Modes These arguments are tedious.

[withnail]

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 think we should roll back exploration payments and bounties. Remove neutron stars and FSD increases.

It clearly shouldn't be in there because it wasn't in the Kickstarter.

In fact, let's remove the cutter and the Corvette too.

I don't want to see mega ships either. What were they thinking with the barnacles? That wasn't in the Kickstarter?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think we should roll back exploration payments and bounties. Remove neutron stars and FSD increases.

It clearly shouldn't be in there because it wasn't in the Kickstarter.

In fact, let's remove the cutter and the Corvette too.

I don't want to see mega ships either. What were they thinking with the barnacles? That wasn't in the Kickstarter?

I don't expect these things to happen - just as I don't expect (from what they have said on the topic of modes) Frontier to significantly change how players in each game mode (or platform) affect existing pan-modal features.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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

Finally someone is making sense around here.

 

[withnail]

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

Good. I think they would be minded to get rid of solo/Pg in Powerplay and some other activities to create more player conflict.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Good. I think they would be minded to get rid of solo/Pg in Powerplay and some other activities to create more player conflict.

Opinions on that vary too - Frontier have, actually, made statements regarding the modes when they have been criticised in the past....

 

[Curvemn17]

Opinions on that vary too - Frontier have, actually, made statements regarding the modes when they have been criticised in the past....

QUOTES! Or it didn’t happen...

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Kinda like PvPer's "screw with the game" of those who wish to engage in PvE content?

Not quite the direction you'd hoped to go with this, is it?

Not the same thing stop pretending you dont get it. If I kill PVErs I am still availble for retaliation by someone else. I dont go hide in solo to remove any danger.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good. I think they would be minded to get rid of solo/Pg in Powerplay and some other activities to create more player conflict.

My issues with that are, you are taking features away from players who invested a lot of time into it. And the player conflict would mainly play out as Combat vs Trader/courier. I also think Frontier is looking at ways to increase conflict. I think squadrons and mega ships will play a big part in it. I just hope they'll introduce mechanics tailor made for PvP conflict. Not botching a PvE mechanic to do so.

I also feel many of the PvP CMDRs would enjoy active battle scenarios over patrolling a system in wait for the right CMDR to show up.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

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...

NO!

 

[Robert Maynard]

QUOTES! Or it didn’t happen...

Delighted to oblige....

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

For fun

That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?
No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

 

[Perseus]

@Robert Maynard - I've forgotten what year(s) those quotes are from. Can you remind?

 

[GoStu]

I also feel many of the PvP CMDRs would enjoy active battle scenarios over patrolling a system in wait for the right CMDR to show up.

This is basically what Powerplay Expansions become when everyone can be asked to show up in Open, and the instancing gods smile upon everyone. I've seen fast & nasty 4v1 takedowns, I've seen escorted cargo ships repel wings of attackers, I've seen conflict zones with wings on either side, and I've seen full-blown eight-on-eight double-wingfights (that ended with both sides exchanging o7 & GG on Discord once the fight was settled).

The best part is that Powerplay IS entirely opt-in. You can go your entire time in Elite without joining; in fact, if my suggestion (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/423159-Power-Specific-Modules) went through, you'd never even need to pledge for a module.

The issue is that mechanically, there's no incentive to fight for Open. Most major powerplay groups have an Open-Only or Mostly-Open policy, but certain others will argue that there's just no advantage to even trying. Even as I type this, there's a group pushing Edmund Mahon into taking an awful expansion against his will - this would be easy to stop if Expansions were Open-only, but because the bots can be set to their dirty work in Solo/Private, he's going to eat it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

@Robert Maynard - I've forgotten what year(s) those quotes are from. Can you remind?

Click the links, i.e. "(Source)" next to the name of the quoted user - it takes you directly to the post.

 

[Mohrgan]

Those of us here defending how the modes currently work aren't fighting against 'any' change. To my knowledge none of us have said "Nothing must, or will, change. Ever.". What we are defending is basically one thing. What we are saying is simply one thing. That there is no cause to cut off players from this game's content, because some players choose to play in open.

No one has to prove that nothing will ever change. That's ridiculous. I have, along with many other's, offered suggestions on some changes I thought would improve open world PvP, and even make it more popular.

It's a false dichotomy to say that; since we use certain statements, and evidence to inform and support our position, that we believe the game is entirely 'set in stone'. So, just what is the point in this recent swell in the debate here? Are these arguments intended to offer proof that FD will make currently universally available content, open only? Or, that this argument isn't tedious? If so, it falls far far short. Brow heating Mr. Maynard or Jockey doesn't support either of those things.

Instead of trying to disprove an unstated argument. Try proving that FD will cut off content to those in Solo/PG in order to supply open-only proponents with targets. Or, harder still, try proving these arguments aren't tedious.

 

[Perseus]

Click the links, i.e. "(Source)" next to the name of the quoted user - it takes you directly to the post.

Cheers!

 

[Curvemn17]

Those of us here defending how the modes currently work aren't fighting against 'any' change. To my knowledge none of us have said "Nothing must, or will, change. Ever.". What we are defending is basically one thing. What we are saying is simply one thing. That there is no cause to cut off players from this game's content, because some players choose to play in open.

No one has to prove that nothing will ever change. That's ridiculous. I have, along with many other's, offered suggestions on some changes I thought would improve open world PvP, and even make it more popular.

It's a false dichotomy to say that; since we use certain statements, and evidence to inform and support our position, that we believe the game is entirely 'set in stone'. So, just what is the point in this recent swell in the debate here? Are these arguments intended to offer proof that FD will make currently universally available content, open only? Or, that this argument isn't tedious? If so, it falls far far short. Brow heating Mr. Maynard or Jockey doesn't support either of those things.

Instead of trying to disprove an unstated argument. Try proving that FD will cut off content to those in Solo/PG in order to supply open-only proponents with targets. Or, harder still, try proving these arguments aren't tedious.

That’s all well and good, but the same arguments that have been used can also have the opposite effect and work in favor of those suggesting for a change. The inability to see that or understand that is where the brow beating comes from. Since you brought up the tedious argument let’s bring this full circle back to the actual argument at hand and less in the direction of “targets” for pvpers. The OP posted about a nerfing of solo/pg impacts on BGS. Which in turn impacts PP and PMFs. Which is where this discussion was headed. This is not about targets for pvpers. This is about BGS attacks, 5c in Pp and the like.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Those of us here defending how the modes currently work aren't fighting against 'any' change. To my knowledge none of us have said "Nothing must, or will, change. Ever.". What we are defending is basically one thing. What we are saying is simply one thing. That there is no cause to cut off players from this game's content, because some players choose to play in open.

No one has to prove that nothing will ever change. That's ridiculous. I have, along with many other's, offered suggestions on some changes I thought would improve open world PvP, and even make it more popular.

It's a false dichotomy to say that; since we use certain statements, and evidence to inform and support our position, that we believe the game is entirely 'set in stone'. So, just what is the point in this recent swell in the debate here? Are these arguments intended to offer proof that FD will make currently universally available content, open only? Or, that this argument isn't tedious? If so, it falls far far short. Brow heating Mr. Maynard or Jockey doesn't support either of those things.

Instead of trying to disprove an unstated argument. Try proving that FD will cut off content to those in Solo/PG in order to supply open-only proponents with targets. Or, harder still, try proving these arguments aren't tedious.

No ones being cut off from content. Hit open like everyone else if you want to attack another play faction.

The content still exists.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That’s all well and good, but the same arguments that have been used can also have the opposite effect and work in favor of those suggesting for a change. The inability to see that or understand that is where the brow beating comes from. Since you brought up the tedious argument let’s bring this full circle back to the actual argument at hand and less in the direction of “targets” for pvpers. The OP posted about a nerfing of solo/pg impacts on BGS. Which in turn impacts PP and PMFs. Which is where this discussion was headed. This is not about targets for pvpers. This is about BGS attacks, 5c in Pp and the like.

Indeed - and Sandro is on record stating, when he briefly mused about an Open play bonus for PowerPlay, that it would be for the Power only (not the player) and would specifically not apply to the BGS.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This is basically what Powerplay Expansions become when everyone can be asked to show up in Open, and the instancing gods smile upon everyone. I've seen fast & nasty 4v1 takedowns, I've seen escorted cargo ships repel wings of attackers, I've seen conflict zones with wings on either side, and I've seen full-blown eight-on-eight double-wingfights (that ended with both sides exchanging o7 & GG on Discord once the fight was settled).

I thought you were going to finish that with: All those moments will be lost in time. Like tears in the rain

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Indeed - and Sandro is on record stating, when he briefly mused about an Open play bonus for PowerPlay, that it would be for the Power only (not the player) and would specifically not apply to the BGS.

Except there is no difference between the two in the end now.

There is the BGS in which everyone uses. Right as you start the game.

But now there are PMF's attached to them. No different than powerplay.

Its fueled by the player groups. Not NPC's.

Just like almost everyone agrees powerplay failed because it wasnt in open, and you admitted above there you're going to go module shopping.

The same applies with PMF's. And Squadrons.

If they make the same mistake with Squadrons and they did with powerplay. The only thing Squadrons will be useful for is I assume the GUI that comes with it, and "guild chat".

This game can be so much deeper. But people want the advantage of not being shot at or defended against while people get UA bombed, Cops killed and so on.

Like I said there is a whole layer of the game missing here. Including Modules and Engineering. Because of an optimal way of doing things.

Speaking of Optimal, They are even talking about Optimal ship builds and some of the things smaller ships are capable of doing in the BGS thread on the front page of DD. Some of the same people are taking part in it talking about those META ship builds they called me crazy. Like I said, people are going for optimization.

Thats where the advantage is. The scales are tipped to one side. And you're only hurting yourself going into open, or using any of your engineered stuff. Because the same result can be achieved through trading against the people you are fighting against.

This needs to stop maynard.

This game is seriously Screwed up. All because you dont want to get shot at. Stopping your progression against the people you would be attacking.