Modes These arguments are tedious.

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The toxicity wasn't from the game... you and others brought it here... because you bought a game and it wasn't what you thought it was. And since you continue you still like to try and compare Elite to other games that it isn't comparable to... Would be the same if I bought No Man's Sky and went on their forums demanding they make it so it is a submarine game not a space ship game.

Watch the video mouse.

And watch this one, when youre done with that other one. This one is just as important and goes hand in hand with Risk and Reward.

[video=youtube;EitZRLt2G3w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitZRLt2G3w[/video]

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Watch the video mouse.

And watch this one, when youre done with that other one. This one is just as important and goes hand in hand with Risk and Reward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitZRLt2G3w

The back half of the video also is relatable to the modes and the challenges each mode has to offer when it comes to others.

 

[Mouse]

The back half of the video also is relatable to the modes and the challenges each mode has to offer when it comes to others.

90's 90's 90's.... All those videos prove is one thing... YOU did not understand Elite Dangerous and still don't understand it. But you keep trying to claim it should be a different way based on others games.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

90's 90's 90's.... All those videos prove is one thing... YOU did not understand Elite Dangerous and still don't understand it. But you keep trying to claim it should be a different way based on others games.

I do mouse. I do understand it.

If I didnt I wouldnt be here. I wouldnt care. And I would have walked away by now. Im not everyone else.

There is a chance for this game to grow into something massive.

This game shouldnt be held back, just because of some modest issues people figured out how to fix back in 91.

However, the game evolved. Its a single player game with multiplayer aspects. They are aware of it. Just the same as I am. And where we are now. Wasn't intended.

But something happened. They added the ability to engage one another through group play.

If you watch the videos they go over stuff like this. And changing a set of rules to match the gameplay. Instead of putting another layer over it to solve a problem is only going to a bandaide. Because the problem thats happening here is a major one.

Lots of stuff is going to have to be changed and reworked with this game.

Or, we can add layers. But never completely solving the issue.

In those videos they addressed player weapons, and yes even exploits. What they did in Elite is raise the cap on engineered weapons and balanced them. They added 3 shiney new gems, And made the older content obsolete. And gave us new things to work for.

Will you watch the videos PLEASE. They go into great detail here. They show where this game went wrong if you are involved in it enough to see whats happening.

It doesnt matter what game. The concepts are all the same mouse.

Watch the video for Christs sake. You might learn something.

HERE IS ANOTHER ONE TALKING ABOUT COUNTERPLAY:

[video=youtube;BRBcjsOt0_g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g[/video]

And another one, About Choices and funneling gameplay.

[video=youtube;lg8fVtKyYxY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8fVtKyYxY[/video]

This is a really good one because it talks about choice and META's like ive been harping on the past 6 months. Ship builds and mode usage.

 

[Mouse]

I do mouse. I do understand it.

If I didnt I wouldnt be here. I wouldnt care. And I would have walked away by now. Im not everyone else.

There is a chance for this game to grow into something massive.

This game shouldnt be held back, just because of some modest issues people figured out how to fix back in 91.

However, the game evolved. Its a single player game with multiplayer aspects. They are aware of it. Just the same as I am. And where we are now. Wasn't intended.

But something happened. They added the ability to engage one another through group play.

If you watch the videos they go over stuff like this. And changing a set of rules to match the gameplay. Instead of putting another layer over it to solve a problem is only going to a bandaide. Because the problem thats happening here is a major one.

Lots of stuff is going to have to be changed and reworked with this game.

Or, we can add layers. But never completely solving the issue.

In those videos they addressed player weapons, and yes even exploits. What they did in Elite is raise the cap on engineered weapons and balanced them. They added 3 shiney new gems, And made the older content obsolete. And gave us new things to work for.

Will you watch the videos PLEASE. They go into great detail here. They show where this game went wrong if you are involved in it enough to see whats happening.

It doesnt matter what game. The concepts are all the same mouse.

Watch the video for Christs sake. You might learn something.

HERE IS ANOTHER ONE TALKING ABOUT COUNTERPLAY:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g

And another one, About Choices and funneling gameplay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8fVtKyYxY

This is a really good one because it talks about choice and META's like ive been harping on the past 6 months. Ship builds and mode usage.

You may think I haven't but I have watched the videos. What you continue to fail to understand is the game did not "Go Wrong". The game went as the game was supposed to go, as the designers want it to go. The problem is, it isn't the type of game you prefer...PVP does not mean in ED what it means in other games. Maybe we can fix that, but not how you want to. Is the game perfect, no... sadly no game is. But you keep trying to make the game out to be horrible and in need of drastic changes that litterally would change the fabric of the game...

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You may think I haven't but I have watched the videos. What you continue to fail to understand is the game did not "Go Wrong". The game went as the game was supposed to go, as the designers want it to go. The problem is, it isn't the type of game you prefer...PVP does not mean in ED what it means in other games. Maybe we can fix that, but not how you want to. Is the game perfect, no... sadly no game is. But you keep trying to make the game out to be horrible and in need of drastic changes that litterally would change the fabric of the game...

Okay bud. No worries.

o7o7

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hate you?!? I WANT to fight to provide the gameplay you’re looking for! Without alienating everyone who has bought the game to date. There are threads started by your perceived enemies that want to find a way to give you what you’re asking for without taking from the game we all bought!

I would love to fly with you and raise money/awareness for a number of charities. But not if it means casting aside the vast majority of commanders who love this game too.

See, this guy gets it. Notice how your post is completely dismissed in favour of a copy paste rant heavily dosed with self glorification (count the number of 'I's, always a good indication how full one is of oneself). And what you say is key in this whole debacle. I'm not calling it a discussion, for that to happen your post would at least have to be considered and a response should have addressed this.

It's finding solutions that work for all the players vs alienating a large portion of them by taking away content, a solution that detracts from the game. The defence for clinging to the non-solution is: can't be done any other way. That's it. And I call Shenanigans. Locking BGS or PP in Open only mode will only create more lobsided asymmetric encounters. It will suit the gankers playstyle since they get more traders/couriers in their sights. These are after all the BGS/PP runners that 'need' to be stopped. It creates more issues and solves nothing. Not only can it be done another way, it is bleedingly obvious it needs to be done another way.

The only viable meaningful PvP content needs to pit ships against each other which are on equal footing, which provide a challenge. Combat vs combat. For this a military setting is the most obvious background. Not civilian PP/BGS. Which means military confrontations that provide challenging duels. Which means ..... added content! Wheeee! More is more. Operations like hit and run attacks on mega ships, show of military force to project influence on another system. All out war when the skirmishes escalate. Now that would provide an interesting backdrop. And something for me as a spectator to enjoy. Would make for better stories than: I shot down X traders yesterday, my PF now has Y% more influence. Be still my beating PvP heart. That is turning PvP into grind. No one but the gankers win.

TLDR:
The argument: you guys don't want change, is a strawman. You guys hate PvP content, is a strawman. You guys don't understand gaming, is projection.

And again, I have to give credit to Al. I didn't expect him to deviate from the narrative, but he did without compromising his position. Hatsoff to him.

 

[Mohrgan]

See, this guy gets it. Notice how your post is completely dismissed in favour of a copy paste rant heavily dosed with self glorification (count the number of 'I's, always a good indication how full one is of oneself). And what you say is key in this whole debacle. I'm not calling it a discussion, for that to happen your post would at least have to be considered and a response should have addressed this.

It's finding solutions that work for all the players vs alienating a large portion of them by taking away content, a solution that detracts from the game. The defence for clinging to the non-solution is: can't be done any other way. That's it. And I call Shenanigans. Locking BGS or PP in Open only mode will only create more lobsided asymmetric encounters. It will suit the gankers playstyle since they get more traders/couriers in their sights. These are after all the BGS/PP runners that 'need' to be stopped. It creates more issues and solves nothing. Not only can it be done another way, it is bleedingly obvious it needs to be done another way.

The only viable meaningful PvP content needs to pit ships against each other which are on equal footing, which provide a challenge. Combat vs combat. For this a military setting is the most obvious background. Not civilian PP/BGS. Which means military confrontations that provide challenging duels. Which means ..... added content! Wheeee! More is more. Operations like hit and run attacks on mega ships, show of military force to project influence on another system. All out war when the skirmishes escalate. Now that would provide an interesting backdrop. And something for me as a spectator to enjoy. Would make for better stories than: I shot down X traders yesterday, my PF now has Y% more influence. Be still my beating PvP heart. That is turning PvP into grind. No one but the gankers win.

TLDR:
The argument: you guys don't want change, is a strawman. You guys hate PvP content, is a strawman. You guys don't understand gaming, is projection.

And again, I have to give credit to Al. I didn't expect him to deviate from the narrative, but he did without compromising his position. Hatsoff to him.

It's the same reason CQC/Arena is dismissed. They are unable to overwhelm their opponent with their Meta ship. You can just sense it, the way they harp over 'shieldless traders'. What better prey?

The protests over the BGS/PP are just smoke and mirrors. Played up, in the hopes that FD are gullible enough to fall for their pitiful cries for 'fairness'. Clinging to Sandro's one suggestion of an imbalance, even in the face of his change of heart.

It will be an interesting Q4 around here. I wonder just how successful Squadrons would be if it, however unlikely that may be, did somehow make any current content open-only?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

It's the same reason CQC/Arena is dismissed. They are unable to overwhelm their opponent with their Meta ship. You can just sense it, the way they harp over 'shieldless traders'. What better prey?

The protests over the BGS/PP are just smoke and mirrors. Played up, in the hopes that FD are gullible enough to fall for their pitiful cries for 'fairness'. Clinging to Sandro's one suggestion of an imbalance, even in the face of his change of heart.

It will be an interesting Q4 around here. I wonder just how successful Squadrons would be if it, however unlikely that may be, did somehow make any current content open-only?

We already have the gankfest that you described, pve players get mawed in OPEN like they are npcs. Those suggestions in game content balance is far from "forcing pve players into OPEN". We already have enough players in open.

We dont need SOLO players who chose not to participate in a multiplayer content (because I want muh single player gaime) partially participate in a multiplayer content, thats all there is to it.

 

[ThePunisher]

Point is people dont play in open because of the jack a-s-s gankers and griefers, they come in to play to have fun and enjoy the game with there friends and spend there time having fun not having to worry about oh hey look a player , ok lets gank him, boom he's dead , ok cool. See thats how it works, there is 3 diff modes of play with in elite and we the players can play which ever one we like simple as that. Heck yall want more players in open then how about all you gankers and griefers leave other players alone. If you scan them and they say clean, be a man and not a-hole and let them be, if you scan them and they say wanted then by all means have at it there wanted, gives the right to attack them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

We already have the gankfest that you described, pve players get mawed in OPEN like they are npcs. Those suggestions in game content balance is far from "forcing pve players into OPEN". We already have enough players in open.

We dont need SOLO players who chose not to participate in a multiplayer content (because I want muh single player gaime) partially participate in a multiplayer content, thats all there is to it.

Not your call to make. If Solo/PG players want to participate in influencing the BGS/PP this game caters to them. If you feel that's principally wrong, you're at odds with the developers and the way this game has been designed.

But think about what you're saying. By your own admission, you do only PvP. So you're not taking part in the BGS/PP game. So you are also only partially participating in multiplayer content. Just like 'them'. Why is it ok for you to partially participate, but not for others?

Barring that, you could make the case that you would like to know who is causing the influence changes so you can bring the game to them. Many ways to implement this. One would be a SysNet, which reports the things going on in system, or perhaps paying off an informant.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh yeah, sure. I don't think any of us can design a proper feature in-depth since we don't know what's under the bonnet, or what future plans FDev has.

We can only give a sense of the type of mechanic we'd like to see at best

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Not your call to make. If Solo/PG players want to participate in influencing the BGS/PP this game caters to them. If you feel that's principally wrong, you're at odds with the developers and the way this game has been designed.

But think about what you're saying. By your own admission, you do only PvP. So you're not taking part in the BGS/PP game. So you are also only partially participating in multiplayer content. Just like 'them'. Why is it ok for you to partially participate, but not for others?

Barring that, you could make the case that you would like to know who is causing the influence changes so you can bring the game to them. Many ways to implement this. One would be a SysNet, which reports the things going on in system, or perhaps paying off an informant.

I am not playing the BGS atm because I dont agree with the design of the game where each mode has the same influence.

As for SysNet (I assume you mean GalNet), by all means we need a proper report of at least all players that visited the system in the past 24hrs. We only have the top 5 criminals atm.
But again, even if we had this information, those players can go to SOLO and we will never meet, and if they are not assosiated with any PF (just random trolling) there is not much you can do to them if they are in SOLO.

 

[Stigbob]

I am not playing the BGS atm because I dont agree with the design of the game where each mode has the same influence.

As for SysNet (I assume you mean GalNet), by all means we need a proper report of at least all players that visited the system in the past 24hrs. We only have the top 5 criminals atm.
But again, even if we had this information, those players can go to SOLO and we will never meet, and if they are not assosiated with any PF (just random trolling) there is not much you can do to them if they are in SOLO.

The games been out for four years now, expecting any sort of drastic change at this late stage is totally unrealistic. It simply isn't going to happen ED is what it is.

There will probably be more DLC/expansions but there will be no massive rewrite.

 

[Sylveria]

The games been out for four years now, expecting any sort of drastic change at this late stage is totally unrealistic. It simply isn't going to happen ED is what it is.

There will probably be more DLC/expansions but there will be no massive rewrite.

Doesn't stop some people from propagandising such expectations as some sort of "foregone conclusion", though.

(Hence the continued existence of such posts where people posit theories that FD is "changing everything up", yada yada)

Much like heresay, one does not require "proof" to weave a web of lies... and it's still damaging to one's reputation regardless if it's false.

Some prefer to play the Forum PvP game just to see how far they'll get regardless of the reality of the situation. To them, the game "sucks" already so they'd rather keep spending their time chiseling away at stone on a mountain in hopes it's eventually going to fall down.

Except what they don't realize is they're using a nail file against something the likes of Everest.

 

[Curvemn17]

The never-ending nature of the argument is based on some simple choices that Frontier have made:

1) from the very beginning the intended game experience for every player, regardless of game mode, involves both experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy state (now usually referred to as the BGS).
2) rather than a one-time choice as to which of the three game modes to play in, Frontier chose to leave that decision to every player, every time they launch the game.
3) when Community Goals were introduced their implementation in all three game modes followed the player freedom philosophy from 1) and 2).
4) when PowerPlay was introduced its implementation in all three game modes followed the player freedom philosophy from 1) and 2).
5) a pure PvP arena mode was offered for sale (free to those who own the main game) but proved to be unpopular.
6) when player groups were permitted to submit requests for the introduction of a player supported Faction in-game, there was no change to the way that Factions are affected, i.e. players in all game modes continue to affect the BGS in the same way with no distinction between player and NPC factions.

All of this relates to the base game, i.e. happened within the first year of release.

7) when each console version has been released, players on each new platform simply increase the number who affect the BGS.
8) console players without premium platform access can only play in Solo and there is no requirement for those players to have premium platform access.

Summarising, every player has bought access to the BGS, CGs, PowerPlay & Player Factions as part of their purchase of the base game, regardless of which game mode they play in.

That there are players who do not accept this is obvious - however Frontier are on record as stating (on more than one occasion) that they consider all game modes to be equal and valid game choices - and that they acknowledge that not all players will agree with their stance.

With no movement from Frontier regarding what is, by some, perceived to be a problem, the argument goes on.

I just want to point out how you and others seem to hang on number 8 in regards to consoles which gives the appearance you haven’t played on consoles or been on a console very long. The need to pay for online services is nothing new to us. Console games have had features locked away from us if we don’t have that service really since the Xbox. At this point, 3 gens later and PlayStation even making you pay a subscription for the service means that any game that has online material will be walled off without the subscription.

So to hang a hat on the idea that well FDev can’t change the game now because of console players is a very unstable hook to begin with. This is nothing new to console players and something they have dealt with as I previously said for sometime. So let’s maybe change this argument from there is no requirement to have this access so they shouldn’t have content walled off to if they don’t have this service content is walled off.

Also, because it’s inevitable someone will suggest well this game never walls off content. It in fact does already walk off content to console players. If I do not have the subscription then I don’t have access to multicrew or wings or open or even these previous private groups.

Now that his crutch has been cast aside let’s move on from it. We peasants are not going to be this anchor you tie your arguments to.

 

[withnail]

What I don't understand is why there is no questioning or interrogation of whether the decisions about solo/Pg were good ones.

Just "this was always the way" and "so and so said this". Like the doom monger from Up Pompeii.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am not playing the BGS atm because I dont agree with the design of the game where each mode has the same influence.

No. You told us why you don't do 'indirect PvP. You think it's boring filling PvE buckets. And I don't blame you.

Just realise you also play one aspect of PvP as you call it. You criticize your own actions as well. Besides all that, how are you going to enforce all PvPers to play the BGS/PP when they don't want that?

As for SysNet (I assume you mean GalNet), by all means we need a proper report of at least all players that visited the system in the past 24hrs. We only have the top 5 criminals atm.
But again, even if we had this information, those players can go to SOLO and we will never meet, and if they are not assosiated with any PF (just random trolling) there is not much you can do to them if they are in SOLO.

I made SysNet up. It could be an addition to galnet focussed on the system.

And yeah, just like some random CMDR can PvP troll you, CMDRs can also PvE troll you. Slings and arrows of multiplayer games.

I am not playing the BGS atm because I dont agree with the design of the game where each mode has the same influence.

No. You told us why you don't do 'indirect PvP. You think it's boring filling PvE buckets. And I don't blame you.

Just realise you also play one aspect of PvP as you call it. You criticize your own actions as well. Besides all that, how are you going to enforce all PvPers to play the BGS/PP when they don't want that?

As for SysNet (I assume you mean GalNet), by all means we need a proper report of at least all players that visited the system in the past 24hrs. We only have the top 5 criminals atm.
But again, even if we had this information, those players can go to SOLO and we will never meet, and if they are not assosiated with any PF (just random trolling) there is not much you can do to them if they are in SOLO.

I made SysNet up. It could be an addition to galnet focussed on the system.

And yeah, just like some random CMDR can PvP troll you, CMDRs can also PvE troll you. Slings and arrows of multiplayer games.

 

[Urazz]

If they had a flag system for PVP then I don't see any reason to have solo or private.

 

[Sylveria]

If they had a flag system for PVP then I don't see any reason to have solo or private.

Indeed, I would agree- except that Solo also provides a way for people that have no choice in connecting with substandard internet connections to still play the game. Not everyone has fiber optic or decent broadband, after all. If they paid for the game, they've a right to play just as much as anyone else- and it's not their fault FD made it online-connected for DRM purposes (or BGS, or whatever).

Personally I'd see them having only Open with optional PvP flagging to be the most logical choice, but that has about as much chance as FD removing the modes and throwing everyone into Open forced non-consensual PvP. (like trying to blot out the Sun by throwing a snowball)