP flagging toggle system implemented. Period. This way, the PvPer's who want "meaningful" PvP shall have it...

Heads up that any kind of flagging will never, ever be meaningful - please, remember that contrary to popular opinion, at least the PvPers I know don't want just mindless targets to shoot at. There's actually already an abundance of "shoot at each other"; PvPers are not typically the kind to turn down a challenge ;)

Meaningful means it has some kind of context and relevance to the Galaxy. The current incarnation of PowerPlay has proven that if you give players the option, they'll play the system via the easy route. And that isn't a bash at PvE players - I am talking PowerPlay nerds that in many cases were engaging in PvP before, until they realised they could take cheap shots from the shadows.

You give players a toggle, you immediately remove any form of meaning.

On the other hand I appreciate you realise you cannot remain objective here. I am quite vocal on the subject, but nothing I ask is actually unreasonable. End of the day...PG is your PvP toggle ;)

*dodges thrown shoes*
 
End of the day...PG is your PvP toggle ;)

Not when people are able to infiltrate Private Groups like Mobius because there's no proper controls in place to prevent it.

Implement a PvP/PvE restrictive toggle in PG's and I'll settle for that instead.
 
Not when people are able to infiltrate Private Groups like Mobius because there's no proper controls in place to prevent it.

Implement a PvP/PvE restrictive toggle in PG's and I'll settle for that instead.

That's a slightly different discussion.

I think I can see why FD are reluctant to go there: for a start, cheers to their legendary networking, it's basically impossible to implement and support correctly. Can you imagine FD's support having to moderate this 24/7? ;)

Secondarily it's an "open a can of worms" thing. You allow players a toggle for PvP...why not other toggles? Why not difficulty? And from there, why are players allowed to have settings that make their game easier? To some, that's just another aid to BGS manipulation.

But fundamentally if the game could support it, I got nothing against better PG tools, flags included - provided Open can remain relevant in its own ways. I've said multiple times: the game needs to cater to both sides of the fence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here we go again...

Who cares?

Hollow icons and CMDR identifiers should have been optional from the beginning.

Won't happen
 

Deleted member 115407

D
Yep, I also came to the conclusion of presenting which faction a CMDR is aligned to. This I think is a must have if PvP is going to have meaning. Especially because it could have bad repercussions if you were to destroy a CMDR from the same or a friendly faction. Or do something else that has a bad impact on the faction. It might even be used against 5th columning.

If a faction noticed a CMDR continually causes the faction to lose influence, that CMDR can be banned from that faction, so CMDRs creating second accounts to undermine factions are limited in their success.

Faction tags... I've pushed the idea of faction tags before. Still think it's a good idea.

Somewhere, someone in a concept screenshot had a great idea - faction partnership. Like working for factions can give you and other players partial ownership... anyways, that's kind of off-topic. Yeah, faction tags would be great. To encourage their use, associate with a faction could offer inf or Cr benefits for working their missions. Also, the game would have to do away with the free association mechanic that it has now (or lack of an association mechanic), i.e. You pledge to a faction and you get the tag. You can unpledge any time, but the tag remains for a week and you can't repledge in that time... that kind of thing. Just throwing ideas out.

That's a slightly different discussion.

I think I can see why FD are reluctant to go there: for a start, cheers to their legendary networking, it's basically impossible to implement and support correctly. Can you imagine FD's support having to moderate this shizz 24/7? ;)

Secondarily it's an "open a can of worms" thing. You allow players a toggle for PvP...why not other toggles? Why not difficulty? And from there, why are players allowed to have settings that make their game easier? To some, that's just another aid to BGS manipulation.

But fundamentally if the game could support it, I got nothing against better PG tools, flags included - provided Open can remain relevant in its own ways. I've said multiple times: the game needs to cater to both sides of the fence.

To play devil's advocate, Stitch, what if a difficulty toggle didn't make the game easier, only harder, for folks who want an increased challenge?

(i.e. what if "easy" were just the game in its current state?)

Would that be acceptable?
 
That's a slightly different discussion.

I think I can see why FD are reluctant to go there: for a start, cheers to their legendary networking, it's basically impossible to implement and support correctly. Can you imagine FD's support having to moderate this shizz 24/7? ;)

Secondarily it's an "open a can of worms" thing. You allow players a toggle for PvP...why not other toggles? Why not difficulty? And from there, why are players allowed to have settings that make their game easier? To some, that's just another aid to BGS manipulation.

But fundamentally if the game could support it, I got nothing against better PG tools, flags included - provided Open can remain relevant in its own ways. I've said multiple times: the game needs to cater to both sides of the fence.

Different discussion, yes- but part of the same whole.

If fundamental changes are to be made- let's just give *everyone* what they want. (not just cater to one group or another- hence why I said I wanted to stay out of it)

PvE-only restrictive toggle for PG's and you can do whatever you want with Open. Hell, burn it down to the ground if you wish. :)

I'm done with the conversation, however. Good luck! :)
 
Faction tags... I've pushed the idea of faction tags before. Still think it's a good idea.

Somewhere, someone in a concept screenshot had a great idea - faction partnership. Like working for factions can give you and other players partial ownership... anyways, that's kind of off-topic. Yeah, faction tags would be great. To encourage their use, associate with a faction could offer inf or Cr benefits for working their missions. Also, the game would have to do away with the free association mechanic that it has now (or lack of an association mechanic), i.e. You pledge to a faction and you get the tag. You can unpledge any time, but the tag remains for a week and you can't repledge in that time... that kind of thing. Just throwing ideas out.

I mention in another thread that ED has a whole host of underutilised variables, and faction is a disgustingly huge chunk of that.

I mean honestly, what role does reputation play? For major factions it's a grind to unlock ships, for minor factions it determines whether a mission is denied to you or not...oh, and whether local security forces appear as green blobs or neutral blobs.

However it's developed, IMO faction development is the way to go - the concept of fleet carriers etc. seems to be dragging ED towards player managed guilds, which is something I was very appreciative ED had avoided until now. Believe it or not, I don't want EVE style gameplay. This was supposed to be about influencing the galaxy, not being forced to join the clan that happens to be the biggest or you're effectless; alas, it would appear FD would rather we do the legwork for managing factions...


To play devil's advocate, Stitch, what if a difficulty toggle didn't make the game easier, only harder, for folks who want an increased challenge?

(i.e. what if "easy" were just the game in its current state?)

Would that be acceptable?

Well yes and no. I mean conceptually why not, but why should it be necessary?

The whole difficulty argument is a straight up farce IMO. It's a rare aspect of the game that can outright be improved to cater towards high skilled players, while remaining one hundred per cent consensuahl for the players that don't like risk. Want challenge? Go to an anarchy HazRES and tackle Elite pirates. Don't want to get mangled by overpowered NPCs? Don't do that.

There's how many systems in ED one can fight in? I don't think anyone will be running out of combat sites soon, and even if each were quite particular, there would still be something for all in easy reach.

So sure, we could make a handwavium slider. But we're in a supposedly living galaxy of immense proportions and a myriad different factors playing on every system; why is that ​not our "difficulty slider"?


EDIT: God dang it Vindelanos, you derailed me like a leaf on a Southern Railway line.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom