Modes Reworking the game modes

[Haggbad Celine]

The PGs I play in are restricted PvP.
Anyone who might even think about it are kicked instantly.

So 1 mode no PvP;
1 mode yes to PvP;
1 mode that can be yes or no depending who runs it;

Perfect balance

1 mode to go to when being a notorious murderer and afk waiting for notoriety decreasing.
1 mode to gank unshielded haulers at CG's and making utubes.
1 mode to harrass squadrons without them ever noticing whose trolling them.

Each mode serves another purpose.
Perfect balance.

 

[Darkfyre99]

The fact that more than half of the weaponry in this game is only useful in PvP scenarios kind of makes me question the statement that ED was entirely designed as a PvE coop game.

Not entirely. Antagonistic gameplay in Open is an option, with the emphasis on option. Even Open players can use friends lists and block lists to affect who they get instanced with. Even in Open, if I don’t want to play with someone I consider to be a jerk, I can block them and never have them darken my game again, unless we have a mutual friend in common.

Exactly the reason, why I do not want the pretend Elite PvP'ler to have an option of evading real adversaries.

Th alternative is to allow those kinds of players to have unrestricted access to the rest of the player base. 30 Year of gaming history shows that nothing kills a game faster than that. At the very least, as long as they are genuinely hiding in Solo, they’re not bothering anyone else. Besides... that kind of player typically suffers from chronic “sudden network failure syndrome”. Give me someone who doesn’t mind losing any day.

Why do you consider stating the fact that it feels unbalanced that the best option for influencing BGS/PP is PG/solo and therefore all game modes are not equally valid as salt?

Because the salt isn’t about the BGS being affected by Solo, because that type of player doesn’t actually play that part of the game (see above). It’s just the current Casus Belli since they can’t kill most of the players in Open, even players like me who aren’t very good at PvP. It’s hard to pretend you’re good when a non-combat player in a T7 considers you an annoying gnat, rather than a fearsome killer of men.

And I can't take the argument of ED being a PvE game seriously, or do you usually shoot at NPCs with Target Lock Breaker, Cascade Torps and FSD Disrupters or do you mind explaining me the value of emissive ammunition in a PvE scenario?

Its certainly not a PvP game, because it lacks the features that make PvP fun for everyone. It is at best a hybrid, which has learned from the mistakes that other game companies have made over the last 30 years.

 

[Para Handy]

But it doesn't mean that games cannot allow freedom in how changes are made.

The better game would set the stage and say "here's your universe, now go do shizz". What ED does is say "okay so you can do x BGS grind to achieve y change, and causing any changes outside what we want you to do is off the cards". It doesn't just come down to the Open/PG argument, it's visible even in the heavily scripted alien invasion alongside any other "narrative" they provide: almost everything in ED is on a path you've been set on. Very much not "blaze your own trail".

I totally disagree with you. The basic game is not a self-adapting neural network - there has to be a basic underlying set of rules and conditional responses, you are free to do whatever you like within those rules. In the real world you can't go and do what you like, there are both physical laws and social constructs that constrain your activities - how can you expect a computer game to exist without modelling these after a fashion? I think you are being unrealistic in your expectations / demands / criticisms.

 

[Haggbad Celine]

It is at best a hybrid, which has learned from the mistakes that other game companies have made over the last 30 years.

Glad we agree, ED is not a PVE game only.
Now let's face the issue:
Solo/PG are superior game modes compared to Open.

The issue of the complaint is:
Open is an underdeveloped playing field, which should emphasize player interactions (hostile and non hostile), which it may allow, but in a so pointless matter that ganking is the only thing to do.

A non-combat T7 should play a role in open, next to a pirate, a bounty hunter and a crazy murder hobo.
Yet the only one enjoying the current interactions in open is the crazy murder hobo.

Hope, some people get my point.

 

[Dietger]

While no one can avoid PvP in Open, no not in prinzipal, I see Open as a PvP mode. While, for the player no PvP is needed it can't in all consequences be avoided in Open. The antagonistic stance becoming a balance to the all important PvE part of Elite. There is beauty in this. Frontier deliberately matches players versus players. Here is PvP, a fundamental part, embedded into the game thanks to C&P and game features like PP.
What you do matters. Challenging others is part of the Open. No consensus omnium needed. Frontier values liberty against liability. In Elite they are equal twins. Which is why this mode is so beautiful. I don't need to attack players, but when ever I want I can.

Open is the therefore the PvP mode in Elite Dangerous, like it or not.
The consequence
Your choice which mode you play.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Glad we agree, ED is not a PVE game only.
Now let's face the issue:
Solo/PG are superior game modes compared to Open.

The issue of the complaint is:
Open is an underdeveloped playing field, which should emphasize player interactions (hostile and non hostile), which it may allow, but in a so pointless matter that ganking is the only thing to do.

A non-combat T7 should play a role in open, next to a pirate, a bounty hunter and a crazy murder hobo.
Yet the only one enjoying the current interactions in open is the crazy murder hobo.

Hope, some people get my point.

Define "superior" in this context, please.

Open developed as it was expected to, by some, even before the game launched, i.e. those who like to see others' ships explode did what they wanted and those that didn't enjoy being the exploding ship exercised their option not to play with them.

Anything that facilitates piracy, as an example, can be used by those who offer no "fun" from the interaction.

If being the target of the "crazy murder hobo" is not fun, why should any player offer themselves as a target for them?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Open is the therefore the PvP mode in Elite Dangerous, like it or not.
The consequence
Your choice which mode you play.

It's one of two modes where direct PvP is possible however it's the only mode where players cannot be kicked for engaging in direct PvP.

As you say, the consequence of Open being what it has become is that players that don't find direct PvP to be fun can choose to play in a different game mode.

.... better that than them not playing at all though.

 

[Iskariot]

Hello FDev Team and community!

I would like to suggest a rework of how players can choose between game modes.
I think we all have heard how private/solo has a disruptive impact on piracy for one example.

But there is actually more gameplay features that Elite is missing because players can choose the gamemode they want without any implications.

The most important one being BGS wars against certain factions.
So let's say a squadron has a home system with their own minor faction.
They have some minor dispute with another faction, which leads that squadron to initiate an BGS attack on the other squadron's starport to bring into a lockdown via BGS play in private or solo.
Another option would be to UA-Bomb their starport.

Currently the only valid option would be to BGS grind yourself or to deliver Meta-Alloys, as there is no option of confronting the other squadron and therefore successfully defend the starport.
The whole attack would only be noted once it has already delivered it's impact as you would never see any player ship in the nearby systems.

I am aware that there are a lot of players enjoying the game without the risk of getting into a fight with another player as it surely can be frustrating experience.
And in my opinion if you do not want to engage into that part of the game you shouldn't be forced into it, so an open only mode is not a valid option to support players enjoying major confrontation between groups or just 1on1s. But on the other hand, a player that earns their ships in private/solo was never exposed to the same risks as player who did that in open only.
Therefore it's actually unfair if these gamestyles share the same impact.

My suggestion would be therefore to lock progression to a gamemode and split the BGS as well.
This allows PVE-only playergroups, without affecting the playerbase of open.
A major effect would certainly be that most wings will be limited to open as a squadron only playing in group will be quite limited in their recruitement, but that is a positive development from my point of view.
The reason being why I view it as a positive development is that it allows a whole new range of player interactions.
It will emphasize new kind of carrers in the game, for an example squadrons employing spies to get a glimpse of other squadrons plans of expansion.
Or squadrons having patrol ship around their systems to secure their space from possible scouts/invaders.

I would like to share my experience from Naval Action, which shares some similarities from a gameplay style with Elite, but is limited to open only.
In Naval Action there are several major factions (similar to Powers) which control ports and only allow for docking of players belonging to that faction.
The factions themself didn't have any impact on the game, but the players did have.
New ports had to be raided by players to get them under a new flag and such wars between major factions rose on who controls the most ports.
Those attacks had to be announced so the players of the other faction had a chance to assemble a defense.
One clan was rarely able to start a meaningful attack on a port by themselves and therefore diplomats were needed to communicate with other clans and coordinate attack plans.
With this also came the spies...
All in all this was a very engaging aspect of the game, which content wise wasn't delivering an inch of what Elite brings on the table.

IMHO the currently reworked C&P systems delivers a perfect foundation to allow for such interactions as unjustified attacks are followed by meaningful punishments and therefore disincentivize griefing.
But the problem still being a lack of meaningful encounters, as currently Powerplay allows for such encounters only.
Even those encounters are quite meaningless and not impactful viewed from a squadron perspective, with currently the only reason for such an attack being to gain merits with the power...

I would love to see Elite allow for intergalactic wars between squadrons.
Conflict certainly can be a very engaging aspect in a game like Elite.

The best solution for me as a solo player would be to have a completely separate solo mode. This mode could then have all kinds of cool stuff that is impossible in a multiplayer/pvp game (I mentioned this in another thread).
It would be awesome to be the only player exploring the depths of the galaxy in my own ED game (never again would I encounter weird player names who discovered something first). I could influence sytems the way I like without others messing it up. My weapons would only have to be balanced against npc opponents. FDev could eventually add a personal story for me the player etc. etc.

Group PvE mode could be modeled just like Solo and Open could be balanced for PvP first of all.
The Multiplayer PvP game could be constructed simpler as for example the engineers could be removed from open.

 

[Jockey79]

...but in a so pointless matter that ganking is the only thing to do.

Yet another poor excuse to cover up lousy behaviour.

If people cannot think of something to do, then they should try other games.
There are plenty of free games out there, both PvP and PvE based.

Lack of content here is not an excuse to gank anyone, the so called "lack of content" here is nothing more than a symptom of 1 of 2 things.

You're spending too much time in game here or you lack imagination to keep yourself occupied.
And going off ganking weaker players / newer players is just a toddlers tantrum because of it.

I've been here since open beta and I still find fun things to do, of which none of it has ever involved trying to push other people out of the game.

 

[UmbraRex]

Because the salt isn’t about the BGS being affected by Solo, because that type of player doesn’t actually play that part of the game (see above). It’s just the current Casus Belli since they can’t kill most of the players in Open, even players like me who aren’t very good at PvP. It’s hard to pretend you’re good when a non-combat player in a T7 considers you an annoying gnat, rather than a fearsome killer of men.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Darkfyre99 again.

Someone help me out here!

*rolls on the floor laughing

 

[Sylveria]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Darkfyre99 again.

Someone help me out here!

*rolls on the floor laughing

Done, and done.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Glad we agree, ED is not a PVE game only.
Now let's face the issue:
Solo/PG are superior game modes compared to Open.

The issue of the complaint is:
Open is an underdeveloped playing field, which should emphasize player interactions (hostile and non hostile), which it may allow, but in a so pointless matter that ganking is the only thing to do.

A non-combat T7 should play a role in open, next to a pirate, a bounty hunter and a crazy murder hobo.
Yet the only one enjoying the current interactions in open is the crazy murder hobo.

Hope, some people get my point.

A T7 trader who cant survive in open does not deserve to be called a trader, same thing goes to a "Rear Admiral" who should be enslaved by imperials and have his corvette confiscated as a punishment for incompetence.

 

[Haggbad Celine]

Define "superior" in this context, please.
Open developed as it was expected to, by some, even before the game launched, i.e. those who like to see others' ships explode did what they wanted and those that didn't enjoy being the exploding ship exercised their option not to play with them.

Superior in giving the player the best advantage for progress.
The potential of setbacks in open is way higher than Solo/PG, therefore Solo/PG are the superior mode if you are looking for progress in any kind.
The primary example of this is hauling cargo and how rare it is to see Cmdrs actually doing that in open.

Anything that facilitates piracy, as an example, can be used by those who offer no "fun" from the interaction.
If being the target of the "crazy murder hobo" is not fun, why should any player offer themselves as a target for them?

This is exactly my point. There is no reason to.
Not having a reason to expose oneself to a greater threat neglects a whole variety of playstyles.

The typical target as the non-combat T-7 hauler, could hire a combat Cmdr.
Even NPCs do not go mining alone, but have combat ships to protect them.

But why would the T-7 even bother if the easy solution is to go solo?

The whole gank-drama is a result of players having easy options to hide and would balance itself out if the modes were balanced.
There is no point in bounty hunting gankers, if they can just go into a safe-space to avoid any repercussions of their crimes.
Therefore open is left to gankers to roam freely.

Lack of content here is not an excuse to gank anyone, the so called "lack of content" here is nothing more than a symptom of 1 of 2 things.

It's not lack of content. It's lack of meaning and reward. Huge difference!
Emphasis of meaningful engagements takes the gankers ground.

 

[Sylveria]

The whole gank-drama is a result of players having easy options to hide and would balance itself out if the modes were balanced.

Disagree. The "gank-drama" is a result of gankers not "getting their way" with the modes system in place.

It has nothing to do with "players having easy options to hide".

Some people just don't want to play with others- period. This game wasn't introduced as a solely multiplayer game- it was introduced as a game people could play with the option of playing with others from inception. Offline solo was actually a part of the original vision, which was removed later because of online DRM... not because there was a movement toward a multiplay only concept.

 

[Jockey79]

It's not lack of content. It's lack of meaning and reward. Huge difference!
Emphasis of meaningful engagements takes the gankers ground.

You're still trying to justify personal issues with the game as an excuse to try and ruin other peoples game play.

Again, I'be been here since open beta and not once have I had to go blow up a newbie or look for weaker ships to pop as entertainment.
When I got bored with the game, I went and played another game for a bit. Soon as a big patch came out, I came back.

 

[Sylveria]

You're still trying to justify personal issues with the game as an excuse to try and ruin other peoples game play.

Again, I'be been here since open beta and not once have I had to go blow up a newbie or look for weaker ships to pop as entertainment.
When I got bored with the game, I went and played another game for a bit. Soon as a big patch came out, I came back.

Aye, another good point- as "meaningful" is opinionated and subjective. Some consider many aspects of the game to be "meaningful", and others do not. Who's "right" and who's "wrong" when we start trying to blur the lines of opinion and fact?

 

[Haggbad Celine]

Disagree. The "gank-drama" is a result of gankers not "getting their way" with the modes system in place.

That's not disagreeing. That's repeating my point.

It has nothing to do with "players having easy options to hide".

It surely has. Ganking is way easier than hunting a ganker.

Some people just don't want to play with others- period. This game wasn't introduced as a solely multiplayer game- it was introduced as a game people could play with the option of playing with others from inception. Offline solo was actually a part of the original vision, which was removed later because of online DRM... not because there was a movement toward a multiplay only concept.

Sure, I don't mind playing people PG/solo and if they choose not to play open I am also okay with that.

But why would I play open in the first place, if I am not looking for combat?
A trader in open has a disadvantage compared to a trader in PG/solo, yet doesn't get rewarded for it.

That's why the modes aren't equally valid.
Certain playstyles favor a certain game mode.

A indirect PvP example of this is undermining from PG/solo, you wouldn't do that in open as it would expose you to whoever you undermine.
That enables them to counteract, even if not by direct combat.
But staying hidden they have 0 chance of countering the attack, they can just defend.

 

[Sylveria]

But why would I play open in the first place, if I am not looking for combat?

Some want to experience the game content cooperatively without player-versus-player combat? You know, perhaps exploration, mining or other activities without having to go into Private Groups in order to do it?

Combat isn't the only activity in ED. It's not even the "primary" activity. Basing the reasons for why Open play exists on a singular activity is obtuse, considering Exploration could equally be argued in the same context based on the size of the galaxy in respect to the game.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Glad we agree, ED is not a PVE game only.
Now let's face the issue:
Solo/PG are superior game modes compared to Open.

I disagree. Open has something that other modes don’t: other players. This includes players that just want to blow you up. For those of us who like a more challenging game, its why we fly in Open. I do not want anyone flying in Open who isn’t there for the same challenge.

The “problem” is that there are some players in Open who are looking for easy kills, and are not finding them in Open because the players who have zero interest in PvP, and thus are easy kills, have the option to play in other modes. This is good for me, because I have no interest in testing my skills against those who have no interest in doing the same. If I’m in the mood to play the Imperial Shield Inspector or to rescue kidnapped Imperial Citizens, I don’t have to worry about ruining someone’s game session, and ideally have a fun fight that pushes my skills (such as they are) to their limits.

Unfortunately, I’m far more likely to encounter the kind of player who isn’t fun to fight. Either they attack me who an overwhelming advantage , and still can’t get a kill, or will suffer from “spontaneous network failure syndrome” when faced with a fair fight. As amusing as it is to see a FDL combat log when interdicted by a D rated iCourier, or maneuver my Type-7 into someone’s six, it’s no substitute for a fair fight with a real PvPer.

The issue of the complaint is:
Open is an underdeveloped playing field, which should emphasize player interactions (hostile and non hostile), which it may allow, but in a so pointless matter that ganking is the only thing to do.

A non-combat T7 should play a role in open, next to a pirate, a bounty hunter and a crazy murder hobo.
Yet the only one enjoying the current interactions in open is the crazy murder hobo.

Hope, some people get my point.

And I agree with you there. But the solution isn’t taking away content most of the player base enjoys. The solution is to add content to the game that only gives benefits when faced by actual player opposition. The problem is that this requires Development Team resources, resources that IMO are better spent improving the game as a whole.

Because as Bounty Hunting and Powerplay demonstrated, as soon as you allow PvP to have meaning, you open the door for collusion. That means any such PvP system needs to not only somehow encourage PvP that is fun for everyone, rewards players fairly, it also ensure that a group of players can’t collude to game the play, rather than play the game. All that takes time, planning, programming, testing, and server resources.

As much as I’d love to earn influence by making a so-called “pirate” look like the incompetent they are, I’d much rather Frontier focus on improving exploration, add landable atmospheric planets, space legs, and somehow make minor factions smarter than a garden snail.

 

[Dietger]

It's one of two modes where direct PvP is possible however it's the only mode where players cannot be kicked for engaging in direct PvP.

As you say, the consequence of Open being what it has become is that players that don't find direct PvP to be fun can choose to play in a different game mode.

.... better that than them not playing at all though.

A sincere Welcome Robert Maynard.

Is it that bad, is it? Open?