Modes Will 3.0 Increase, decrease or have no effect on Open population?

[Agony_Aunt]

If the forum is split into various factions...or modes...you're faction has loudly and vociferously lobbied for robust c&p advancements for months, maybe years, with the premise being that it would a) bring people "back" and b) keep people from leaving in the first place. That was the whole point as far as your faction was concerned. What other point could there possibly be?

Mind, I'm not saying you specifically, Ziggy. I'm not going to spend the day searching the archives for quotes, but the calls for advancements to c&p have been strenuous and not once have they ever come from PvPers. So again, it begs the question: why bother with it? It was never going to stop the problems the solo/group faction had with Open, so it has been a lame path to follow for the dev's right from the beginning.

It appears that the c&p experiment has failed to meet it's goals, and sad to say I always knew that it would and have said so on many occasions.

Sorry Jason, but there were more than a few PvPers saying ED needed a better C&P system.

 

[jasonbarron]

Sorry Jason, but there were more than a few PvPers saying ED needed a better C&P system.

Haha, perhaps at a rate of 1/1000. The fact that a small handful of PvPers generously conceded to the amassed horde of angry PvErs that c&p done right might have a few benefits to the game as a whole, that isn't what led us down this road. For better or worse, guys like you led us down this road. Guys like me said it would be of dubious (at best) worth. On the one hand, I don't really care as I've proved over the years that unlike some others who shall remain nameless I am adaptable to whatever gameplay ED throws at me, on the other hand I would prefer the dev's spent their limited resources on more productive game play mechanics.

 

[Toumal]

The vast majority of the complaints from you and those who agree with you are nothing but a smokescreen. You guys don't give a toss about powerplay beyond getting your goodies from the powers, you don't give a toss about the BGS because you aren't defending squat when you are at every CG and POI every day doing the same thing.

You hit the nail on the head. And they know it. And they don't care about open. Even this forum is just another deception metagame to play to them.

 

[Goose4291]

The vast majority of the complaints from you and those who agree with you are nothing but a smokescreen. You guys don't give a toss about powerplay beyond getting your goodies from the powers, you don't give a toss about the BGS because you aren't defending squat when you are at every CG and POI every day doing the same thing.

Most of the arguments that the non-BGS, non-PP types run with that you'd regard as the PvPer side of the discussion are basing their points on the posts of those who did take part in those events like myself. The slow slide into easy mode is whats caused Elite to slip from being a regular part of the gaming experience of those players into something they now casually dabble in when they need a 30 minute gaming fix.

"Not once from PvPers" is overstating it. As I said, the idea that actions should have consequences didn't only come from PvEers. It's a sentiment I have heard often. The same goes for logging into Open in a shieldless ship.

Sorry Jason, but there were more than a few PvPers saying ED needed a better C&P system.

Haha, perhaps at a rate of 1/1000. The fact that a small handful of PvPers generously conceded to the amassed horde of angry PvErs that c&p done right might have a few benefits to the game as a whole, that isn't what led us down this road. For better or worse, guys like you led us down this road. Guys like me said it would be of dubious (at best) worth. On the one hand, I don't really care as I've proved over the years that unlike some others who shall remain nameless I am adaptable to whatever gameplay ED throws at me, on the other hand I would prefer the dev's spent their limited resources on more productive game play mechanics.

There were, and I would be considered one of them. What caused the situation we're in now is that anytime anyone who flew in open/did PvP pointed out the flaws with an idea (such as developing a C&P system that hit the players in their e-wallet, in a game where credits are now meaningless) would have their opinion shouted down as being a lie/hidden agenda to try to stop FDev pushing forward with the idea.

 

[Sylveria]

I saw the whole introduction of C&P 3.0 as being Sandro's little "social experiment" to determine whether FD could "have their cake and eat it, too".

It failed. Miserably.

It will always fail as long as the "advantage" is always being given to PvP players instead of seeing there are many different types of people in the world who enjoy many different types of activities.

People aren't going to "come running back to Open" because the most extreme types of PvP players now have "consequences". I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it- until there's a proper flagging system in place for designating PvP/PvE people will continue to enjoy their activities in whatever mode they so choose. There's no other way around it, and FD knows it.

 

[jasonbarron]

Most of the arguments that the non-BGS, non-PP types run with that you'd regard as the PvPer side of the discussion are basing their points on the posts of those who did take part in those events like myself. The slow slide into easy mode is whats caused Elite to slip from being a regular part of the gaming experience of those players into something they now casually dabble in when they need a 30 minute gaming fix.







There were, and I would be considered one of them. What caused the situation we're in now is that anytime anyone who flew in open/did PvP pointed out the flaws with an idea (such as developing a C&P system that hit the players in their e-wallet, in a game where credits are now meaningless) would have their opinion shouted down as being a lie/hidden agenda to try to stop FDev pushing forward with the idea.

That seems reasonable.

I saw the whole introduction of C&P 3.0 as being Sandro's little "social experiment" to determine whether FD could "have their cake and eat it, too".

It failed. Miserably.

It will always fail as long as the "advantage" is always being given to PvP players instead of seeing there are many different types of people in the world who enjoy many different types of activities.

People aren't going to "come running back to Open" because the most extreme types of PvP players now have "consequences". I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it- until there's a proper flagging system in place for designating PvP/PvE people will continue to enjoy their activities in whatever mode they so choose. There's no other way around it, and FD knows it.

The PvPers aren't being given an advantage, they're constantly creating it.

 

[Sylveria]

The PvPers aren't being given an advantage, they're constantly creating it.

PvPers were given the advantage the moment the game was introduced with Open and no flagging system. And that's why most PvErs flocked to PG's/Solo.

Go ahead... try and twist that one around.

 

[jasonbarron]

PvPers were given the advantage the moment the game was introduced with Open and no flagging system. And that's why most PvErs flocked to PG's/Solo.

Go ahead... try and twist that one around.

Seeing as how module engineering is so heavily skewed towards defensive builds that coupled with a modicum of player awareness and skill render the defensive player nearly immune to aggression, I'm just going to tell you to go ahead and keep trying to spin it yourself, Sylveria

 

[Sylveria]

Seeing as how module engineering is so heavily skewed towards defensive builds that coupled with a modicum of player awareness and skill render the defensive player nearly immune to aggression, I'm just going to tell you to go ahead and keep trying to spin it yourself, Sylveria

I don't have to "spin" anything- it's the truth, and you know it.

As far as Engineering goes- it's been well established already that it wasn't a system designed for PvE players. You can keep telling yourself that it is- but the reality is most of the effects it has on modules are designed for combat focus- which most PvE players rarely find to be "central" to the game. (and conversely, PvP players find "combat" to be core)

 

[Robert Maynard]

It amuses me how people so consistently fail to see that all of the options available to PvPers are available to everyone, while ignoring entirely the advantage given to solo/pg players in BGS manipulation. [haha]

.... both of those modes, like the options you mention that are available to everyone, are also available to everyone.

 

[jasonbarron]

It amuses me how people so consistently fail to see that all of the options available to PvPers are available to everyone, while ignoring entirely the advantage given to solo/pg players in BGS manipulation. [haha]

The obtusiveness is a 100% wilful process on their part.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If I were to engage in solo BGS activities that the open BGS players regularly complain about, then I would not be a PvPer.

These arguments go round and round, everyone repeating the same half-truths.

We could go around in circles all day on this topic.

Kalie is pretty new here, but I think you know exactly what I mean.

Given that engaging in BGS activities is almost exclusively a PvE activity (except for the "stopping another player completing a PvE activity" case) then most of the time it's not PvP anyway. Open does not "own" the BGS - it is one of three game modes, on three platforms, that shares it.

The simple truth is that indirect PvP, through the BGS, is not optional whereas direct PvP is.

 

[Sylveria]

If I were to engage in solo BGS activities that the open BGS players regularly complain about, then I would not be a PvPer.

These arguments go round and round, everyone repeating the same half-truths.

We could go around in circles all day on this topic.

Kalie is pretty new here, but I think you know exactly what I mean.

There's no "half-truths" to be had.

The BGS is a 100% indirect system, which is available to everyone in any mode they wish.

That's the truth.

It's also 100% not optional, and because it's directly tied into the core of the game itself, you can't avoid it, regardless of your "play style".

 

[Theodrid]

Most of the arguments that the non-BGS, non-PP types run with that you'd regard as the PvPer side of the discussion are basing their points on the posts of those who did take part in those events like myself. The slow slide into easy mode is whats caused Elite to slip from being a regular part of the gaming experience of those players into something they now casually dabble in when they need a 30 minute gaming fix.

I chose my words carefully Goose, I'm sticking with 'vast majority'. The guys and gals that want to harvest salt every day, (and are on here boasting about such), that are at every single CG, that are constantly at engineer sites, Founders and POI's being on these boards bleating about some faux care about the game beyond shooting every hollow box that moves is beyond ridiculous. These folks aren't 'working for their chosen power' or 'defending their system' if they are playing 'hunt the hollow box' all over the galaxy, they get what they want from PP and toss it aside and they don't give a crap about 'the BGS', most of them just heard the SDC minor faction story and latch onto it like leaches.

So, no Goose, they aren't saying 'we heard some guys that care got screwed by it', they are saying, 'this is screwing the game up for ME', they are talking and pretending it has had an impact on them in some vain meta attempt to convince Frontier to give them more hollow boxes to 'plodey.

 

[Sylveria]

they are talking and pretending it has had an impact on them in some vain meta attempt to convince Frontier to give them more hollow boxes to 'plodey.

Bingo.

The circular argument always comes back to "But why can't I use direct actions versus indirect actions?", "But PvP is PvP!"

Welcome to the world of not having an option. Kinda like a PvE'er in Open versus a PvP'er.

 

[Jockey79]

Judging from the replies of some of you guys who are dedicated group/solo players nothing has changed. Which I predicted every time the subject of "We need a c&p system!" came up: that nothing would change, relevant to well established player mode grouping. Which is funny, because it's been your crowd clammoring for it. It begs the question why bother developing c&p systems that don't benefit anyone? Looks like a waste of time and money to me.

The added irony: well Jason, who said that it even SHOULD bring people back into Open?!? I never said that!

Apart from it's far too early to decide the new C&P system a failure, what makes you think no one will benefit.
PvE pirates may enjoy the new system and you may even find some PvP'ers like it.

Only time will tell.

If I were to engage in solo BGS activities that the open BGS players regularly complain about, then I would not be a PvPer.

You don't lose some mystical prowess if you engage in PvE or use the mode system.
There are PvP'ers who use PvE as a tool to help enable PvP (earn fast credits, go engineering etc)- so you can do PvE and still be a PvP'er.

These arguments go round and round, everyone repeating the same half-truths.

We could go around in circles all day on this topic.

The argument over the modes wont stop because too many people blindly bought the game thinking it was Call of Duty in spaceships.
There was also an assumption the entire player base would be fish in a barrel, and that was never the case.
10 minutes in Google would have shown how multiplayer works in Elite and saved people from buying a game not suited to them.

As no one ever clicks the link in my Sig, here is "The Wall of Information" proving that;

________________________________________________________________


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]

Here is a post from Sandro Sammarco "musing" over a bonus to Open mode for Power Play;

.....

And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.

My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.

Now, one final Caveat. *As it stands currently*, we have time allotted in season two to work on Powerplay. These suggestions are just a part of that work - there is other stuff as well. However, I can't commit to the Unbreakable Vow, because it's very possible that in the fluid world of development, things might change!

I just wanted to set these ideas free and see how well they settle, so, comments welcome!

Hello Commanders!

A couple of clarifications:

* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.

* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.

* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.

* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.

Hope this info helps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s
[video=youtube;uetVzNINdKU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s[/video]

The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.

On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .

Extra note on "Griefing" and posts by Sandro on the topic;

Hello Commanders!

In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.

When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.

Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.

Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.

Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.

Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.

Hello Commanders!

A couple of points worth noting:

The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.

Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.

Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.

At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.

Some well made points made by forum user Sylveria;

The reality here is there are a HUGE number of players that play the game for their own reasons and they may or may not align with yours. For others reading this post, I apologize for the sheer length of it, but I'm really tired of having these same old debates with people and I'm covering a wide range of questions/answers that normally get covered in multi-page thread-noughts in advance. I've wrapped my own thoughts in a spoiler tag to minimize the "wall".

The Technical
Here's a bit of reality. FD created ED with P2P core networking, the BGS is tied into that, and ALL THREE MODES are tied into this as well. "Removing Solo/PG" to throw everyone into Open isn't going to happen because there's no central server system, and as of now, you can "block" using P2P. So to accomplish what you're asking, they would need to completely redo the entire base networking system to prevent people from blocking others on that level. Do you really think they're going to do that for just a (arguably "small") portion of their player base?

The Financial
Let's just posit a small theory, shall we? All of these tired arguments usually allege that there's a "huge" portion of players that wish for this change, and that if it doesn't happen there's going to be some sort of (DOOOOM!!!) "mass exodus" of players who will leave the game, and "FD will be losing potential income", yada yada. Now, bearing in mind all the people who have already bought this game, the amount of money that's been spent so far, and a change to base gameplay functionality (if it were to happen) what do you think the financial repercussions would be? Just affection ONE of any of the three modes would result in a MASS request of refunds... so let's talk actual numbers, shall we?

Mobius PvE was created to help facilitate players who did not want PvP but still wanted to play together online (Co-Op gameplay)
This Private Group has far exceeded the 40,000 player limit and additional "Private Groups" had to be created to facilitate the additional numbers...
Think about that for a minute, then multiply just that number by the base cost of this game, not including any LEP's, Backers, Horizons purchases or additional Store (paintjobs, etc.) content purchased.

Are you getting the picture yet?

Now keeping numbers in mind- let's stick to the financial aspects here. The PvE content included in this game is available to ALL three modes, regardless of PvE or PvP playstyle. If you removed any one of the three modes, that would still be the case, correct? Let's now think about doing the same with PvP content, which is ONLY available to Open mode. How much more money do you think FD spends in addition to what's already existing in the game to ADD more PvP content and accessibility to it? Think of people coding, maintaining the equipment that helps to facilitate networking, logistics, etc.

So, keeping in mind all the aforementioned numbers here's a question:
Do you think it would be more financially viable for them to strip all the PvE content and make it completely PvP, or do the reverse and make it only PvE?

Here's a couple more questions:
How many times have you seen the PvE Community opening threads and spewing posts about removing content from Open and making it exclusively accessible to Solo?
How many times have you seen the PvE Community throwing tantrums and stomping their feet in the Forums or on Reddit about "Leaving the game" if more PvE exclusive content doesn't get added to the game?

Are you getting the "bigger picture" yet?

(Granted, you'll see the occasional post from a PvE player who is "bored" or whatever, but that's to be expected in any game. You'll see those on any forum, because a developer can't make everyone happy, all the time.)

PvP Players
If you want Open to be "better" and want to draw more players into Open, I'd suggest you start banding together, organize some groups and "take out the trash", so it becomes a much cleaner place to enjoy the game. I'd love to see it become what it should have been originally- a huge expansive universe full of life, full of a wide range of players and game play, all doing different things and co-existing together. Pirates, Traders, Explorers, RP-er's, Miners, etc. People enjoying the game they love amongst others, with some being able to cooperatively play in PvP and some being able to cooperatively play in PvE, and some just doing their own thing on their own, without being bothered.

It's not going to be like that when you've got GSP's running around acting like psychopaths and there's (relatively) no consequence for them doing so. You want it to change? Then CHANGE it. You shouldn't need incentive, if your true motivation is "PvP combat", you've got all the incentive (and targets) you need. They're out there waiting for you. And if you keep laying into them, they'll eventually get tired of acting like they have been and quit or change their attitudes and start learning to co-exist.

"Wolf against wolf", not "wolf against sheep".

P.S. for those who care to read it (included in Spoiler tag to reduce the wall of text)

Spoiler

I only speak for myself- and have only done so. No one made me the "voice of Solo/PG's or PvE" here.

I really didn't want to start a "crusade" of PvE vs PvP or any of that. At first, I tried to reason with them... and that didn't work. They won't listen to reason. So now we have to defend our game-play styles because all they're doing with the negativity is driving away new customers because a few people didn't get what they wanted. And because they've got just as much of a right as "customers" to come into the forums and voice their opinions, there's no recourse but to continue to keep laying down reality. I/we don't get "paid" or "compensated" in ANY way, form or fashion for doing this, either. (neither does Jockey79, or any of the other more vocal players of the PvE community) I/we do it because I love the game and don't want to see it destroyed because of a minority few.

I see some in the PvP community spreading falsities, throwing tantrums, and trying their absolute damndest to get FD to change core functionality that affects ALL modes that would affect all players (PvE included) in order to facilitate their "Free For All Killfest" COD-in-space style gameplay. When throwing tantrums didn't work they started to spread toxicity into Reddit, the Official forums, Discord, and anywhere else they feel they'd garner support and be "heard".

Essentially the whole argument is "Remove Solo/PG's and give us our fish for our barrel or we'll burn down the game!!"

(That's it folks, that's the WHOLE strategy)

If you really want to see this game succeed, you should be very concerned. Make your own opinions known, because THEY certainly are.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Oh great! Now look what you guys have done! You pushed Jokey into posting the wall of info about Modes!

 

[Toumal]

It amuses me how people so consistently fail to see that all of the options available to PvPers are available to everyone, while ignoring entirely the advantage given to solo/pg players in BGS manipulation. [haha]

It's simple, really: PvP godrolls were used to unfairly influence the BGS by abusing the deficiencies of authority responses (that is not my statement, this comes directly from Sandro Sammarco via the C&P announcement stream). On top of that, exploits were used to gather the materials needed to UA-bomb a certain megaship. Shortcomings in the collision handling as well as station response patterns were abused to inflict indirect damage on hapless commanders.

You could say that the means to rob a bank are available to everyone, but that doesn't mean that you can cry foul when there's finally a proper police force installed.

And solo/group players do not have an advantage, for there is no guarantee that you can intercept another player by ending up in his/her instance anyway. This is another smokescreen argument that is designed to deflect from the issue of antisocial behavior and its consequences. Frontier has shown consistency by making sure the C&P changes apply to both human ships as well as NPC vessels. This completely invalidates your argument of there being an imbalance between modes. There is not.

Want to affect the BGS? You can attack NPCs just fine and achieve the same result.

But that's not what you're really after, is it?

 

[Goose4291]

So, no Goose, they aren't saying 'we heard some guys that care got screwed by it', they are saying, 'this is screwing the game up for ME', they are talking and pretending it has had an impact on them in some vain meta attempt to convince Frontier to give them more hollow boxes to 'plodey.

Nah, get what your saying old chap. Just highlighting that the people that these arguments are built on do actually exist, and when they makes them, it is because of the reasons they state, rather than the 'hidden agenda' accusations that get leveled at them by a lot of the folk who post here.

 

[Mouse]

I think you actually need to read my posts before you quote them. At no point did I say the punishments doled out by FDev were ridiculously punitive.

What I said was that the clamour and justification for stricter penalties by the community was ridiculous

*Cough*

What I said is that issuing penalties like people on the forums were clamouring for (i.e account bans) is a ridiculous punitive measure for 'cheating', when Frontier hadn't declared the exploit as such at the time when the offenders used it.