It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[Robert Maynard]

If Frontier decided to implement more than one BGS (which I strongly doubt, given what they have said previously), I'd expect that switching between BGS would need to be impossible - as being able to switch between divergent galaxy states would offer all sorts of interesting opportunities for exploit.

 

[deleteduser]

...would offer all sorts of interesting opportunities for exploit.

Hence the potential penalties/time limits, but I see no reason why the switch should be prevented entirely for a CMDR that now feels 'ready' for PvP, or another who is overwhelmed by it, or indeed underwhelmed by PvE.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hence the potential penalties/time limits.

Simpler to make it a hard split - leave the existing tri-modal system with its BGS and create a mono-modal BGS for those who can't accept that the BGS is affected from Solo / Private Groups - no switching.

One time choice between the two, to be made before a specified number of hours played.

.... except that there'd likely need to be three versions of the Open only BGS - one for each platform - to satisfy those who *must* be able to confront any player affecting *their* game.

 

[Stigbob]

GalNet is essentially a summary of the current state of the BGS spreadsheet, so the version you see will depend on whether you play PvP or PvE.

​

​

That would mean working either exclusively from one mode, or triplicating effort for PMF's. Which I can't see being popular.

​

Quite, but this proposal takes at face value the problems each of the playstyles say they have with the other, and offers a solution to those problems without breaking the game for everyone else at the same time.

I'm going to bow out of this thread now for the simple reason I think this problem only exists in some players attitudes to other players menu choices, in both directions. It was already solved pre launch for me.

 

[deleteduser]

Simpler to make it a hard split - leave the existing tri-modal system with its BGS and create a mono-modal BGS for those who can't accept that the BGS is affected from Solo / Private Groups - no switching.

This proposal has the effect of a hard split whilst removing the necessity of the Solo/PG/Open modes altogether, for everyone. Simpler all round.

I see no reason why there should be a one time only, take it or leave it choice. This would be unpopular and seems unnecessary, and unnecessarily punitive.

The Console consideration can easily be solved by implementing cross-play. Cross-play should probably be considered on its own merits anyway, regardless of this proposal.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This proposal has the effect of a hard split whilst removing the necessity of the Solo/PG/Open modes altogether, for everyone. Simpler all round.

I see no reason why there should be a one time choice.

The Console consideration can easily be solved by implementing cross-play.

There is no case to remove Solo or Private Groups - players seeking a BGS for Open only don't get to dictate how other players should play.

The one time choice is to avoid complaints from some Open only proponents about players transferring assets gained in "easy mode" in the other BGS.

I strongly suspect that console cross-play is non-trivial - otherwise we'd likely have it already.

 

[deleteduser]

There is no case to remove Solo or Private Groups - players seeking a BGS for Open only don't get to dictate how other players should play.

This proposal solves the problem raised by those playing in Open, whilst solving the problems raised by those who would like to but don't want PvP, without 'dictating' terms to anyone.

The one time choice is to avoid complaints from some Open only proponents about players transferring assets gained in "easy mode" in the other BGS.

As I've said, frivolous switching can be deterred with time-limits & penalties. How punitive these should be are up for discussion, but I see no reason why a one-time choice is required, nor why it should be 'dictated'.

I strongly suspect that console cross-play is non-trivial - otherwise we'd likely have it already.

Cross-play is technically a non-trivial feature, but it's not difficult either. The biggest problem is getting Sony/MS to agree and implement. None of these are reasons for us to avoid the discussion.

 

[Brrokk]

Well, I've been lurking and watching this thread bubble along for a while now, and I think it's time I put in my $0.02 and go back to lurking.

The OP proposed the high cost of rebuys as a reason for the anti-PvP sentiment, especially in relation to the Distant Worlds and Distant Ganks.

IMO, rebuys have nothing to do with it. Rebuys could be free or credits could even be showered over the PK victims, and it wouldn't change anything. Most people have joined Distant Worlds 2 for the socialisation and even if all the explorers beefed up their ships to survive and escape, the reason for going on Distant Worlds would be literally blown away each time a PvPer entered an instance and started shooting.

Private groups are the only thing that allows an event like Distant Worlds to take place. The only reason Distant Ganks even became a thing is the poor support and functionality Frontier provide for managing private groups. The single person who could add people to the Fleetcomm group was simply overwhelmed in the final week by the literally 1000s of commanders trying to join.

The only point Distant Ganks has made for me is how important it is for Frontier to improve the management of large private groups. It should be possible for a group owner to delegate membership management to one or more other commanders. It should be possible for private groups to become larger than 20,000. It should be easy to search for a commander in order to remove them from the group quickly and easily.

While I like the idea of an "Open PvE" mode, I also don't see it as a realistic possibility. There is no way Frontier would want to take on the workload of dealing with 'troublemakers' in such a mode. It is much easier and more sensible for them to shift the responsibility to private groups. However, by abrogating their responsibility to provide a play mode that their customers clearly want, Frontier should show their appreciation of the people who *are* making that effort by giving them the tools they need to manage the very large groups that have emerged.

This in spades. Rep+++

 

[Robert Maynard]

This proposal solves the problem raised by those playing in Open, whilst solving the problems raised by those who would like to but don't want PvP, without 'dictating' terms to anyone.

Solo enjoys a "significant portion" of the player-base, as do Private Groups, according to what Sandro said. Why should they be made to play in an Open mode, even if it was guaranteed PvE?

Then there's the fact that console players without premium platform access can't play in either of the multi-player modes.

As I've said, frivolous switching can be deterred with time-limits & penalties. How punitive these should be are up for discussion, but I see no reason why a one-time choice is required, nor why it should be 'dictated'.

Indeed it could be. I'd still expect some players to complain about being affected by players who earn assets in "easy mode".

Cross-play is technically a non-trivial feature, but it's not difficult either. The biggest problem is getting Sony/MS to agree and implement. None of these are reasons for us to avoid the discussion.

We can discuss all we like - I don't expect that it will change Frontier's inclination or timescale.

 

[Brrokk]

With the compromise that those playing in Closed modes aren't subject to the same risks as those in Open, but get the same rewards when playing the BSG & PP.

Separating the modes, giving each an Open mode, undoes this problem as well. Like I said, "Win-Win", with another "Win" to boot.

Separating into two Open modes would be the death of "Open PvP". Players whose main interest is the BGS and mission running would have no reason to choose that mode; it would be combat players only. FD have already mentioned that only a minority engage in PvP, so they would be on their own in a much emptier galaxy. The "Open PvE" would quickly become recognised as the "real" BGS by people interested in it. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[deleteduser]

Solo enjoys a "significant portion" of the player-base, as do Private Groups according to what Sandro said. Why should they be made to play in an Open mode, even if it was guaranteed PvE?

This is a non-sequitur. Solo/PG enjoy a significant portion of the player-base because it's 'risk free'. [EDIT - But regardless of their reasons for choosing it], moving these players to OpenPvE has no effect on their gameplay.

Then there's the fact that console players without premium platform access can't play in either of the multi-player modes.

This is a separate problem. [EDIT] Those without premium access are only playing PvE, so will default to the PvE BGS. As and when they get 'premium', they can then choose to remain or switch to PvP. This is another argument against dictating a one-time only choice, limited by hours in-game.

We can discuss all we like - I don't expect that it will change Frontier's inclination or timescale.

Discussion is what forums are for.... again what FDev are actually planning is not relevant. This thread is highlighting several problems and trying to find solutions to them, regardless of FDev's current stated intent.

 

[babelfisch]

This is a non-sequitur. Solo/PG enjoy a significant portion of the player-base because it's 'risk free'. Moving these players to OpenPvE has no effect on their gameplay.



This is a separate problem.



Discussion is what forums are for.... again what FDev are actually planning, their diary for the future, is not relevant. Several problems have been highlighted, and this thread is trying to find solutions, regardless of FDev's current stated intent.

True, but there always comes a time when you should realise that some proposed solutions don't work.

 

[deleteduser]

True, but there always comes a time when you should realise that some proposed solutions don't work.

Oh, believe me I do. I've been quite vocal about non-workable solutions in the past, and will continue to be in the future... you can count on it =)

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is a non-sequitur. Solo/PG enjoy a significant portion of the player-base because it's 'risk free'. Moving these players to OpenPvE has no effect on their gameplay.

Where did the data come from to support that assumption?

This is a separate problem.

Indeed it is - no-one on consoles bought a game that requires a premium platform membership.

Discussion is what forums are for.... again what FDev are actually planning is not relevant. This thread is highlighting several problems and trying to find solutions to them, regardless of FDev's current stated intent.

Indeed they are.

There is no unanimously agreed list of problems - some players' "problems" are other players' "features". Similarly with proposed solutions looking for a problem.

 

[Vedmo]

non-workable solutions

Thank you for that.

 

[deleteduser]

Thank you for that.

I'm available for corporate seminars at reasonable rates...

 

[babelfisch]

I'm available for corporate seminars at reasonable rates...

A non-workable solution consultant? Sounds like the ideal job.

 

[deleteduser]

There is no unanimously agreed list of problems - some players' "problems" are other players' "features". Similarly with proposed solutions looking for a problem.

I'm just proposing a solution to many problems listed here and elsewhere, with ganking, griefing, non-consensual PvP, protected BSG manipulation and some others... without breaking anyone else's game, as many other proposals have, such as the one to remove BGS from PvE'ers altogether, or to confine PvP'ers to a small number of systems on the edge of the bubble.

I'm not a magician or the second coming... I can't do everything.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Then why not play in solo to start with if you're going to do that?



Hell no its not! This is an online game where there is a chance for coop or PvP. But if the solution is to simply run every time before you even can ascertain intentions then you might as well play solo.

I said it was improvement - as in a single step forward - obviously not the end of the process!

 

[babelfisch]

I'm just proposing a solution to many problems listed here and elsewhere, with ganking, griefing, non-consensual PvP, protected BSG manipulation and some others... without breaking anyone's games as many other proposals have, such as the one to remove BGS from PvE'ers altogether.

I'm not a magician or the second coming... I can't do everything.

Apart from all the arguments that have been made against it (and I am too lazy too add those who haven't been made yet), there is also the ultimate argument: I can simply change my router settings to avoid other players. Requires 5 minutes and there isn's something that can be done about it.