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

[Robert Maynard]

Good luck in your next unwanted PvP encounter.

It won't be entirely unwanted - as I have a choice as to which game mode I play in on a session by session basis - and I choose the mode which best suits my desired gameplay experience.

People like yourself are the ones serving the divisive nature of this game. Not I.

I'd have expected that the likes of DG2 and PvE Private Group infiltration go much, much further to create division in the community.

You need to go experience some more of the gaming communitys avalible mate. Very large amounts of them see PvP and PvE working together to move all thier ends. But then, theres always players who refuse to see that I guess.

There's no *need* to play games that one does not wish to play. Just as there's no *need* to engaqe in the optional play-style that is PvP in this game.

Do the games mentioned make it clear in their advertising that they only have a single PvP enabled game mode that every player must play in? If so then I expect they attract players looking a specific type of gameplay, i.e. players who are prepared to tolerate PvP (as it is not optional in the game).

This game is not those games and no player is required to play in a mode where they may be engaged in PvP.

 

[babelfisch]

Opinons may vary indeed.

I can't be bothered to argue semantics with you.

I've said my piece. I've no time for those who bleat the same tired nonsense time and time again.

Good luck in your next unwanted PvP encounter.

That's quite ironic considering you just suggested to remove Solo and PG.

 

[Morbad]

Are you sure?

I'm quite confident of this, yes.

Either way, that is still something that is running constantly, actively divvying up the playerbase and using up server resources to do so.

It's certainly dividing the player base, and was intended to, but it's not using any appreciable server resources to do so. A simple if-then statement that looks at clients who might be instanced with each other is about as complex as the modes get. If anything, looking at this filter first would reduce server load as a portion of players are excluded before the more complex matchmaking mechanisms even need to be looked at.

Very large amounts of them see PvP and PvE working together to move all thier ends.

Yes.

 

[deleteduser]

In which case, twice the staff would be required to curate the storyline for each separate galaxy, or it would take the same staff twice as long to generate the storyline for each galaxy. GalNet would be split into 2 and require at least *some* differing stories as the storyline progressed.

GalNet is essentially an executive summary of the state of the BGS with some storylines thrown in... There would, by necessity, be two versions.
And ultimately two story lines that are at least a little dissimilar, in context and implication if nothing else.

In some specific detail -I imagine that you would want PP to be in one galaxy and not the other, and for expansions/contractions of super-powers, and their aligned minor factions and government types to take place in one galaxy. Do you think that this should drive the other galaxy? Or should the other/second BGS be allowed to evolve due to the actions of the players within that galaxy BGS?

There is no reason why BGS/PP should be removed from either galaxy.

The whole idea of 2 x BGS is fundamentally flawed. Unless, of course, you impose the PvP galaxy state onto the PvE galaxy state such that those players cannot interact with it?

You haven't said why this is flawed or why the BGS imposition would be required...

In the case of any CMDR popping from one BGS to the other...

Do you allow cargo cross-over?
Is the penalty fixed?
What is the time limit for swapping BGS?

With the penalties/time limits already suggested, and that you allude to, CMDRs wont be 'popping' across from galaxy to galaxy as they currently switch from mode to mode.

In terms of what penalties/time-limits would be adequate/sufficient without being punitive... I've suggested that PowerPlay status might be reset, bu tyou highlight some areas of concern after this point... perhaps a time-limit alone is adequate.
Whatever the penalty/limits, I currently see no reason for them to be assymetric at the moment. Happy to have my mind changed though.

It would definitely increase their running costs. There would be twice the data storage requirement and twice the maintenance of that data costs involved... Same number of players = same instancing requirements. The matchmaking server cost can't be reduced by any amount. Instances are still hosted peer-to-peer.... Either way, the server infrastructure would need to be expanded.

Then my initial estimate of 'Negligible, if any', was correct.
There would be an increase in the amount of 'Current-BGS-State' data. The BGS is a spreadsheet, and spreadsheets aren't massive. The amount of player specific data, and data sent to/from each player to the BGS & back would remain the same, while the amount of back-end work on instancing would remain the same, and the back-end work on mode switching would be significantly reduced.

Perhaps "modestly". Perhaps not. The cost implication is a net extra spend.

I can agree with "modest", as being in the ball-park.

Yes it does. I use all 3 modes. I expect that I am not alone.
The implication of locking in to one BGS or the softer lock of penalties and time-limits does indeed change every single player's game play. They either remain locked in one mode, or pay a penalty to be agile, and certainly cannot be as agile as we all are right this moment.
It would affect every single player who chose to play in a mode-agile fashion. Or preferred to have mode agility, even if they then chose not to use it due to the differences they'd find on swapping BGS.

I'll point to the primary objective of this proposal in limiting protected BGS manipulation. This is a desired result of the proposal. Pointing out that it has the desired effect, is basically a thumbs up.

 

[signal11th]

Yep, thats elite dangerous

The entire game should have been open only from the start.

I'm the opposite, I always said it should have been closed but with private servers for people wanting the interaction with other players. I've never been interested in open and haven;t been in open for over 3 years I think apart from when I was board flipping.

 

[deleteduser]

.... or is it four discrete BGS? One for each platform's Open only mode and one tri-modal BGS for PvE.

2.

Then why does the proposal contain any elements that relate to a three game mode PvE BGS that does not affect the proposed Open only BGS?

I'm not sure I understand the question here... the proposal proposes a single [PvEMode] and a single [PvPMode], each with their own unique implementation of BGS. I've allowed for the fact that PvE'ers might demand their Solo/PG modes, an inclusion wont affect the [PvPMode] so is of little concern to that mode. If PvE also wnats Solo/PG switching, have it. I'm not proposing [Solo/PG] for [PvPMode], and not accepting challenges to that, as one of the primary objectives is to prevent protected BGS manipulation.

Why should PC players who wish to play in Solo or Private Groups be affected by the proposal?

I'll reiterate that 'protected BGS manipulation' is one of the points of this proposal.

This game is sold to all players on the basis that they can all choose how many, or few, players they play among (non-premium platform console players excepted as they have only one option).

And I'll reiterate that making such a distinction in the context of the proposed changes, will be pointless (non-premium console players will continue to have the single option they currently have, albeit, with a different name), but as I've said, if [PvEMode] wants to hold on to the SOlo/PG Modes as well, so be it...

 

[Robert Maynard]

2.

Then complaints about protected BGS manipulation would continue - as players on all three platforms would affect the Open only PvP BGS.

I'm not sure I understand the question here... the proposal proposes a single [PvEMode] and a single [PvPMode], each with their own unique implementation of BGS.

The question is why should a proposal to give PvP its own BGS that is Open only include changes to the existing tri-modal BGS? What benefit is gained from making players play in a multi-player PvE game mode where their actions cannot be stopped by other players?

I'll reiterate that 'protected BGS manipulation' is one of the points of this proposal.

Which is understandable from a PvP perspective for the proposed new Open only PvP BGS but not from the perspective of the existing BGS shared by the three game modes.

And I'll reiterate that making such a distinction as/when such changes as have been proposed, will be pointless.

Which is why the changes as proposed have little likelihood of being implemented, in my opinion.

 

[deleteduser]

Then complaints about protected BGS manipulation would continue - as players on all three platforms would affect the Open only PvP BGS.

Crossplay is a crossplay issue. I can't fix that. Perhaps if we all made a post about the issue FDev would put some resources into it...

The question is why should a proposal to give PvP its own BGS that is Open only include changes to the existing tri-modal BGS? What benefit is gained from making players play in a multi-player PvE game mode where their actions cannot be stopped by other players?

It needn't. I've edited my answer above, I've previously acceded to the point. If [PvEMode] wants Solo/PG, it can have them. It would be pointless in terms of gameplay, but it's not a negative effect on anyone else... have at it.

Which is why the changes as proposed have little likelihood of being implemented, in my opinion.

Which is why? What are you referring to? Hopefully the answers above are suitable to this point, I don't honestly know exactly what you're saying.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Crossplay is a crossplay issue. I can't fix that.

Indeed.

It needn't. I've edited my answer above, I've previously acceded to the point. If [PvEMode] wants Solo/PG, it can have them.

Very gracious - given that they already exist.

Which is why? What are you referring to?

Specifically the existence of Solo and the accessibility of the game from consoles without premium platform access. However, given the acknowledgement that there's no need to remove Solo or Private Groups from the PvE game, the likely remaining hurdles would be cost and divergent galaxy evolution (and which one would be Frontier's canon) - plus the fact that Frontier have previously stated that the BGS won't be split.

 

[deleteduser]

...plus the fact that Frontier have previously stated...

*sigh*

We were doing so well! Topic = Problem/Solution. Topic =/= FDev said...

 

[Robert Maynard]

*sigh*

We were doing so well!

One can choose to ignore what the Developer says - that's a personal choice.

Whether it is wise, given that they are the only entity in a position to make changes to the game, is a matter of opinion.

 

[deleteduser]

One can choose to ignore what the Developer says - that's a personal choice.

Whether it is wise, given that they are the only entity in a position to make changes to the game, is a matter of opinion.

Non-sequitur after non-sequitur... where's a mod when you need one?

 

[space voyager]

If everybody was running in circles outdoors instead of in here we'd all be pro athletes by now. I don't think we've read anything basically new for the last 130 pages.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Non-sequitur after non-sequitur... where's a mod when you need one?

Feel free to report any post that is perceived to break the forum rules - I'm sure that there's a Mod around who would deal with it - as most of them have sensibly avoided participating in the thread (and only Mods that are not participating in a thread can Moderate said thread).

 

[Rubbernuke]

Open mode is a Conan the Barbarian simulator...Thulsa Doom put it best:

My child, you have come to me, my son. For who now is your father if it is not me? I am the well spring, from which you flow. When I am gone, you will have never been. What would your world be, without me? My son.

 

[Ziljan]

The bottom line is that the main objection to Open Only anything stems from a notion that it somehow steels something from Solo/PG, even if it's something as abandoned and cobwebby as Power Play.

But the truth is that Solo and PG have been stealing legitimacy and functionality and the ability to oppose other players directly from EVERY aspect of the game since the beginning. All we asking for is one single unloved mechanic for our own to finally be a legitimate PVP opportunity.

If you think this is robbing from your game somehow, then I call that by it's true name: gluttony and hoarding.

We all share the game. And that means no can or should own all of the toys.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

You can't claim your oponents want all the toys and then demand toys being locked to your prefered mode.

Nor are those who argue against removing tri-mode content somehow thieves and gluttons.

 

[Ziljan]

Trimode content is default Solo/PG content when it comes to evading PVP in player competition. So you guys get to play the way you want 100% of the time, and we get to play we want less than 1% of the time.

Hence you currently own all of the mechanics in Elite.

We just want ONE mechanic. That's not unreasonable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The bottom line is that the main objection to Open Only anything stems from a notion that it somehow steels something from Solo/PG, even if it's something as abandoned and cobwebby as Power Play.

But the truth is that Solo and PG have been stealing legitimacy and functionality and the ability to oppose other players directly from EVERY aspect of the game since the beginning. All we asking for is one single unloved mechanic for our own to finally be a legitimate PVP opportunity.

If you think this is robbing from your game somehow, then I call that by it's true name: gluttony and hoarding.

We all share the game. And that means no can or should own all of the toys.

We all share the game. And that means that we share all of the toys. What is being requested is for one toy to be restricted to players who prefer a particular playstyle - when all players bought the game with that toy available in all game modes, i.e. Powerplay forms part of the base game.

None of us bought a game with the ability to oppose all other players directly - that much has been clear from the outset - with all three game modes affecting a single shared galaxy state and now all three platforms (with no crossplay).

That some players can't accept that they cannot oppose all players playing the game is as old as the published design. We all bought the whole game, not just parts of it depending on our play-style, as no content is restricted to one game mode (even if some content is unavailable in Solo, i.e. Wings, Multi-Crew).

It remains to be seen how Frontier will deal with the Powerplay situation. The fact that restricting Powerplay to Open only would remove it completely from console players without premium platform access may have given them some pause - however they are also in a position to determine exactly how many players would be either directly or indirectly affected.

 

[Riverside]

Trimode content is default Solo/PG content when it comes to evading PVP in player competition. So you guys get to play the way you want 100% of the time, and we get to play we want less than 1% of the time.

Hence you currently own all of the mechanics in Elite.

We just want ONE.

Just find a bunch of like-minded players & get on with it as most do. If the playstyle requirement is that everyone is available disappointment is inevitable.