Modes Can we secede Open Play data from other modes.

[Mangal Oemie]

Oh grand. Someone gave Hotel California a new lick of paint.

The BGS belongs to all of us, on all platforms, in all game modes.

I am fine with an Open Only alternative, though, as long as those on it pay a monthly subscription to pay for the extra server infrastructure and those managing them.

 

[Jockey79]

Well of course you haven't, because that would involve admitting you someone on 'the other side' you're arguing with has a valid point.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5323&highlight=ironman

If you had a valid point, I'd back it as I have done with other people.
But the mode system and mode mobility have always been a part of the plan since day one.

So what's your point here then, you didn't get your offline mode so to spite others you want us not to have mode mobility?
Because that's all I'm seeing so far.

I know Jockey, because unlike you I practise what I preach regarding accepting developers changing the game and associated vision as times gone on. My point, somewhat facitiously put, is that the games changed somewhat from that I initially bought into.

The game didn't change "somewhat" at all. So you're factually wrong.
One feature wasn't added because of a technical reason and no idea what happened to Ironman mode, for all we know it could be in the works.

Everything else advertised in the Kickstarter has been brought in and a chunk of the stuff in the DDA through some form or another has been added.
And the game continues to change, by adding more and more things.
Messing with mode mobility isn't adding anything to the game, it's taking something away.
(And no, Offline and Ironman were not taken away, as they were never added in the first place.)

So perhaps instead of being on your crusade of vengeance against those of us who got what we wanted and paid for, why not rally support to get the features you wanted, like Ironman (which I've openly supported every time I see a thread on it) pushed to the top of the development plan.

 

[Goose4291]

If you had a valid point, I'd back it as I have done with other people.
But the mode system and mode mobility have always been a part of the plan since day one.

So what's your point here then, you didn't get your offline mode so to spite others you want us not to have mode mobility?
Because that's all I'm seeing so far.




The game didn't change "somewhat" at all. So you're factually wrong.
One feature wasn't added because of a technical reason and no idea what happened to Ironman mode, for all we know it could be in the works.

Everything else advertised in the Kickstarter has been brought in and a chunk of the stuff in the DDA through some form or another has been added.
And the game continues to change, by adding more and more things.
Messing with mode mobility isn't adding anything to the game, it's taking something away.
(And no, Offline and Ironman were not taken away, as they were never added in the first place.)

So perhaps instead of being on your crusade of vengeance against those of us who got what we wanted and paid for, why not rally support to get the features you wanted, like Ironman (which I've openly supported every time I see a thread on it) pushed to the top of the development plan.

Oh Jockey.

You said that people need to do more research, as this game isnt for them and never has been. I pointed out that even with a good amount of research, you could still have bought this game on premises proposed by FDev that never saw the light of day.

You then said you'd never seen anything from FDev officially regarding Iron Man Mode. I pointed you to a specific quote regarding Iron Man Mode.
Now I have a vendetta for some reason or other against 'the rest of you' because of the above.

 

[bigity]

Oh grand. Someone gave Hotel California a new lick of paint.

The BGS belongs to all of us, on all platforms, in all game modes.

I am fine with an Open Only alternative, though, as long as those on it pay a monthly subscription to pay for the extra server infrastructure and those managing them.

What server infrastructure? The linux box running free database software?

 

[bigity]

Oh Jockey.

You said that people need to do more research, as this game isnt for them and never has been. I pointed out that even with a good amount of research, you could still have bought this game on premises proposed by FDev that never saw the light of day.

You then said you'd never seen anything from FDev officially regarding Iron Man Mode. I pointed you to a specific quote regarding Iron Man Mode.
Now I have a vendetta for some reason or other against 'the rest of you' because of the above.

Check out the original power play trailer for a good example. Nothing like what we ended up with. So, what they say is going to come isn't always what arrives. Also, something designed a certain way doesn't have to stay that way.

Regardless of what some years old kickstarter post says. It would be nice to hear some reasons solo/pg need to stick around besides 3rd party limitations placed on consoles that people won't pay to circumvent, or years old design ideas. Just in case there are any.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

CMDRs are immortal space pixies with an unlimited supply of cheap / free ships - they are never "taken off the field". There's no loss of ranks, reputation, Engineer unlocks, materials, data, etc. on destruction and, as it doesn't take that long to set oneself up from scratch with a new alt-CMDR, even if a CMDR was bankrupted, it would not take too long to get back into a position to be BGS effective. Then there's the fact that one does not need a ship with a particularly expensive rebuy to affect the BGS, regardless of game mode - so bankruptcy seems unlikely.

PvP or PvE, there's no winning condition in the BGS - almost nothing is permanent, other than the Faction's home system.

Indeed the game needs players to make it work - however there is obvious difference of opinion whether those players should be required to engage in PvP to play the game.

What is PvP if not a chosen play-style?

.... and I strongly suspect that Frontier looked at the PvP / PvE division in other games before they decided to firm up their design decisions regarding how many modes and which modes would affect the single shared galaxy state. That's looking at the "bigger picture" - and catering to more than one play-style.

Now here is where youre wrong.

AS USUAL.

Take some missions and lose rep and time as well as rebuy. Lose enough and your mission status isint that great and you cant take the better+++++ missions if you fail them.

In a conflict zone with those new interactions? Winning those conflict zones can have a pretty decent impact. They also give people objectives to fight over.

Someone murdering all the cops and people in a system to lower and boost inf? Kill them and send them to jail. While claiming the bounty money. You can also make them have a pretty decent rebuy with the new rework. A few PVPers have had over 1 billion in rebuy at one time.

ATR is delayed for a reason to still give time for that interaction between players before they show up to help.

Time, efficiency and your pockets. That is whats punished here. Risk and Reward vs the people you are affecting.

Do you say the wrong things on purpose to see if people are playing the game?

Or are you really that ignorant about the game and whats actually in it? I dont really believe you are

All of those are winning and losing conditions. They are available now at the flip of a switch. Its like they reworked all those things on purpose....

If you would open your eyes. Like everyone else. You can see it.

What you're doing is removing those winning and losing conditions. Essentially breaking a gameplay loop, reasons to work together, reasons to use specific modules and engineering.

You also remove the reason for PVP having meaning behind it. Instead of leaving everyone else to get "griefed" because no one is going to freely put themselves at risk over an objective if they dont have to.

Once again, the option to call yourself a "PVER" while doing PVP activities against someone else is absurd.

And you cant get over being shot at in a video game while doing those things? Its dumb.

And it shouldn't be held back by people like you that doesnt understand why losing matters.

The last thing you should be worried about is a "playstyle" if the intent is affecting someone else. Playstyle doesnt mean a damn thing here.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It would be nice to hear some reasons solo/pg need to stick around besides 3rd party limitations placed on consoles that people won't pay to circumvent, or years old design ideas. Just in case there are any.

Because many players like the design of modes and many purcahsed the game because of modes. People actually want it.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Oh grand. Someone gave Hotel California a new lick of paint.

Yup, it was getting quiet around here

 

[Robert Maynard]

It would be nice to hear some reasons solo/pg need to stick around besides 3rd party limitations placed on consoles that people won't pay to circumvent, or years old design ideas. Just in case there are any.

1) Every single player either backed or bought a game with three game modes, with no requirement to play in any one of them (and therefore no requirement to engage in PvP) - and the current advertising continues to make reference to the modes.

2) Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - so it's unlikely that they would disenfranchise those players by removing Solo and Private Groups (unless they implemented an absolute PvP flag in Open).

3) The existence of Solo was used in mitigation when offline mode was cancelled (i.e. players would be able to play alone but would require to connect to the online game) - I doubt that Frontier want to go through that again....

Perhaps most importantly, Frontier themselves support a three mode philosophy for the game - as reinforced by the recent official restatement of what the BGS is and who it is for.

 

[AP Birdman]

Yup, it was getting quiet around here

Can someone please explain to me what hotel California is besides an Eagles song? I've heard this referenced multiple time in regards to pvpers.

 

[AP Birdman]

1) Every single player either backed or bought a game with three game modes, with no requirement to play in any one of them (and therefore no requirement to engage in PvP) - and the current advertising continues to make reference to the modes.

2) Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - so it's unlikely that they would disenfranchise those players by removing Solo and Private Groups (unless they implemented an absolute PvP flag in Open).

3) The existence of Solo was used in mitigation when offline mode was cancelled (i.e. players would be able to play alone but would require to connect to the online game) - I doubt that Frontier want to go through that again....

Perhaps most importantly, Frontier themselves support a three mode philosophy for the game - as reinforced by the recent official restatement of what the BGS is and who it is for.

Pvpers have mostly abandoned elite because Fdev treats us like second rate players. They've given us zero reason or reward to do what we do and have completely ignored us for the most part. The day that changes, pvpers will return to the game in droves but unfortunately Fdev is too busy catering to casuals right now and every time PvP is mentioned on the forums the carebears come out screeching that how dare Fdev do something that isn't for them, then threaten with legal action (which is hysterical by the way).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can someone please explain to me what hotel California is besides an Eagles song? I've heard this referenced multiple time in regards to pvpers.

It's a reference to the last two lines of the song, usually referring to the never-ending PvP/PvE or Open/Solo/Private Groups debates:

"You can check out any time you like,
But you can never leave!"

 

[Jockey79]

Oh Jockey.

You said that people need to do more research, as this game isnt for them and never has been. I pointed out that even with a good amount of research, you could still have bought this game on premises proposed by FDev that never saw the light of day.

You pointed out your Ironman mode hasn't turned up - which it still could, but as very few people seem to mention it FD must have assumed it's not a popular feature.
Get some folks to show an interest in it and remind Frontier it was part of the DDA and it should turn up.

You then said you'd never seen anything from FDev officially regarding Iron Man Mode. I pointed you to a specific quote regarding Iron Man Mode.

1 page out of the DDA, out of how many?
On a topic that doesn't interest me.

Nothing stopping you colelcting information on keeping a record to remind Frontier of their obligations.
In fact I've suggested it to others several times in Hotel California, build your own WoI.

Now I have a vendetta for some reason or other against 'the rest of you' because of the above.

When you stop arguing the point and just rely on insults and harassment, then yes.

 

[Jockey79]

It would be nice to hear some reasons solo/pg need to stick around besides 3rd party limitations placed on consoles that people won't pay to circumvent, or years old design ideas. Just in case there are any.

No one needs to provide any "reasons" - this game is Frontiers design, they have stated several times they support the mode system.
Even the most recent update to the web site says "if you choose to fly in play open"

What would be nice is if some people finally understand that Frontier wanted the mode system in 2012, and still want it in 2019.
Accept it and play the game or find one that suits you better.

 

[Sylveria]

Now here is where youre wrong.

AS USUAL.

Take some missions and lose rep and time as well as rebuy. Lose enough and your mission status isint that great and you cant take the better+++++ missions if you fail them.

In a conflict zone with those new interactions? Winning those conflict zones can have a pretty decent impact. They also give people objectives to fight over.

Someone murdering all the cops and people in a system to lower and boost inf? Kill them and send them to jail. While claiming the bounty money. You can also make them have a pretty decent rebuy with the new rework. A few PVPers have had over 1 billion in rebuy at one time.

ATR is delayed for a reason to still give time for that interaction between players before they show up to help.

Time, efficiency and your pockets. That is whats punished here. Risk and Reward vs the people you are affecting.

Do you say the wrong things on purpose to see if people are playing the game?

Or are you really that ignorant about the game and whats actually in it? I dont really believe you are

All of those are winning and losing conditions. They are available now at the flip of a switch. Its like they reworked all those things on purpose....

If you would open your eyes. Like everyone else. You can see it.

What you're doing is removing those winning and losing conditions. Essentially breaking a gameplay loop, reasons to work together, reasons to use specific modules and engineering.

You also remove the reason for PVP having meaning behind it. Instead of leaving everyone else to get "griefed" because no one is going to freely put themselves at risk over an objective if they dont have to.

Once again, the option to call yourself a "PVER" while doing PVP activities against someone else is absurd.

And you cant get over being shot at in a video game while doing those things? Its dumb.

And it shouldn't be held back by people like you that doesnt understand why losing matters.

The last thing you should be worried about is a "playstyle" if the intent is affecting someone else. Playstyle doesnt mean a damn thing here.

That's a lotta words for "I disagree".

Might want to think about summarizing a bit. Just a thought.

I'll get my own coat, thanks.

 

[bigity]

Because many players like the design of modes and many purcahsed the game because of modes. People actually want it.

That's legit. (not being sarcastic)

 

[bigity]

1) Every single player either backed or bought a game with three game modes, with no requirement to play in any one of them (and therefore no requirement to engage in PvP) - and the current advertising continues to make reference to the modes.

2) Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - so it's unlikely that they would disenfranchise those players by removing Solo and Private Groups (unless they implemented an absolute PvP flag in Open).

3) The existence of Solo was used in mitigation when offline mode was cancelled (i.e. players would be able to play alone but would require to connect to the online game) - I doubt that Frontier want to go through that again....

Perhaps most importantly, Frontier themselves support a three mode philosophy for the game - as reinforced by the recent official restatement of what the BGS is and who it is for.

1) Read my post. Because it was made this way is not an answer for why it needs to stay that way. Quit cluttering up discussions with this lame duck.

2) They are also well aware that the vast majority of players play in Open (their own words, not mine). Open being the only mode does not mean that pvp has to be wide open. Mode separation is simply not a good way to protect people from pvp, IMO.

3) Many solo games require connection to the internet to play. Not a unique situation or even a deal breaker.

 

[bigity]

No one needs to provide any "reasons" - this game is Frontiers design, they have stated several times they support the mode system.
Even the most recent update to the web site says "if you choose to fly in play open"

What would be nice is if some people finally understand that Frontier wanted the mode system in 2012, and still want it in 2019.
Accept it and play the game or find one that suits you better.

So....you don't have any. Noted.

 

[Robert Maynard]

1) Read my post. Because it was made this way is not an answer for why it needs to stay that way. Quit cluttering up discussions with this lame duck.

2) They are also well aware that the vast majority of players play in Open (their own words, not mine). Open being the only mode does not mean that pvp has to be wide open. Mode separation is simply not a good way to protect people from pvp, IMO.

3) Many solo games require connection to the internet to play. Not a unique situation or even a deal breaker.

1) I'll agree to disagree on whether "it's made this way" is a reason for it to remain this way. However, because it continues to be sold this way is though - and, while some players may not like that aspect of what they bought, others obviously do - and not all players bought the game for PvP....

Also, if "it was made this way" is no reason for it to stay this way, should PvP be considered for removal? Just because the game was made allowing players to shoot at any player they encounter.... (not that I am suggesting that PvP should be removed - that'd be unfair to players who bought the game to engage in PvP)

2) Indeed - and in the same acknowledgement it was mentioned that both Solo and Private groups enjoy "significant portions" of the total population and that Open having a larger population "should not be taken that we're going to do Open only Powerplay, that's absolutely the furthest from our minds" - and that "we want to support everyone as best we can"....

https://youtu.be/52kOyADxK5E?t=3111

.... so it does not sound like Frontier are about to throw Solo / Private Group players under the bus in that regard - especially given the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCy1ZYjLvdQ&t=850s

.... where the Devs restate what the Background Simulation is and who it is for, swiftly followed up in the stream recap thread by:

BGS (Background Simulation) Changes

The Background Simulation (BGS) is a representation of how the actions of all players, no matter on which platform or mode, impact the galaxy. The factions that inhabit these system battle for influence over the population and control of the starports, installations and outposts. Player actions can push these factions into various states; such as economy, security, health and influence. With concerted effort players can help grow a faction's economy, destroy its security status, or help win a war.

The game modes offer an excellent way of ensuring that players who don't want to be engaged in PvP are not engaged in PvP, in my opinion. To suggest that it's not a good way implies that there's a better way of ensuring that players who don't want to engage (or be engaged) in PvP exists - I'd be interested to read the details of such a system.

3) Indeed - however I can't think of any others, offhand, that were sold offering every player the ability to both experience and affect a single galaxy state.

 

[Old Duck]

Quit cluttering up discussions with this lame duck.

Discuss the post, not the posters