Modes Reworking the game modes

[Dietger]

The modes are brilliant. And trust me, the developers know it.

O7,
[noob]

While one could argue, modes are working and good at what they are made fore.

 

[The Lawful]

While one could argue, modes are working and good at what they are made fore.

Their very existence has people fighting over the title of Teenager of the Year, while yet there can't be a second Frank Black. But all the clickbait. Trust me, the developers are aware of it.

O7,
[noob]

 

[Dietger]

Their very existence has people fighting over the title of Teenager of the Year, while yet there can't be a second Frank Black. But all the clickbait. Trust me, the developers are aware of it.

O7,
[noob]

What ever man!

I am but one Goth.
Love the game though. Love, to meet players out there; friendly or not.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Exactly.
PG/Solo is the better choice for such activities.
Therefore the game modes are not equally valid.
Each modes favours a certain activity.

Open is available for those that want to have the chance of direct PvP - the other two modes are there for those that don't.

Frontier would seem to be well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - in that regard their design shows a level of understanding of the immiscibility of players that like direct PvP and those that don't.

They shouldn't be forced to do so, but optimally it should provide an edge over a PG/solo hauler.
The risk and inconvenience should be balanced across the game modes otherwise they are not equally valid.

Sandro has already commented on the challenge posed by the modes and certain aspects of direct PvP:

Hello Commander Ozram!

I think you are perhaps conflating two separate issues: the amount of challenge present in each game mode, and player versus player interactions. I think these are so fundamentally different that comparisons might not be particularly useful.

The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at.

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively *and* adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play.

So in the context of a karma system, people playing in Private Group or Solo mode are not relevant. Why should folk in Open be interested in what goes on there? This is about making player versus player interactions more equitable *in Open*, getting more folk in there, surely?

Yes, because it shifts the focus from a simple blowing stuff up towards blowing stuff up to achieve a certain goal.
A reason a lot of people don't enjoy direct PvP is because it's meaningless and in most cases does not provide any progress in the game, while also having a high potential of setting you back.
Change that and more people are interested.

Just because there's might be a reason for a player to destroy another player's ship does not mean that the destroyed player is going to find the encounter to be fun.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Open is available for those that want to have the chance of direct PvP - the other two modes are there for those that don't.

Frontier would seem to be well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - in that regard their design shows a level of understanding of the immiscibility of players that like direct PvP and those that don't.



Sandro has already commented on the challenge posed by the modes and certain aspects of direct PvP:






Just because there's might be a reason for a player to destroy another player's ship does not mean that the destroyed player is going to find the encounter to be fun.

Do you know how many times Ive yelled and cussed and screamed while playing League of Legends because I died while fighting against other people. I still enjoy the game.

We're not talking about the people that want to sit back and do the personal progression thing.

We are talking about people actively trying to effect someone else. While opting out of being effected by someone else.(Defended against).

 

[Jockey79]

... Overwatch, WoW, League of Legends, Dota, Counter Strike and more. All Objective based gameplay with a successful foundation. Doesnt matter the type of game. its all the same. PVP is meant for Objectives thats why you shoot each other.

I never once PvP'd in the years I played WoW, so you got one thing wrong there for a start.
PvP in Wow is completely optional and completely avoidable while still being able to get to the top.

The others don't give a choice as they are all PvP arena games.
And as you want to ignore the arena game in Elite - those are even less valid of an example.

Please try again.

 

[The Lawful]

We are talking about people actively trying to effect someone else. While opting out of being effected by someone else.(Defended against).

I've been Teenager of the Year even before the 90s. And experience shows Dog eat Dog PvP just is not everybody's thing, even if you would really really have it otherwise. And the developers are fully aware of that! Believe me!

O7,
[noob]

 

[Mohrgan]

Do you know how many times Ive yelled and cussed and screamed while playing League of Legends because I died while fighting against other people. I still enjoy the game.

We're not talking about the people that want to sit back and do the personal progression thing.

We are talking about people actively trying to effect someone else. While opting out of being effected by someone else.(Defended against).

It's been pointed out, too many times to mention, that all of those negative effects can be countered, through the BGS. Not only can they be, but through the BGS is the only way.

Each and every player has equal access to all three modes. Your personal choice not to use them is no one's responsibility but your own. Your personal gamer ethics are no more important than anyone else's. Universal access affords perfect fairness.

 

[Dietger]

I've been Teenager of the Year even before the 90s. And experience shows Dog eat Dog PvP just is not everybody's thing, even if you would really really have it otherwise. And the developers are fully aware of that! Believe me!

O7,
[noob]

Is it THAT ugly? In Elite?

I doubt it. The Lawful, we have laws in Elite don't we? They apply, every where.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

It's been pointed out, too many times to mention, that all of those negative effects can be countered, through the BGS. Not only can they be, but through the BGS is the only way.

Each and every player has equal access to all three modes. Your personal choice not to use them is no one's responsibility but your own. Your personal gamer ethics are no more important than anyone else's. Universal access affords perfect fairness.

Mhmm Indeed. But "All modes are equal". You just admitted they arent. So instead, what you are saying is If the teams are even. And we had the same amount of time to play each day. And we stacked the same amount of missions. The only way I could keep up is to go into Solo or Private to min max my ships because thats what someone else does.

Now lets take that engineers exploit, and hell even the money exploit here.

People were and are left behind if they didnt take advantage of them right? There were people, that indeed got their modules wiped. There were indeed missions that got nerfed.

OH Gee Rick, I wonder whats next?

Its not a level playing field when it comes to the BGS. I dont mind the deck being stacked against me. I always come out on top because I am a winner(remember that dont forget it.)

But the other things I am seeing psychology wise and how this community treats each other is out right garbage. Especially over gameplay mechanics specially PVP.

You guys do know you're supposed to be able to attack and defend right? You guys do know 75% of this game is based off player actions and ships are tuned in numbers to balance PVP fights. And you guys do realize solo and private hold advantage here when YOU INTENTIONALLY go against someone else or a group.

Opting out of PVP just to PVP. Is the problem here. Its PVP no matter how you dice it up. This is the only place where Ive seen someone refer to it as Indirect PVP. Thats not gonna fly.

Someone working on their own ship. Cruisin through solo and private with their buddies to farm mats, money or whatever is awesome. Not taking anything away from them.

The things I am talking about are WEEKS worth of grinding to make an impact. Sooner or later fighting over a system you're bound to run into each other. Just like I did when I went into Mobius private group to see them all there. Its not like I cant fight my adversaries. Its not like I cant see them. But the modes take that away.

Thats why we dont have meaningful PVP.

And one of these days. You guys are going to learn you cant escape games. And when that day comes. Ill be there. Mark my words.

There is going to be bear stuffing all over the galaxy.

 

[Jockey79]

....

And one of these days. You guys are going to learn you cant escape games. And when that day comes. Ill be there. Mark my words.

There is going to be bear stuffing all over the galaxy.

And one of these days you'll learn - games are optional.
Trying to force yours on anyone isn't going to work - they just leave to a game Dev that makes games their way not yours.

Like a lot of us did to come to Frontier

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

And one of these days you'll learn - games are optional.
Trying to force yours on anyone isn't going to work - they just leave to a game Dev that makes games their way not yours.

Like a lot of us did to come to Frontier

Hey, history time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall

As time evolves, as nations grow.

Or in this case as the game evolves. And players grow, most of them end up seeing and saying the same thing.

Thats why you see so many people here looking for change. While there is just a handful of ya that stay and try to fight it.

Hows that Berlin Wall doing now? Its in shambles. Hold on to your precious wall.

Cause here I come,

 

[Robert Maynard]

And one of these days you'll learn - games are optional.
Trying to force yours on anyone isn't going to work - they just leave to a game Dev that makes games their way not yours.

Like a lot of us did to come to Frontier

.... and Frontier would seem to have learned from the lesson of Ultima Online (without having to experience the haemorrhaging of PvE inclined players) - they designed the game around a means of permitting players to choose whether to engage in direct PvP - with all players able to both experience and affect the single shared galaxy state.

 

[Mohrgan]

Mhmm Indeed. But "All modes are equal". You just admitted they arent. So instead, what you are saying is If the teams are even. And we had the same amount of time to play each day. And we stacked the same amount of missions. The only way I could keep up is to go into Solo or Private to min max my ships because thats what someone else does.

Now lets take that engineers exploit, and hell even the money exploit here.

People were and are left behind if they didnt take advantage of them right? There were people, that indeed got their modules wiped. There were indeed missions that got nerfed.

OH Gee Rick, I wonder whats next?

Its not a level playing field when it comes to the BGS. I dont mind the deck being stacked against me. I always come out on top because I am a winner(remember that dont forget it.)

But the other things I am seeing psychology wise and how this community treats each other is out right garbage. Especially over gameplay mechanics specially PVP.

You guys do know you're supposed to be able to attack and defend right? You guys do know 75% of this game is based off player actions and ships are tuned in numbers to balance PVP fights. And you guys do realize solo and private hold advantage here when YOU INTENTIONALLY go against someone else or a group.

Opting out of PVP just to PVP. Is the problem here. Its PVP no matter how you dice it up. This is the only place where Ive seen someone refer to it as Indirect PVP. Thats not gonna fly.

Someone working on their own ship. Cruisin through solo and private with their buddies to farm mats, money or whatever is awesome. Not taking anything away from them.

The things I am talking about are WEEKS worth of grinding to make an impact. Sooner or later fighting over a system you're bound to run into each other. Just like I did when I went into Mobius private group to see them all there. Its not like I cant fight my adversaries. Its not like I cant see them. But the modes take that away.

Thats why we dont have meaningful PVP.

And one of these days. You guys are going to learn you cant escape games. And when that day comes. Ill be there. Mark my words.

There is going to be bear stuffing all over the galaxy.

Nope. What I'm saying is you have options. If for some reason you see an imbalance, you can rectify it on your own.

I don;t realize that Solo/PG has an advantage. The BGS is available for all, in any mode. Going against a Faction happens entirely within the BGS. PvP is a sideshow. Something to amuse those that enjoy it.

Your co-opting of the term PvP to encompass any interaction that another player may notice is a justification to support your weak position on these matters. It is exactly indirect PvP by your own words. You can't directly oppose it.

Some games one can't escape PvP, but E|D was built, from the start, to allow me to escape it. Your personal choice to make open and PvP so important is your own invention, and your own problem. Just look at how the game actually functions, PvE Buckets rule everything. I hope FD find a way to make PP-PvP meaningful. Then I can use that to beat your arguments into the ground. And, I can even support FD adding an optional PvP layer to the BGS. It's perfectly fine to reward people for taking on a willing foe. But, to expect them to abandon the core design of the game along the way is pure fantasy.

 

[Mohrgan]

Hey, history time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall

As time evolves, as nations grow.

Or in this case as the game evolves. And players grow, most of them end up seeing and saying the same thing.

Thats why you see so many people here looking for change. While there is just a handful of ya that stay and try to fight it.

Hows that Berlin Wall doing now? Its in shambles. Hold on to your precious wall.

Cause here I come, http://1heurf2kk91pad4b23w0jddl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/kool-aid.jpg

Silly Meme taunts aside. "So many?" I guess in your bubble, everyone agrees with you. In mine, no one does. Where does that leave us? Waiting to see how FD sees the situation. And, it's been shown that they defend the modes every time.

On a side note: Needing a Wiki to explain the Berlin Wall is a perfect shame.

 

[Jockey79]

And players grow, most of them end up seeing and saying the same thing.

Which is, PvP ruins perfectly good games. Which is why it is in decline outside of dedicated PvP arenas, like CQC, LoL, DOTA etc....

Also, the Berlin Wall has nothing to do with this, please don't bring up things unrelated like that.
Apart from real world history not having anything to do with this game, using it in that way is disrespectful to those that suffered because of it.

I'd rather not start putting people on my forum block list.

 

[Haggbad Celine]

Open is available for those that want to have the chance of direct PvP - the other two modes are there for those that don't.

We covered that plenty of times already and several issues when choosing freely which mode to play in
These posts are adressing that the mode system is underdeveloped so it doesn't even enable lots of players to get into that part of the game.

I.e: path of least resistance, avoiding consequences of murder, hidden BGS/PP attacks

Frontier would seem to be well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - in that regard their design shows a level of understanding of the immiscibility of players that like direct PvP and those that don't.

There is plenty of players who would like to.
They are not asking for sheep to get slaughterd, but for an environment that enables meaningful and impactful encounters.

Sandro has already commented on the challenge posed by the modes and certain aspects of direct PvP:

We had that one already, which showcases they are aware of why people come and make suggestions about the mode system.
They simply do not have a solution yet.
Don't tell me there is no issue, when there were posts for the whole time this forum exists, that would be blatantly ignorant.

So productive feedback should be welcome, right?

TBH when talking about psychological and social elements, the current solution is the worst implementation I can imagine.
Destruction in most cases just for the heck of it. That's what I mean when I am saying it's meaningless and unimpactful.
And why it promotes griefing playstyles over any other direct PvP playstyle.

The community is already so traumatized that any PvP player gets labels as a sociopath that doesn't like playing well with others!
That's a statement of how good the current system adresses psychological and social elements as a very delicate matter.

Put yourself into the position of a proactive PvP'ler in this game.
You're looked down on and labeled as a crazy murder hobo who celebrates himself on killing haulage vessels.
To complement that, people asking for more of a fair system that enables proper open play are considered people who are asking for people to gank.
There are plenty of example within this posts alone to showcase that.

Just because there's might be a reason for a player to destroy another player's ship does not mean that the destroyed player is going to find the encounter to be fun.

Given the premise you are still free to choose if you want to engage into direct PvP or not, this becomes rather irrelevant.
Just fighting for a cause creates a totally different mindset.
Getting destroyed while you are defending a system you consider worth fighting for makes getting destroyed way less disturbing than getting ganked for no reason.
This is complemented that winning the fight also feels more of an accomplishment.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We covered that plenty of times already and several issues when choosing freely which mode to play in

Indeed - in a thread where the OP calls for players in Solo and Private Group to have no effect on the BGS, etc., in a game where direct PvP is entirely optional and indirect PvP is not.

These posts are adressing that the mode system is underdeveloped so it doesn't even enable lots of players to get into that part of the game.

I.e: path of least resistance, avoiding consequences of murder, hidden BGS/PP attacks

The mode system itself is perfectly well developed - it achieves the desired effect in that players can choose whether (or not) to play among other players and, if they choose to play among other players, either a select few or everyone in Open.

That there are players discontent that other players cannot be forced to engage them in direct PvP is well understood by Frontier - they've been aware of the discontent for over five years now.

There is plenty of players who would like to.
They are not asking for sheep to get slaughterd, but for an environment that enables meaningful and impactful encounters.

Plenty in relation to what metric?

If the price of meaningful encounters is to disenfranchise those who have no interest in direct PvP (by removing their impact on the game if they choose not to play in Open) then the price is too high, in my opinion - especially as Frontier have acknowledged that they are well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP.

We had that one already, which showcases they are aware of why people come and make suggestions about the mode system.
They simply do not have a solution yet.
Don't tell me there is no issue, when there were posts for the whole time this forum exists, that would be blatantly ignorant.

Indeed - and it is obvious that there is an issue for some but not for others - whether there is a problem to be solved is a matter of opinion, relating to one's position regarding the necessity of direct PvP in this game. Frontier know that they have sold over 3.25M franchise units of a game where direct PvP is optional - we can only speculate how many players would welcome a change to that design choice.

So productive feedback should be welcome, right?

TBH when talking about psychological and social elements, the current solution is the worst implementation I can imagine.
Destruction in most cases just for the heck of it. That's what I mean when I am saying it's meaningless and unimpactful.
And why it promotes griefing playstyles over any other direct PvP playstyle.

The community is already so traumatized that any PvP player gets labels as a sociopath that doesn't like playing well with others!
That's a statement of how good the current system adresses psychological and social elements as a very delicate matter.

Put yourself into the position of a proactive PvP'ler in this game.
You're looked down on and labeled as a crazy murder hobo who celebrates himself on killing haulage vessels.
To complement that, people asking for more of a fair system that enables proper open play are considered people who are asking for people to gank.
There are plenty of example within this posts alone to showcase that.

Feedback, certainly. Demands to unpick one of the fundamental principles upon which the game is based - they've heard that one many times before.

Traumatised? Not so much - bored with the antics of some players - certainly. Hence the move, by some, to Solo and Private Groups.

A pro-active PvP player would probably have joined the PvP hub - where it's pretty much guaranteed that they would find other players interested in direct PvP. Expecting players disinterested in direct PvP to tolerate it in a game played for fun is probably quite an unrealistic expectation.

Given the premise you are still free to choose if you want to engage into direct PvP or not, this becomes rather irrelevant.
Just fighting for a cause creates a totally different mindset.
Getting destroyed while you are defending a system you consider worth fighting for makes getting destroyed way less disturbing than getting ganked for no reason.
This is complemented that winning the fight also feels more of an accomplishment.

That depends on whether the demand remains that players in Solo and Private Groups would not affect the single shared galaxy state, doesn't it....

 

[Haggbad Celine]

Indeed - in a thread where the OP calls for players in Solo and Private Group to have no effect on the BGS, etc., in a game where direct PvP is entirely optional and indirect PvP is not.

As a suggestion, revoked in the later discussion.
I am able to adapt to different standpoints and change my point of view accordingly
You know I consider this a civil discussion about a topic that was already discussed a lot.
It's an exchange of opinions and was posted in the suggestions forums first.
As it's not a demand.

So there is either a productive outcome or just banter.

The mode system itself is perfectly well developed - it achieves the desired effect in that players can choose whether (or not) to play among other players and, if they choose to play among other players, either a select few or everyone in Open.

That there are players discontent that other players cannot be forced to engage them in direct PvP is well understood by Frontier - they've been aware of the discontent for over five years now.

It certainly is not perfect. There is no such thing as perfect systems, everything can be improved.
We do not need to argue any further if you do not agree on that.

Plenty in relation to what metric?

If the price of meaningful encounters is to disenfranchise those who have no interest in direct PvP (by removing their impact on the game if they choose not to play in Open) then the price is too high, in my opinion - especially as Frontier have acknowledged that they are well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP.

Never stated that it's a necessasity to disenfrachise players with a lack of interest in direct PvP.
Splitting the modes certainly looks like the easiest solution, but doesn't serve the premise of a shared galaxy, prime reason I agree on that not being a viable option.

The core interest was to balance the game modes, so that mentioned issues, i.e. path of least resistance, hidden bgs/pp attacks, avoidance of criminal consequences, are not an issue.
That doesn't require throwing anyone with no interest in PvP into a moshpit.

That requires to think about a system that influences anyone, but enables different circumstances and most certainly is not perfect.

Indeed - and it is obvious that there is an issue for some but not for others - whether there is a problem to be solved is a matter of opinion, relating to one's position regarding the necessity of direct PvP in this game. Frontier know that they have sold over 3.25M franchise units of a game where direct PvP is optional - we can only speculate how many players would welcome a change to that design choice.

Again not a necessity, but a hardly underdeveloped part that imho is the primary reason the most prominent example of a PvP'ler is a ganker.
We can speculate! Let's say it's possible to implement a way of having meaningful consensual PvP, FDev is only going to increase their audiance.
I haven't heard any argument stating that such a thing would be impossible, just certain scenarios of how it could be implemented are not viable.

Feedback, certainly. Demands to unpick one of the fundamental principles upon which the game is based - they've heard that one many times before.

Traumatised? Not so much - bored with the antics of some players - certainly. Hence the move, by some, to Solo and Private Groups.

A pro-active PvP player would probably have joined the PvP hub - where it's pretty much guaranteed that they would find other players interested in direct PvP. Expecting players disinterested in direct PvP to tolerate it in a game played for fun is probably quite an unrealistic expectation.

I think I explained the current implementation of how open works quite in detail.
I don't think I need to add anything.

That depends on whether the demand remains that players in Solo and Private Groups would not affect the single shared galaxy state, doesn't it....

How so? A player who doesn't consent to direct PvP obviously wouldn't be able to participate in a direct PvP fight, so I do not get your point.

 

[Jockey79]

As a suggestion, revoked in the later discussion.
I am able to adapt to different standpoints and change my point of view accordingly
You know I consider this a civil discussion about a topic that was already discussed a lot.

You have no idea....

Frontier have been telling people since 2012, they want the mode system, they consider the modes equal and they want everyone in any mode to access the BGS and all other content.

I've been re-posting Frontiers posts for 4 years.

It certainly is not perfect. There is no such thing as perfect systems, everything can be improved.

And everything can be broken if it is tweaked too much.

As mentioned before, Star Wars Galaxies made some big tweaks to their core game - that game is now gone.
Planetside 1 added some new content that didn't really fit with existing content (Core Combat), people lost interest very quickly.

These are lessons to be learned. Mess with the core game and you lose the players - the modes are part of the core game.