Modes Why no mode exclusive content?

[StiTch]

*Dons metal helmet*

So, today's nuclear bomb of a question: what exactly is the problem with mode-specific content?

Content always has to be developed for specific roles or playstyles. I don't expect to get mined ore when I trade, and I don't expect to get tins of imperial slaves for scanning stars during exploration.

So what is the fundamental objection to Open having content for Open play, for PG to get specific content, and for Solo getting its own content?

It doesn't have to make either "exclusive" or "better". The content for either can have equal effort put into it. For a very basic example, Open-only CZs, or trade missions, that drive a particular objective or growth, and PG also has dedicated missions that cannot be completed in Open.

Technical matter aside the above has always been shut down "because all game modes are valid", but if the content is effectively equal on either side, it's not stating that either is more valid - simply acknowledging that different players have different needs.

In a nutshell it caters more to everyone, so unless I am missing something, the only objection would be founded on...well, not wanting other people to have fun. Now there's a turn up for the books

Go.

 

[Jockey79]

*Dons metal helmet*

So, today's nuclear bomb of a question: what exactly is the problem with mode-specific content?

Content always has to be developed for specific roles or playstyles. I don't expect to get mined ore when I trade, and I don't expect to get tins of imperial slaves for scanning stars during exploration.

So what is the fundamental objection to Open having content for Open play, for PG to get specific content, and for Solo getting its own content?

It doesn't have to make either "exclusive" or "better". The content for either can have equal effort put into it. For a very basic example, Open-only CZs, or trade missions, that drive a particular objective or growth, and PG also has dedicated missions that cannot be completed in Open.

Technical matter aside the above has always been shut down "because all game modes are valid", but if the content is effectively equal on either side, it's not stating that either is more valid - simply acknowledging that different players have different needs.

In a nutshell it caters more to everyone, so unless I am missing something, the only objection would be founded on...well, not wanting other people to have fun. Now there's a turn up for the books

Go.

You know there has been 4 Open Only events right?
Open has already had more content than PGs and Solo.

Solo has had less, as Solo cannot use Wings or Multi-crew.
Solo also has to put up with Wing Missions cluttering up their mission boards.

So how about some fairness here and Solo get's some Solo only events, NPC crew/wing members and when are PGs getting hardware give away events and stories?

 

[StiTch]

You know there has been 4 Open Only events right?
Open has already had more content than PGs and Solo.

Solo has had less, as Solo cannot use Wings or Multi-crew.
Solo also has to put up with Wing Missions cluttering up their mission boards.

Now that there's a fallacy - with all content being capable of being manipulated from solo pretty much all content is focused on solo/PG. Playing in Open for anything other than mindless pew-pew is kinda pointless.

So how about some fairness here and Solo get's some Solo only events, NPC crew/wing members and when are PGs getting hardware give away events and stories?

Ignoring the deliberate attempt at sarcasm, why not? That's exactly what I am advocating.

Why are we all pretending that one shoe has to fit every foot? There's nothing wrong with Open only events and solo only events. There's nothing wrong with content, or some form of effect on the galaxy, that is Open only, as long as there's some form of rough equivalent for PG/Solo.

As above, this isn't about "give Open something", or "give solo something". I am asking why players fundamentally object to Open or solo having something. All too often I hear "this shouldn't happen because I wouldn't have access to it from PG" but why care? As long as you have dedicated content, or ability to change the galaxy, yourself, the only reason you are objecting is that someone else gets to have some enjoyment. That's pretty weak.

 

[Theodrid]

It's not a terrible suggestion Stitch, to be honest I think the biggest deciding factor is the extra work Frontier would have to put in. They would, essentially, be doubling or possibly tripling their workload in relation to said 'events'. I really think a red barrier goes up for Frontier when this sort of thing is suggested, diverging story lines, different outcomes and maintaining those things would be a headache for them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

*Dons metal helmet*

So, today's nuclear bomb of a question: what exactly is the problem with mode-specific content?

Content always has to be developed for specific roles or playstyles. I don't expect to get mined ore when I trade, and I don't expect to get tins of imperial slaves for scanning stars during exploration.

Modes are different from roles. You can't compare playing as a trader with playing in Open.

So what is the fundamental objection to Open having content for Open play, for PG to get specific content, and for Solo getting its own content?

For me, persistence. Switching modes should bring me back to the same universe. Since that universe doesn't know the concept of players/NPCs, that is the only difference allowed.

edit: By the way, this doesn't exclude PvP/PwP only content, for the same reason.

In a nutshell it caters more to everyone, so unless I am missing something, the only objection would be founded on...well, not wanting other people to have fun. Now there's a turn up for the books

You are missing something

 

[Jockey79]

Now that there's a fallacy - with all content being capable of being manipulated from solo pretty much all content is focused on solo/PG. Playing in Open for anything other than mindless pew-pew is kinda pointless.

Please show me your video of flying in a Wing while in Solo mode.
What about a Multi-Crew session on Solo?

Not all content is usable in Solo. And there we 4 events that were open only.

So no fallacy here.

Ignoring the deliberate attempt at sarcasm, why not? That's exactly what I am advocating.

Why are we all pretending that one shoe has to fit every foot? There's nothing wrong with Open only events and solo only events. There's nothing wrong with content, or some form of effect on the galaxy, that is Open only, as long as there's some form of rough equivalent for PG/Solo.

As above, this isn't about "give Open something", or "give solo something". I am asking why players fundamentally object to Open or solo having something. All too often I hear "this shouldn't happen because I wouldn't have access to it from PG" but why care? As long as you have dedicated content, or ability to change the galaxy, yourself, the only reason you are objecting is that someone else gets to have some enjoyment. That's pretty weak.

Because this has nothing to with giving content and is just a back door attempt at shoving content to open, to force people in to open.
(it could force them out of open as well, to play PG content or Solo content - so even less folks in open)

All content for all modes allows for the shoe to be on the foot is wants to be on.
It is also less for the Devs to worry about.

Look at how slow this pathetic drip fed story is so far, 3 years that would have been more fun and exciting if done in 3 weeks.
And you want to dilute the current plan down even more to content per mode? I know you're not that stupid.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Please show me your video of flying in a Wing while in Solo mode.
What about a Multi-Crew session on Solo?

Not all content is usable in Solo. And there we 4 events that were open only.

So no fallacy here.



Because this has nothing to with giving content and is just a back door attempt at shoving content to open, to force people in to open.
(it could force them out of open as well, to play PG content or Solo content - so even less folks in open)

All content for all modes allows for the shoe to be on the foot is wants to be on.
It is also less for the Devs to worry about.

Look at how slow this pathetic drip fed story is so far, 3 years that would have been more fun and exciting if done in 3 weeks.
And you want to dilute the current plan down even more to content per mode? I know you're not that stupid.

You can have all the aliens and the story in SOLO and PG, please for the love of god take them. Noone cares about reskined god modded npcs. Just give us in OPEN proper multiplayer war with direct opposition without the poison if SOLO/PGs ruining it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I did make a proposal, in another thread, for a portion of the galaxy (a different area per platform) to be permit locked and only able to be accessed in Open:

In the spirit of the rules of engagement for the thread, how about the following:

The New Bubble

That Frontier make use of the vast scale of the galaxy to institute a new bubble - with several thousand systems in it - for the use of players who prefer PvP.

The new bubble [TNB] would be permit locked to players in Open play - and players could neither enter nor leave TNB in any mode other than Open, could not start the game at all (when their CMDR is in TNB) in any mode other than Open, nor enter TNB even when in Open with any missions, exploration data, combat bonds, cargo, refined commodities, bounty vouchers, etc. that had been gained either outside TNB or in any other game mode.

There could be new Powers (three or four?) placed in TNB (and only in TNB) for those that enjoy PowerPlay.

Further options could include TNB being an optional starter location for new players.

The Galaxy is BIG - there could be a TNB, in a different location, for each platform - with players on other platforms being entirely unable to enter the permit locked zone associated with a TNB other than their current platform.

This would neatly avoid any need to split the BGS, in my opinion.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You can have all the aliens and the story in SOLO and PG, please for the love of god take them. Noone cares about reskined god modded npcs. Just give us in OPEN proper multiplayer war with direct opposition without the poison if SOLO/PGs ruining it.

Maybe we should make PP and BGS Solo/PG content and remove them from Open. They are PvE driven after all.

If anything it will stop the endless moaning from Open players who feel they are special snowflakes and only them deserve that content.

 

[Jockey79]

Maybe we should make PP and BGS Solo/PG content and remove them from Open. They are PvE driven after all.

If anything it will stop the endless moaning from Open players who feel they are special snowflakes and only them deserve that content.

Great idea. +1000 rep.

Take all PvE content out of Open, then Open can be what CQC should have been.

 

[StiTch]

It's not a terrible suggestion Stitch, to be honest I think the biggest deciding factor is the extra work Frontier would have to put in. They would, essentially, be doubling or possibly tripling their workload in relation to said 'events'. I really think a red barrier goes up for Frontier when this sort of thing is suggested, diverging story lines, different outcomes and maintaining those things would be a headache for them.

Cheers. And I agree this would probably be the main factor for FD themselves not wanting to jump in on it, but I think too much attention has been brought to the word "events" - ideally IMO this could cover a PP style piece of content for Open, which can be developed and then effectively left to it, while offering the same or at least similar for PG/Solo.

Please show me your video of flying in a Wing while in Solo mode.

A wing is just a marker that shows you that you're with other players. It doesn't add any content.

You're literally complaining that in solo there are no other players.

In any case, for the tidbits of mutliplayer content available (there isn't much), the galaxy is meanwhile pretty much run by PG/Solo. PowerPlay? Big PG grind fest. Same applies to anything that the BGS can influence from the background, which is...everything.

Because this has nothing to with giving content and is just a back door attempt at shoving content to open, to force people in to open.

Get over yourself mate

This argument was old hat months and months ago. I don't care who is dragged to Open and who decides to leave. Could not care less. Contrary to this popular belief, SDC actually claims starting from the realisation there are too many casual CMDRs around.

I am asking for something fun to do while I play in Open with the people that are there. Something that makes playing in Open meaningful, while offering PG players something in return.

I am not being unreasonable. I would have no objections to PG only events taking place alongside the Open only ones.

Maybe we should make PP and BGS Solo/PG content and remove them from Open. They are PvE driven after all.

If anything it will stop the endless moaning from Open players who feel they are special snowflakes and only them deserve that content.

Try again dude. I don't think you'll find any mention of special snowflakism here. I'm very adamantly stating there would need to be equivalent content for PG/Solo.

This is no endless moan - after all this time of the forum finding no common ground "because you can't have content I can't access", I want to know why that's an actual obstacle to people.

For me, persistence.

...for which this would be a valid objection.

In my eyes it's no less "persistence breaking" than changing modes refreshing your mission board though, or respawning ground assets-both accepted by FD.

Great idea. +1000 rep.

Take all PvE content out of Open, then Open can be what CQC should have been.

Much better suggestion - ban PvE entirely. Arguments solved

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...e-PvE-from-the-game-making-Open-a-nicer-place

 

[Jockey79]

This argument was old hat months and months ago.

So is trying to dictate whom can play where and why - yet people are still doing it.

The game design, from the very start, is that all players have access to all content in all modes.
That way the player can choose every time they play, to play alone, with friends or with the wider public.

Trying to lock content to a single mode (regardless of which one) is the argument of the ganker looking for targets and has nothing to do with improving the game.
In fact it is in direct conflict with what Frontier have advertised, sold and defended from the very start.

Not only that, but Frontier want to concentrate on 1 BGS with 1 story line for us all to be involved with.
Hence why they want PC&Mac, XB1 and PS4 all in the same BGS etc...
They just don't want the extra work for a game you pay once to play.

 

[Para Handy]

...
So, today's nuclear bomb of a question: what exactly is the problem with mode-specific content?
...............

...............
What I don't understand is - if there are all these multitudes of people that think PvP is the bees' knees why don't they just create a private group where they can be sure that all the real-commanders that they come across are consenting to PvP? Is that too hard? Mobius is so popular for PvE that it had to split into several groups - can't PvP muster even the 40,000 to top-out one PG?

Maybe there actually isn't such a huge demand for consensual PvP (e.g. the virtual space tumbleweed blowing across the CQC arenas) or maybe such a group would not include any easy-meat?

 

[StiTch]

So is trying to dictate whom can play where and why - yet people are still doing it.

The game design, from the very start, is that all players have access to all content in all modes.

The game design also specified offline solo and meaningful piracy

I will not let this descend into a dung flinging match. I have no interest in dictating who plays where or making Open "more important"; I understand that the sentiment is that all players have access to all content in any game mode, and I am asking why players have that sentiment.

As you have expressed, there's no multiplayer content in Solo. Ultimately this should make ya realise that content shouldn't be universal. I am not talking about redesigning ED to have three different games, but I'd like to know why players feel the need to prevent other player bases having content relevant to them.

............... this is just another a thinly-disguised means of enticing players into open.

And I'll repeat what I put above in this very thread: I don't care who is in open. In fact if you are gonna come to Open and whine about horrible things happening, I'd rather you never came.

So unless you have anything of use to add, thankyou for your time

 

[Jockey79]

....Just give us in OPEN proper multiplayer war with direct opposition without the poison if SOLO/PGs ruining it.

*cough* instancing *cough*

Hate to burst your bubble..... I take that back, I'm rather enjoying it
But the type of war you want has never been possible in Elite: Dangerous.
And unless they move to a real server with a real client, never will.

Say you get 2 or 3 wings to defend a station, that's 8 - 12 players from all over the place.
I'd need a great ping to all of you for the match maker to place me in your instance on my own, which on my budget broadband with wife and 3 kids online - aint ever going to happen.
If I'm in a wing with friends, that will eat away at the chances of ever seeing your crew in the war even more.

My wing could sail past you over and over adn there is nothing you could do about it - unless you want to buy me better internet.

Thanks Sky Broadband cheapest package, for giving me an advantage over other players

 

[Para Handy]

.....
And I'll repeat what I put above in this very thread: I don't care who is in open. In fact if you are gonna come to Open and whine about horrible things happening, I'd rather you never came.

So unless you have anything of use to add, thankyou for your time

If you don't care then why ......... ?

 

[StiTch]

Thanks Sky Broadband cheapest package, for giving me an advantage over other players

Tbf, +1 for this comment alone.

If it's any help it would be nothing new to ED. Destiny had a furore among players because it turns out the networking means if two players melee each other at roughly the same time, the guy with the slower connection always wins. People were literally winning because they had crap internet.

If you don't care then why continually put forward arguments that are so obviously just yet another ploy to bring in more people to be "content".

If you read OP without any predisposition then you would realise there is zero ploying here. I made it utterly, utterly clear it would be about giving PG/Solo relevant content too.

I am asking why game modes should not have dedicated content, not why Open shouldn't - i.e. advocating improvements that would make all game modes more attractive.

If the best you can do in response is complain that I am trying to dump on PG/Solo or improve Open only and consequently try drag the thread under, then I don't see why you expect civility.

...

 

[Brrokk]

It's been said that making mission boards identical in all modes would fix a lot of the board-flipping mission-stacking things. I'm in favour of that, but unfortunately it's incompatible with the OP idea for mode-specific content.

 

[Jockey79]

Tbf, +1 for this comment alone.

If it's any help it would be nothing new to ED. Destiny had a furore among players because it turns out the networking means if two players melee each other at roughly the same time, the guy with the slower connection always wins. People were literally winning because they had crap internet.

This is one of the things I've mentioned the most in regards the mode system / PvP in Elite.
It just isn't made for real PvP games.

Peer to Peer is great, for file sharing, Face time, and some games. But for this, it was an awful choice.
Even in CQC, I thought I was really good at CQC - turned out, my internet sucks.

And I know I'm not the only person on the planet with bad internet (and I'm near Coventry City.... the place where the Virgin Media customer services, cannot get Virgin Media internet as it's on the wrong side of the road).

But hey, Comcast is trying to buy Sky, so perhaps it will get better.....

...oh

 

[StiTch]

This is one of the things I've mentioned the most in regards the mode system / PvP in Elite.
It just isn't made for real PvP games.

Peer to Peer is great, for file sharing, Face time, and some games. But for this, it was an awful choice.
Even in CQC, I thought I was really good at CQC - turned out, my internet sucks.

And I know I'm not the only person on the planet with bad internet (and I'm near Coventry City.... the place where the Virgin Media customer services, cannot get Virgin Media internet as it's on the wrong side of the road).

But hey, Comcast is trying to buy Sky, so perhaps it will get better.....

...oh

Lol.

No, the networking isn't perfect. Yeah, it'd be better served for open using a central server. But it doesn't mean that solutions can't happen and it doesn't mean PvP has to be meaningless: ultimately if FD put an objective on Open and said "so here's this Open only PP CZ, whichever side wins gets all its members a free cobra skin with phallic designs), one would still expect to drop into the CZ and see some folks there fighting.

To anyone that knew 17 draconis and other great CZ systems, which for a short while become "the unofficial PvP place", I would almost always drop in and see either player opposition, players on my team, or both already fighting.

That was cool.

But hey, as I said - nothing to say this can't contribute to solo as well. My only salt would be that people think multicrew is a piece of content solo players are actually missing out on. Like, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week :')