Modes These arguments are tedious.

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

People have been opting features to add on to the BGS or PP mechanism where a PvP mechanic gets added as a tool to influence BGS or PP. Where player kills and presence could also influence the BGS/PP.

One example of such a thread is here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/421892-A-territorial-game-for-PvPers

But it got locked because some people can't see beyond: everything must be open only, and as Churchill stated, these people won't change their minds, and won't change the subject.

Let's take an action of tranferring 600 tonnes of PP supplies.
For Open, you need one Cutter to transfer it and three PvP-fitted ships for escort.
For PG, same players would use D-rated T9 ... each?

So which rates you can apply? And to think, that is likely the same reasoning which had created that exactly 25% rate.
Yet 25% still would not cover for anything.

And do not forget, people in majority of cases do think rationaly, and they would choose the most efficient way.
So if there would be a single efficiency/time coin left in the PGs, majority of people would still chose the PGs.

So how you would answer this question?

Maybe with complete split in spheres of PP activity between PvE and PvP players, and that distribution changing from power to power? Or maybe whole spectrum being PvE and PvP only specificaly from system to system?
Or such was discussed as well already?

Thing with Open only stuff is that development part is day and night easier that that of splitmode system.
Give benefits to each power, basic control mechanisms, release the hounds.

 

[Han_Zen]

Let's take an action of tranferring 600 tonnes of PP supplies.
For Open, you need one Cutter to transfer it and three PvP-fitted ships for escort.
For PG, same players would use D-rated T9 ... each?

So which rates you can apply? And to think, that is likely the same reasoning which had created that exactly 25% rate.
Yet 25% still would not cover for anything.

And do not forget, people in majority of cases do think rationaly, and they would choose the most efficient way.
So if there would be a single efficiency/time coin left in the PGs, majority of people would still chose the PGs.

So how you would answer this question?

Maybe with complete split in spheres of PP activity between PvE and PvP players, and that distribution changing from power to power? Or maybe whole spectrum being PvE and PvP only specificaly from system to system?
Or such was discussed as well already?

Thing with Open only stuff is that development part is day and night easier that that of splitmode system.
Give benefits to each power, basic control mechanisms, release the hounds.

It's fairly obvious that this is a game balance issue, not a mode issue.

Unless the difference in risk between a player attack and an NPC attack is balanced out, it's never going to work.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I had a whole post written out.

But now I see how you ran people off.

You and I both know the difference in risk per mode. You have been in A LOT. And when I say ALOT. I MEAN ALMOST ALL OF THE THREADS around this area.

Tell me why that is? Why do you put yourself here?

You intentionally argue against common sense.

I dont think you're dumb. But I do think you're doing this on purpose.

So whats the reason and dont give a BULL joawehdugahbe answer.

I knew what the game design meant when I backed it - which is why I backed it.

I don't agree with the notion that existing game content should be restricted to one of the three game mode options to satisfy the play-style preference of those who, from what can be inferred from what one Dev has indicated, constitute a minority of the player-base.

Hence my participation in this type of thread....

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Holy cow... There are so many requests which are similar to mine.
No wonder it becomes unignorable.

As I said in another thread, which was stuffed into PvP subforum for some reason and had reached astronomical sizes there, this situation reminds me of Matrix: first versions were full with bliss, but too much people could not take it, because there were no natural strife present.

If you check the history of the threads, for every proponent of things like bonuses to open, there are equal, if not more people saying no open bonus.

If we are judging things based on forum arugments for and against, then sorry, you're not going to get what you want.

Devs will do what they think is best for the game (even if we disagree with them). Remember the last time FD made a decision a popularity contest? Passenger transfer voted for delays. People are still salty over that.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

It's fairly obvious that this is a game balance issue, not a mode issue.

Unless the difference in risk between a player attack and an NPC attack is balanced out, it's never going to work.

Even if modes are left untouched, they should not mix in the same star system, like yin-yang pretty much.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Even if modes are left untouched, they should not mix in the same star system, like yin-yang pretty much.

The game has been designed from the outset to have all players affecting the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode.

When each console release happened those new players were simply added to those who affect the same single shared galaxy state.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

If you check the history of the threads, for every proponent of things like bonuses to open, there are equal, if not more people saying no open bonus.

If we are judging things based on forum arugments for and against, then sorry, you're not going to get what you want.

Devs will do what they think is best for the game (even if we disagree with them). Remember the last time FD made a decision a popularity contest? Passenger transfer voted for delays. People are still salty over that.

Some things can become clearly visible only with time.
And current situation leaves only those PvP players playing who like ED as well.

No reasons whatsoever to PvP => Less PvP players => Not enough PvP players for devs to worry about?

Something is clearly wrong with that line, innit?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Some things can become clearly visible only with time.
And current situation leaves only those PvP players playing who like ED as well.

No reasons whatsoever to PvP => Less PvP players => Not enough PvP players for devs to worry about?

Something is clearly wrong with that line, innit?

Why would PvP players play the game if they don't like the game?

 

[Han_Zen]

Even if modes are left untouched, they should not mix in the same star system, like yin-yang pretty much.

There is nothing to do about the single galaxy. With the current thargoid content, it's more locked than ever.

That's not the problem anyway. The problem is that some modes are easier than other.
Anything you do an NPC could do better, if FD wanted them to.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Some things can become clearly visible only with time.
And current situation leaves only those PvP players playing who like ED as well.

No reasons whatsoever to PvP => Less PvP players => Not enough PvP players for devs to worry about?

Something is clearly wrong with that line, innit?

Well, its not something i can get particularly worked up about, since i very rarely PvP in the game. I do know of some people who get enjoyment out of PvP though without the need for a bonus. They choose to PvP against those who want the PvP and treat it as a skill based game. What I sense others (you, 90s, Algo) wanting is a shooting fish in a barrel game, which doesn't really require much skill.

Even if modes are left untouched, they should not mix in the same star system, like yin-yang pretty much.

Now there is a splendid idea. FD could create a mini bubble somewhere where the systems can only be affected by PvP. Outside of that bubble, it remains as it is, with PvP having little to no effect on anything.

Those who then want a territorial game based on PvP can happily shoot at each other to their heart's content!

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

The game has been designed from the outset to have all players affecting the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode.

When each console release happened those new players were simply added to those who affect the same single shared galaxy state.

Here we go...
I know the current state of things without reminder. Discussion of it's flaws is the topic of this thread subforum.

I had just stated the reasons why even 75% efficiency reduction is too low. Would you be ok with 5%?

And what if opponent is simply stronger and your wing have no money for anything but D-rated T9s... Yet you can simply undermine 321739 people with every ship unlocked? Or they would have to abandon their PvP ways?

So, yet again, no. For BGS, at least for faction's home system, choise of mode to undermine in should be on the owners.
For PP, distirbution of systems per mode can be random. With attention to just mentioned home systems, and overall balance of CC.

This would incentify creation of bianry alliances. And would preserve status quo by largest margin possible.
Futhermore, mechanisms to transfer control between groups should be implemented.

To add to that, there is nothing wrong about player ownership. EvE was made to be as it is intentionaly.
It's all about balance in incentives.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Here we go...

Indeed.

I know the current state of things without reminder. Discussion of it's flaws is the topic of this thread subforum.

Whether the features in question are flaws or strengths is a matter of opinion.

I had just stated the reasons why even 75% efficiency reduction is too low. Would you be ok with 5%?

5% of what?

And what if opponent is simply stronger and your wing have no money for anything but D-rated T9s... Yet you can simply undermine 321739 people with every ship unlocked? Or they would have to abandon their PvP ways?

If the opponent is simply stronger then it matters not which game mode one participates in.

PvP is optional in this game - whether players engage in it is up to them (and them alone).

So, yet again, no. For BGS, at least for faction's home system, choise of mode to undermine in should be on the owners.
For PP, distirbution of systems per mode can be random. With attention to just mentioned home systems, and overall balance of CC.

That's not the way that Frontier chose to implement it, about two years ago.

This would incentify creation of bianry alliances. And would preserve status quo by largest margin possible.
Futhermore, mechanisms to transfer control between groups should be implemented.

Territorial control doesn't really exist in this game, i.e. players cannot deny other players access to any system in the game.

To add to that, there is nothing wrong about player ownership. EvE was made to be as it is intentionaly.
It's all about balance in incentives.

.... and this game was made to be as it is intentionally, with regard to how the game modes all affect the single shared galaxy state.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Indeed.



Whether the features in question are flaws or strengths is a matter of opinion.



5% of what?



If the opponent is simply stronger then it matters not which game mode one participates in.

PvP is optional in this game - whether players engage in it is up to them (and them alone).



That's not the way that Frontier chose to implement it, about two years ago.



Territorial control doesn't really exist in this game, i.e. players cannot deny other players access to any system in the game.



.... and this game was made to be as it is intentionally, with regard to how the game modes all affect the single shared galaxy state.

So....
I was just given a finger despite providing reasoned notions and best IMO compromise possible.

But it got locked because some people can't see beyond: everything must be open only, and as Churchill stated, these people won't change their minds, and won't change the subject.

Okay. But who is fixed and stubborn? And for what reason?

I had recently listed all the possible ones, Robert.
Or people in this subforum haven't bought a copy of this game?

Let's take an action of tranferring 600 tonnes of PP supplies.
For Open, you need one Cutter to transfer it and three PvP-fitted ships for escort.
For PG, same players would use D-rated T9 ... each?

So which rates you can apply? And to think, that is likely the same reasoning which had created that exactly 25% rate.
Yet 25% still would not cover for anything.

And do not forget, people in majority of cases do think rationaly, and they would choose the most efficient way.
So if there would be a single efficiency/time coin left in the PGs, majority of people would still chose the PGs.

So how you would answer this question?

Maybe with complete split in spheres of PP activity between PvE and PvP players, and that distribution changing from power to power? Or maybe whole spectrum being PvE and PvP only specificaly from system to system?
Or such was discussed as well already?

Thing with Open only stuff is that development part is day and night easier that that of splitmode system.
Give benefits to each power, basic control mechanisms, release the hounds.

In case you had missed the first part of the post you had quoted.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So....
I was just given a finger despite providing reasoned notions and best IMO compromise possible.

How disagreement with proposals and differing opinions is interpreted is up to the individual.

No compromise has been offered, i.e. there's nothing in it for those who stand to lose.

I had recently listed all the possible ones, Robert.
Or people in this subforum haven't bought a copy of this game?

In case you had missed the first part of the post you had quoted.

Why limit it to one wing? Three might be needed to get the Cutter through in that case....

.... or none, depending on time of day, geographic location of Cutter CMDR, quality of Cutter CMDR's connection, block lists, friends lists, etc....

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

How disagreement with proposals and differing opinions is interpreted is up to the individual.

No compromise has been offered, i.e. there's nothing in it for those who stand to lose.



Why limit it to one wing? Three might be needed to get the Cutter through in that case....

.... or none, depending on time of day, geographic location of Cutter CMDR, quality of Cutter CMDR's connection, block lists, friends lists, etc....

But haven't you basically answered that "it is not the current state of things" to each of my sentences?


I severely doubt that block lists should be in effect when you had recently crossed blocked CMDR's faction territory. And I seriously doubt that bad connection should not be punishable.
Mechanisms for automatic evaluation of Open crediability are pretty simple. They are not here because they are not needed since you have block list and they are not needed overall at the moment.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I severely doubt that block lists should be in effect when you had recently crossed blocked CMDR's faction territory. And I seriously doubt that bad connection should not be punishable.
Mechanisms for automatic evaluation of Open crediability are pretty simple. They are not here because they are not needed since you have block list and they are not needed overall at the moment.

They are not needed simply because this it not a game where PvP is baked in as a dominant feature - PvP is a possibility in this game, for those who choose, not a requirement.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

They are not needed simply because this it not a game where PvP is baked in as a dominant feature - PvP is a possibility in this game, for those who choose, not a requirement.

And this would remain the same - would it not? They would just not oppose each other, PvP ones being in disadvantage. Or people would be too outraged cause they cannot affect anything across the board, despite some system having PF description on them on the galaxy map?

 

[Robert Maynard]

And this would remain the same - would it not? They would just not oppose each other, PvP ones being in disadvantage. Or people would be too outraged cause they cannot affect anything across the board, despite some system having PF description on them on the galaxy map?

How are the PvP groups disadvantaged? They have the same means to affect the BGS as every player.

How would PvE player groups be handled?

 

[Zieman]

Read your post aloud while looking into a mirror:

You intentionally argue against common sense.

I dont think you're dumb. But I do think you're doing this on purpose.

So whats the reason and dont give a BULL joawehdugahbe answer.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

How are the PvP groups disadvantaged? They have the same means to affect the BGS as every player.

How would PvE player groups be handled?

They are disadvantaged by their "choise" of activity. Blaze your own trail?
Do not forget the fact that you have to rush your progression ASAP if you want to do PvP. Maybe you will understand how they would look at switching to full-on PvE haulage with that in mind.

To put it short :

• PP consolidation should be remade with squadrons in mind (as most people do PP in groups)
• "PvP" and "PvE" systems would be distributed by some parameters.
• PvP squadrons would not be able to affect PvE systems and vice versa.

For BGS, at least home system "type" should be determined by the owner.