Modes These arguments are tedious.

[Sylveria]

It’s actually not a different ball of wax and shoes either you don’t Pp or your lack of understanding. PP is more heavily involved in BGS work than I’d say actual PP moves these days like UM. BGS directly impacts everyone. Hence, the you play your way let me do my thing is a crutch you lean on because you have nothing to substantiate your argument. PvP people could say well my way to play the game is to kill anything that moves. Are you suggesting they can’t play their way? It’s a circular argument, one which is not really the entire discussion.

The discussion is you can do your thing, but this shouldn’t impact EVERYONE unless we can have a direct way to counter you. You cannot directly counter someone unless they are in open.

As for citation, the number of pending PMF submissions currently coupled with those in game and the number of people that support those is all I need as citation. Case in point the large size of the group Davinci, do I need any more citation that that? How about the federal democratic command? They have issues with their PMF and it may force almost 200 some cmdrs out of the game.

Please let’s use cognitive reasoning

Aaaaaaand if they "leave" the game, what exactly does this affect? I mean, other than freeing up resources for FD to provide more services to others who don't engage in direct PvP?

It's pretty apparent that businesses simply don't care when it comes to "word of mouth" opinion threats and all that. If you've bought the game already and choose not to play it, it simply doesn't harm FD in the slightest... no subscription fees involved here.

If we want to do the "inauguration crowd size" comparison again- we could compare Mobius PvE's numbers (which isn't the only PvE group, just the most well known) which I can guarantee number MUCH more than 200. How's that for "cognitive reasoning"?

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

It's not actually a matter of what is common practice in consoles - it's more that Frontier chose to remain consistent with their philosophy regarding all players both experiencing and affecting the BGS.

They sold the game with that feature - to all console players, regardless of whether they have premium platform access or not.

I've owned consoles (as well as PCs) for many years now - and am well aware of how the owners of the platform like to monetise conventional multi-player.

Plus the fact that it's not up to any single console player to "give away" features that everyone bought.

So, not cast aside, no.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

Whether the decisions were "bad" or "inspired" rather depends on one's opinion - and opinions vary. The decisions in question would seem to have been made before the game was even Kickstarted, i.e. heading for six years ago.

 

[Curvemn17]

Well gee if thats what you want to do, go for it, as long as nobody else if forced to.

As far as the bots, well thats cheating and I think they can get in trouble, did you file a ticket with the developers?

Do you really think everyone that is in solo or PG is purposely attacking your Player Named Faction? Really? Wow.

How about there be a PvP mechanic added instead??

Hey why not make a PNF just PFs no npcs to be shot (or shoot) only players. Things would only happen when you had players online woriking the system. It would make instances smaller and nobody could 'farm' NPCs and if you wanted to stock your star ports you would need to get the stuff yourself. That makes just as much sense as what you are suggesting.

I swear the cognitive reasoning in this forum without the need to paint an exact picture for people is unbelievable.

At no point did I suggest my group was under attack or that everyone in solo/pg is attacking the BGS. I’m sorry your inability to understand how these actions against a groups s the inability to actively fight against that except for just moving numbers around impacts groups can be negative. That doesn’t mean it’s happening all the time. It also doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

What’s funny is I’m sure that was your attempt at sarcasm about PFs but I would much prefer that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You really need to stop making this argument. Frontier has "consciously implemented" a lot of things one way, and has since recognized them as mistakes, and changed them. Just the history of Powerplay from 1.3 to 3.0 has had the following changes/discoveries:

• Consolidation was added as a mechanic to counteract people deliberately Preparing terrible loss-making systems. This behavior was unforseen at 1.3 and has since been (partially) addressed.
• The practice of placing Expansions into enemy space to deliberately contest CC was unforeseen.
• The practice of only redeeming Undermining vouchers (known as sniping) was unforeseen.

Your argument assumes that Frontier is infallible and never makes mistakes in game design. As a long, long list of patch notes could attest, this is definitely not the case. Either come up with some justification to keep Solo/Private Powerplay that isn't "it was deliberately done that way in 1.3".

Some things change, others remain the same. While some changes have indeed been made, PowerPlay is still available in all three game modes - as it has been since it was added tio the game.

As an example, Offline mode (added to the Kickstarter pitch about halfway through and sadly cancelled before launch) caused Frontier some rather bad publicity when there were backers threatening legal action due to the removal of the feature - notably, the existence of online Solo (which has been in the published design for as long as Open and Private Groups have) was mentioned, at that time, by Frontier as a second choice for players who wanted Offline mode.

Whether Frontier's approach to the three game modes and pan-modal content is a mistake, or not, rather depends on one's opinion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Easier to simply remove the ability to shoot, ram, or otherwise damage another player. Since all the complaints seem to come from peeveepeers...

The existence of experimental effects that nullify damage to non-targeted ships suggests that Frontier have the means to nullify player / player damage - if they chose to....

 

[Robert Maynard]

Without the BGS and the large groups that play this you would have a massive drop out rate from this game.

What proportion of players engaged in the BGS also want it to be limited to Open?

 

[Curvemn17]

It's not actually a matter of what is common practice in consoles - it's more that Frontier chose to remain consistent with their philosophy regarding all players both experiencing and affecting the BGS.

They sold the game with that feature - to all console players, regardless of whether they have premium platform access or not.

I've owned consoles (as well as PCs) for many years now - and am well aware of how the owners of the platform like to monetise conventional multi-player.

Plus the fact that it's not up to any single console player to "give away" features that everyone bought.

So, not cast aside, no.

So because it’s always been that way means we shouldn’t correct it now?

People on the FDev raft:
Uh Mr. Guide sir, Mr. Maynard, that’s a cliff ahead, shouldn’t we change course and not go over the waterfall?
Mr Maynard: No, we will stay the course because this is the way it has been andalways will be. We will not change course.
Console player: Uh but I already only have half a paddle.
Mr. Maynard: But that paddle can still be stuck in the stream to help us steer.
Can we then steer a different direction?
Mr. Maynard: I’m sorry we cannot, this is the way it has always been. Straight ahead!

 

[Robert Maynard]

So because it’s always been that way means we shouldn’t correct it now?

People on the FDev raft:
Uh Mr. Guide sir, Mr. Maynard, that’s a cliff ahead, shouldn’t we change course and not go over the waterfall?
Mr Maynard: No, we will stay the course because this is the way it has been andalways will be. We will not change course.
Console player: Uh but I already only have half a paddle.
Mr. Maynard: But that paddle can still be stuck in the stream to help us steer.
Can we then steer a different direction?
Mr. Maynard: I’m sorry we cannot, this is the way it has always been. Straight ahead!

That presupposes that Frontier's approach to multi-player in their game is a mistake that requires to be corrected - opinions, rather obviously, vary on that topic.

 

[Jockey79]

So because it’s always been that way means we shouldn’t correct it now?

Go ask SOE how their massive change to a core game concept went, I'll wait.

 

[Curvemn17]

Go ask SOE how their massive change to a core game concept went, I'll wait.

So how is that any different than the suggestions about removing the BGS or flag systems etc etc etc. Is this because I called out your role model that you chose to cherry pick my comment?

 

[withnail]

Whether the decisions were "bad" or "inspired" rather depends on one's opinion - and opinions vary. The decisions in question would seem to have been made before the game was even Kickstarted, i.e. heading for six years ago.

So you agree they're bad decisions. All the gameplay changes in subsequent patches were for no reason?

Were engineers in the Kickstarter? Powerplay? CQC?

What about passenger missions? Squad ships? Community Goals? The guardian stuff? Wing missions? Interstellar factors? Brokers? Planetary landings? SRV's?

Seems like things can be changed after all.

 

[Sylveria]

Yep, I think Mobius is at 3 PGs now since the max is 20,000 players in a PG. Not sure if that is accurate anymore.

As far as people leaving, well people leave when they no longer enjoy the game (regardless of what game we want to talk about) which is exactly as it should be.

Any change in a game is likely to cause players to leave and any change in core principals of a game are likely to cause that number to be larger than the normal exodus over time.

From a developers stand point (i am guessing at this) you make a game the way you want, it has success, a portion of the players start to demand you change the game from what you wanted it to be, but you have players who love your game, as a developer would you change your game to something you didnt want for the players who dont like your game anyway?

What if there was some way to add something to the game that would not overly upset your fans and would give the unhappy ones something to sink their teeth into, that would probably be the way to go if you were going to make a change that is.

Attrition occurs in the gaming industry for many, many reasons. People leave for an equivalent amount, if not more. Businesses can't project future earnings based on speculation- they base them on cold hard facts, like the balance sheet and general ledger. Money incoming? Good, let's keep doing things that keep it coming in. Money not coming in? OK, let's change it up a bit.

People threatening to leave ED is like "Temper Tantrums for Dummies" or something... "I'm taking my toys and going home!" Ok, great! What did that just accomplish again? Oh yes, less resistance- GOOD. "Can I haz your stuffs?"

Totally agreed with your speculation as to the developer's standpoint.

A game should stand on it's own merits... if they make it attractive, people will buy it. The difference is key in establishing subscription-based versus non-subscription in that once someone has purchased the game, they may or may not choose to continue to play which affects residual earnings (subscription based) but with ED it doesn't matter in the slightest. If people choose not to buy it because it doesn't offer "X" feature, they wouldn't buy it anymore than they would any other product.

The core game I bought 3+ years ago is still the same core game years later. For me to absolutely demand they change the core game years later is Beyond ridiculous. (pun intended)

If I didn't research it enough to know what it is or isn't that's not on the company- that's on me as a customer.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you agree they're bad decisions. All the gameplay changes in subsequent patches were for no reason?

Were engineers in the Kickstarter? Powerplay? CQC?

What about passenger missions? Squad ships? Community Goals? The guardian stuff? Wing missions? Interstellar factors? Brokers? Planetary landings? SRV's?

Seems like things can be changed after all.

Whatever gave you that impression?

Given the release of CGs shortly after the main game, that strongly suggests (to me at least) that they were in Frontier's plans for the game. We don't know what *is* in Frontier's plan - as they are reluctant to share (other than what's coming in the next season).

While many of these gameplay elements were obviously not in the Kickstarter pitch that does not mean that Frontier weren't planning to add features.

 

[Curvemn17]

Whatever gave you that impression?

Given the release of CGs shortly after the main game, that strongly suggests (to me at least) that they were in Frontier's plans for the game. We don't know what *is* in Frontier's plan - as they are reluctant to share (other than what's coming in the next season).

While many of these gameplay elements were obviously not in the Kickstarter pitch that does not mean that Frontier weren't planning to add features.

I’m sorry we have already established here that cognititive reasoning will not work. I’m going to need you to show me actual plans that state CGs were in the plans from the beginning.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I’m sorry we have already established here that cognititive reasoning will not work. I’m going to need you to show me actual plans that state CGs were in the plans from the beginning.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence....

 

[Eidolon]

Easier to simply remove the ability to shoot, ram, or otherwise damage another player. Since all the complaints seem to come from peeveepeers...

These days I would vote for something like this.
PvP does seem to be adversely affecting the game, has been since day one in one way or another.
Perhaps relegating PvP to CQC and the majority then get to experience awesome single player or coop content that could then be added on top of what we already have.
Would be nice...

 

[QBit4D]

Yes, let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

 

[Curvemn17]

For those so against changes to the BGS or PP because that’s how it was done, do you actually actively involve yourself in BGS activities with a group? Do you actively work with other cmdrs for a power in PP and actively manage that power? Or are we having a round robin with people that are out in colonia takin pictures?

 

[Robert Maynard]

PowerPlay, no - although I'll probably go on a module tourism spree at some point.

BGS - yes. I support a particular Faction and occasionally offer my services to other Factions as part of a reciprocal agreement.