Modes Open mode balancing proposal

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

PvP is unique among activities in the game because it is dependant on other players, not only game rules which apply across all modes. Verminstar's point would apply equally to two opposing forces that play at different times, or in different countries where the latency is sufficiently high that they are never instanced together.

But you will meet someone anyway. So sudden PvP encounters are really not so different from jumping into multistar systems.
Yet one of them is removable, and other is not. While they are of the same sort. Exploration is optional as well as playing in Open.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

Red hollow Triangles aren't exclusive to "Open Play", although it's only a little Detail.

My 2 cents :
In my books, it's entirely up to the Developer - specifically NOT Players operating within - to provide certain risk levels.

If only Players could bring risks, then something is terribly wrong. To an extent, that's unfortunately the case, as the Game suffers from multiple design flaws all combining.

What Open Play delivers as an exclusive is the unique experience in hotspots. That's what defines it.
However, that comes with a broad mix that clearly isn't for everyone.
Friendy, Boring, Hostile, Deadly, Toxic, Unbalanced, Buggy, exciting, nerve-wrecking, "meet the Idiots", "meet funny guys", "meet the Ganker Wing", "meet the guy(s) who work to save your Ship", the "Silent Bob", the "Chatty one", the guy you ad-hoc Winged up with in a RES and become friends, the guy who ad-hoc blew you up in a RES for Lulz and possibly ends up in your block list.

It's all there, all at once. Like a box of chocolate - you never know what you're gonna get.

Thing is though : That experience is the Reward of Open Play.
That's it, no bells, no jingles, just the occasional close call, some annoyances (chain-interdictions/lulz folks in suicide-winders etc.), some delays (blocked Pads anyone?), a few Exploiters/Cheaters, maybe PvP Kills to your count or Rebuy screens respectively.
Sometimes though just as empty as Solo.

That's the incentive for choosing Open Play.

And in the nightmarishly unbalanced world of ELITE PvP Combat, why (other than by personal decision or RP) would i.e. an Explorer with 6 months worth of Exploration Data choose Open Play to fly to a CG hotspot and hand in?
Lose 6 months of hard work to some other Players in G5-modded Meta Ships, experience the wonderful world of Ganker-Weaponry (Shield-killers, Shield-breachers, FSD Disablers) within 10-20 Seconds for lulz?
That's one of the issues with ELITE, since it sometimes isn't just the Ship. Screw the Ship, that is replaceable - but the Data is not.

"Balancing" Open Play IMHO would mean downright fixing it (redesign) for good.
BUT... that'd drastically affect Engineers, literally remove quite a few Weapons and many Special Effects, plus alter the Combat System and run different Insurance models (Data or Cargo-based). Likely even providing an alternative way to travel inside a System.
Unsure on how many feet such a drastic move would step on, but I guess it'd be quite a few.

 

[verminstar]

Thank you for pointing this out.
In my opinion, in order for balance to be achieved, PvP and PvE groups have to be unable affect each other directly.
And that makes it so Xbox PvP groups cannot attack PC PvP groups.

But this exact solution is not about influence.
It is more about the fact that those who chose to have dangerous experience with the possibility of sudden and unfair PvP encounters have a button to switch them off.
Without no penalties whatsoever, switchable at any time.

It is like if explorers would have "remove heat damage" button. Switchable at any time, without no penalties.
Don't press each of them - good experience of the dangerous universe. Press them - space engine with credits.

Why one of them is in the game?

So ye wanna create an independant bgs fer each platform by the very action of removing how groups on different platforms interact with each other. Just how likely ye think thats gonna be to happen? I very strongly disagree with that point and would never support the idea regardless what the argument was to support it.

I already have the option of avoiding unfair encounters and I play in open all the time nowadays...so effectively Im being rewarded fer nothing but choosing to play in open while still avoiding any and all encounters 100% effectively.

The universe was never dangerous to begin with...unless yer in a badly setup ship or yer just careless and dont know what yer doing, yer never gonna have excess heat issues as an explorer...ye can ram a black hole and get only 2% damage, same with planets even if ye take a good run at them and hit it dead centre. About the biggest danger to exploration is staying awake, and Ive spent a year and half doing nothing but exploration, and reached elite in it on two different accounts. Not entirely sure what exploration has to do with it, but you were the one who brought it up.

Many of us have been asking frontier to make it more dangerous fer years...they wont so technically, its frontier who wrap it up in cotton wool, not the players.

So this isnt about balancing the modes either as the thread title suggests...not when ye wanna intentionally unbalance them to make pvp more relevant. The reason pvp is irrelevant is because the modes are already balanced and pvp players dont play nice...basically yer wanting to unbalance the modes, not balance what is already balanced. Perhaps ye should have chosen a different thread title?

That being said, I sorta lost interest after the first paragraph by suggesting the platforms should be entirely indepenant...that affects thousands of players just cos you want more meaningful pvp on one platform on one mode. Thats incredibly selfish truth be told...do console players get any say in this? Or do they just have to go along with it to appease those who feel their chosen mode isnt dangerous enough?

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

I've only been involved with video games for the last couple of years. And since then have bought and or tried for free a number of games all of them are digital and listed in my library for downloading when ever I choose. I've discovered that with only the exception of ED where as one is mandated to haveing an internet connection to play, ED doesn't have an off line version, thus the closest on can come is the "SOLO" mode. Some player's don't care to play on line for a variety of reason's but with ED, it's not possible. And I'd concur as time goes on, more and more games will require an on line status in the future.

Having the ability to play off line or in a solo mode which is basically the same except one is mandated to have an internet connection, which one will have to have in the future anyways, becasue disk are on their way as the dodo bird, every game will be eventually only available in a digital formate. But haveing a solo mode, allows on to play as they generally would in an offline mode.

Thus, I'd say, having a choice is nice. Being forced isn't nice. However, I'd like to see the ability to board hop deleted. Choose one or the other when the game boots, and if you want to switch, a complet reboot of the game would be nessasary. For one thing, it would cut down on the number of Combat logger's, becasue doing so, means having to reboot from scratch, thus taking considerably more time then it does presently. It wouldn't elimanate it, but it would cause one to think about their actions more so then it does now.
Rebooting if and when one gets stuck somewhere isn't considered Combat logging, but it would still be possible to save oneself, just take a few minutes longer.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

So ye wanna create an independant bgs fer each platform by the very action of removing how groups on different platforms interact with each other. Just how likely ye think thats gonna be to happen? I very strongly disagree with that point and would never support the idea regardless what the argument was to support it.

I already have the option of avoiding unfair encounters and I play in open all the time nowadays...so effectively Im being rewarded fer nothing but choosing to play in open while still avoiding any and all encounters 100% effectively.

The universe was never dangerous to begin with...unless yer in a badly setup ship or yer just careless and dont know what yer doing, yer never gonna have excess heat issues as an explorer...ye can ram a black hole and get only 2% damage, same with planets even if ye take a good run at them and hit it dead centre. About the biggest danger to exploration is staying awake, and Ive spent a year and half doing nothing but exploration, and reached elite in it on two different accounts. Not entirely sure what exploration has to do with it, but you were the one who brought it up.

Many of us have been asking frontier to make it more dangerous fer years...they wont so technically, its frontier who wrap it up in cotton wool, not the players.

So this isnt about balancing the modes either as the thread title suggests...not when ye wanna intentionally unbalance them to make pvp more relevant. The reason pvp is irrelevant is because the modes are already balanced and pvp players dont play nice...basically yer wanting to unbalance the modes, not balance what is already balanced. Perhaps ye should have chosen a different thread title?

That being said, I sorta lost interest after the first paragraph by suggesting the platforms should be entirely indepenant...that affects thousands of players just cos you want more meaningful pvp on one platform on one mode. Thats incredibly selfish truth be told...do console players get any say in this? Or do they just have to go along with it to appease those who feel their chosen mode isnt dangerous enough?

Not separating. It is more about squadrons and adding a territorial control. Reasoning for not adding it is unclear, and it is easier to control what you had created, instead of adding phony NPC factions.
And it can be made in a way so designated PvP squadrons cannot "start a war" with PvE factions. Yet they can do it if they are aligned with another PvE or PvP faction respectively, and leaving them to do it while splitting benefits somehow. Maybe with trading system control or some sort of "influence".
But that is not on topic.

Of course, playing with risk is about avoiding it. So I am not talking about directly covering each rebuy.

 

[Stigbob]

Not separating. It is more about squadrons and adding a territorial control. Reasoning for not adding it is unclear, and it is easier to control what you had created, instead of adding phony NPC factions.
And it can be made in a way so designated PvP squadrons cannot "start a war" with PvE factions. Yet they can do it if they are aligned with another PvE or PvP faction respectively, and leaving them to do it while splitting benefits somehow.
But that is not on topic.

Of course, playing with risk is about avoiding it. So I am not talking about directly covering each rebuy.

Or they could just leave the modes and the BGS as they were designed, marketed and sold.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Or they could just leave the modes and the BGS as they were designed, marketed and sold.

And then they added a semblance of player factions, while they removed direct military removal of offenders as an option. Which is the obvious one.
Another way I see to deal with this problem is to add "fortification" option of any BGS faction, i.e. if some players are in the Open, in supercruise at targeted system and not in deep space, have proper connection settings, influence changes are reduced by 75% from all modes in that system as long as they are alive. This option can be toggled, on toggle players become visible anywhere in the targeted system, and it can have a cooldown after death.
But that would leave Xbox problem... Or Xbox players can be excluded from this reduction. Still would solve most of the problem.

But again, is not on topic. All which is proposed inside the OP concerns only money. Which are very similar to exp in other MMO and have about the same applications.

 

[Riverside]

But you will meet someone anyway. So sudden PvP encounters are really not so different from jumping into multistar systems.

I agree with this part.

Yet one of them is removable, and other is not. While they are of the same sort. Exploration is optional as well as playing in Open.

For some players, the choice would go from 'play with others or play alone' to 'play with others or do not play at all'.

Potentially the number of players upset by the change could outweigh the number of players that are happier to play. We don't have figures to be able to gauge how many would leave, but if you canvass for support amongst those that you know would want it you may be able to strengthen your position.

 

[WastedAlmond]

Fragment of an official statement, made by Blizzard:

• Loss of P2P connections, as well as severely decreased number of connection between one and other players, should become punishable by loss of any bonuses for current transactions.
• Sudden loss of connection will result in the same penalty as above, as well as an additional bounty worth of rebuy of the current ship.
• And, essentially, logging to any other game mode while transactions made in Open are in effect will result in the loss of any bonuses as well.

DC during combat should be punishable, but just sudden loss of connection overall being punishable with a REBUY, will simply just crap on everyone who's ISP is trash. The punishments need to be manageable, I know I would quit the game quite handily if I had two unlucky DCs due to my ISP failing at their job and ending up with a +100 mil "bounty".

Punishments for DC have to take into account actually legit cases of hardware trouble, not just go "lol get bained regaquitter!". For example, I'm all for losing all the bonuses from your contracts if you drop suddenly, maybe even give a small penalty for payouts on top of losing the bonuses. But just emptying somebody's in-game cash reserves completely is , imagine if an RPG would just empty your XP bar for a simple DC.

What I'm going at is that we should punish ragequits and DCs mid fight, but it should be a softer punishment at first. Then ramp it up if there is a pattern, but simply slapping somebody with a rebuy every time they have an issue with connections is a surefire way of driving them away.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I agree with this part.



For some players, the choice would go from 'play with others or play alone' to 'play with others or do not play at all'.

Potentially the number of players upset by the change could outweigh the number of players that are happier to play. We don't have figures to be able to gauge how many would leave, but if you canvass for support amongst those that you know would want it you may be able to strengthen your position.

Right now, one side should either pay with efficiency or with experience for their choice of game mode. Other have no downsides in selecting theirs.
Distribution of players have it's reasons. And that is one of them, and a big one.

DC during combat should be punishable, but just sudden loss of connection overall being punishable with a REBUY, will simply just crap on everyone who's ISP is trash. The punishments need to be manageable, I know I would quit the game quite handily if I had two unlucky DCs due to my ISP failing at their job and ending up with a +100 mil "bounty".

Punishments for DC have to take into account actually legit cases of hardware trouble, not just go "lol get bained regaquitter!". For example, I'm all for losing all the bonuses from your contracts if you drop suddenly, maybe even give a small penalty for payouts on top of losing the bonuses. But just emptying somebody's in-game cash reserves completely is , imagine if an RPG would just empty your XP bar for a simple DC.

What I'm going at is that we should punish ragequits and DCs mid fight, but it should be a softer punishment at first. Then ramp it up if there is a pattern, but simply slapping somebody with a rebuy every time they have an issue with connections is a surefire way of driving them away.

Forgot to add "while under PvP attack".

 

[Roybe]

Why does my logic break down? First way to avoid any potential PvP problems in this game is to switch to Solo...
It is like adding "Remove heat damage button". Pressable at any time and without no penalties whatsoever.

PG were supposed to be version of Open without any inconsensual PvP and it was a good solution, as it frees FDev from moderating admissions by themselves.
That intent is reflected in a lot of FDev presentations, and that is the outcome we have now.

For Open, this did not worked as intended. Open became a newb ganking/PvP playground only. Nobody actualy lives in it. Maybe that is why they will never add ability to load in-game ships to CQC, because if they do that, population of Open will come down to like... twelve people.
This game has problems with immersion as it is, with all that broken conductor scavanging and Biowaste rewards for mission which promotes you to "King"... status.
On top of it comes boardhopping. And for Open players, boardhopping becomes a way of playing.

And some ability to lock yourself to Open would help. While providing at least some reward for handicapping yourself.

It did work as intended...the devs designed Open to do just this! Whose fault is it that PVP players went into the Newb Ganking/PVP playground they did? Newb Ganking/PVP playground is not necessary PVP gameplay...it IS allowed to occur under the rules of the game...but no PVP player needed to play those cards, did they?

PVP players own the multiplayer environment/flavor in Open.

They failed to have situational awareness of the base design of the game (Open has a negative feedback loop to overly aggressive PVP)...nor did they have trigger control (they shot the noobs!). Now you get to enjoy your Open environment, and all the salty flavor you can stand...unless you feel there should be limits placed on PVP in Open by the devs?

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

It did work as intended...the devs designed Open to do just this! Whose fault is it that PVP players went into the Newb Ganking/PVP playground they did? Newb Ganking/PVP playground is not necessary PVP gameplay...it IS allowed to occur under the rules of the game...but no PVP player needed to play those cards, did they?

PVP players own the multiplayer environment/flavor in Open.

They failed to have situational awareness of the base design of the game (Open has a negative feedback loop to overly aggressive PVP)...nor did they have trigger control (they shot the noobs!). Now you get to enjoy your Open environment, and all the salty flavor you can stand...unless you feel there should be limits placed on PVP in Open by the devs?

Avoiding "newb gankers" IS the part of (okay, some) PvP games. ED included.

That is a part of an experience and is the reason why playing in Open means playing on higher difficulty settings. It modifies your playstyle.
Same as if there were an option to remove heat damage. This would be the difference between avoiding multi-star systems with close barycentres and not.
And somehow, while multi-star systems and sudden PvP encounters are the same in terms that they are both potential difficulty increases, one of them is present and switchable off on the fly WITHOUT consequences, and other... would be silly, ain't it? Yet...


Higher difficulty should mean better scores/different scoreboard. Or there is no point in playing with those settings.
Thus, the reason for this proposal.

I am ok with Solo PvE mode as long as there is some "risk management contract" available.
Although this will spawn even dirtier BGS godmode griefing, so something should be changed there first.


https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...rading-in-Open-(or-just-surviving-in-general)

 

[verminstar]

But that would leave Xbox problem... Or Xbox players can be excluded from this reduction.

As an xbone player meself, I actually just lost interest entirely when I read this part...Im fairly sure I dont need to explain why ^

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Or they could just leave the modes and the BGS as they were designed, marketed and sold.

"You can grief players while they cannot even see you". 10/10 must buy.

 

[Stigbob]

"You can grief players while they cannot even see you". 10/10 must buy.

Sounds fine to me it's what they said they were making, how they said they were making it. I checked that I could opt out of open if I felt like it and that they had ruled out EVE style guilds before buying.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"You can grief players while they cannot even see you".

Also known as an internet game forum.

 

[Nero Tacitus]

Or they could just leave the modes and the BGS as they were designed, marketed and sold.

Please stop making this argument, it's utterly moot when we just had 3.0 drastically change how the engineers work, not to mention radically altering C&P. FDev never agreed to keep the game exactly as it was when you purchased it, your argument is utterly invalid (also my hair is a bird).

People are making this a debate of opinion and playstyles, to which there's an obvious argument - players are just as entitled to request changes that impact their game as you are you object to them. This debate keeps cropping up because a decent amount of the playerbase is unhappy with the current dynamic. Attempting to take the high road and act like these kinds of requests are "just to suit you" is hypocritical, of course they're designed to suit the player's style/expectations, the same way your objection(s) completely and utterly suit your desires. The argument is again, moot.

This debate has turned into who has the higher horse, sorry OP, but like I said earlier, the problem is the community.

 

[Riverside]

Please stop making this argument, it's utterly moot when we just had 3.0 drastically change how the engineers work, not to mention radically altering C&P. FDev never agreed to keep the game exactly as it was when you purchased it, your argument is utterly invalid (also my hair is a bird).

People are making this a debate of opinion and playstyles, to which there's an obvious argument - players are just as entitled to request changes that impact their game as you are you object to them. This debate keeps cropping up because a decent amount of the playerbase is unhappy with the current dynamic. Attempting to take the high road and act like these kinds of requests are "just to suit you" is hypocritical, of course they're designed to suit the player's style/expectations, the same way your objection(s) completely and utterly suit your desires. The argument is again, moot.

This debate has turned into who has the higher horse, sorry OP, but like I said earlier, the problem is the community.

You make a good point, and once an opinion has been stated by an individual it probably isn't necessary to repeat it. The number of supporters and objectors is important, not the number of posts.

If there is anything you can do to help quantify what you describe as a 'decent amount of the playerbase' it would be very helpful.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Please stop making this argument, it's utterly moot when we just had 3.0 drastically change how the engineers work, not to mention radically altering C&P. FDev never agreed to keep the game exactly as it was when you purchased it, your argument is utterly invalid (also my hair is a bird).

People are making this a debate of opinion and playstyles, to which there's an obvious argument - players are just as entitled to request changes that impact their game as you are you object to them. This debate keeps cropping up because a decent amount of the playerbase is unhappy with the current dynamic. Attempting to take the high road and act like these kinds of requests are "just to suit you" is hypocritical, of course they're designed to suit the player's style/expectations, the same way your objection(s) completely and utterly suit your desires. The argument is again, moot.

This debate has turned into who has the higher horse, sorry OP, but like I said earlier, the problem is the community.

Yeah. Modes Of Elite...
So it is like fighting Communism in USSR after all. Well, at least I was only exiled, not just banned...

Dunno which statics they even use in order to determine how much PvP people is out there. It took me 800 hrs to start PvPing.

And now they will never add something hardcore again, beacuse almost everyone ignores goids. Which again, are simply inefficient as money maker.

 

[Nero Tacitus]

If there is anything you can do to help quantify what you describe as a 'decent amount of the playerbase' it would be very helpful.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...lay_rather_than_solo/?st=jguahve4&sh=e0feb640
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange..._for_playing_in_open/?st=jguahxma&sh=a22314fc
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/90583-The-Solo-vs-Open-vs-Groups-Thread-See-new-thread
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/316305-Incentive-for-Open-Play
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/331204-Provide-perks-for-playing-in-open
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/84801-Increasing-open-play-incentives
https://steamcommunity.com/app/359320/discussions/0/352788917761963274/?ctp=2

Numbers of for vs against I have no way of knowing. Point remains the same however; some people want Open incentivised, some do not, and so far the former has been ignored. Whether this is because the former is a such a minority it isn't worth devoting development time to, because of gamer design considerations, because the current dynamic is FDev's preference, because it's on the road map but hasn't been implemented yet or because of other reasons, I also don't know. It would be good if one of the staff could weigh in.