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

[Rampant]

Unlike the real life example I gave, which fits perfectly, both Pirate & Victim are fictional characters.
The question you asked, asked A to justify their better experience at the expense of B's worse experience. No demotion is necessary, just a worse experience.



Probably not with any success....



I have two weapons on my Pirate ship. Both are usually fixed cannons.
Lesser shielded trade ships aren't the issue. As stated above, Pirates have a whole host of metaPvP opponents to deal with, whilst pirating. Reducing one cannon's dps by an amount that it would only disable an unshielded trader would leave me down approximately 40% of my total DPS. Due to the metaPvP risks being run by pirates, that's impossible.



That is not semantics. I was hoping to show you how absurd the question you asked, was. I am still hopeful that you will see the absurdity at some point.



I'm not willing to adjust my playstyle. "Comply or die", that is the pirate's code, with a few colourful Chat macros thrown in for authenticity... If your idea of fun includes one or other of those options, then I'd really enjoy meeting you in Open.

But as I have said in my previous posts to you and elsewhere in various threads...

Your being in a Closed mode is not 'right', regardless of what either of us considers 'fun'. You should be able to enjoy Open, on your own terms with other players, infact every other player that wishes to play on similar terms. That isn't currently possible with this game. As it stands, in order for you to have your fun, on your terms, someone else has to give up theirs, and vice-versa.

This is broken.

The thing is that "you" - the PvP and pirate brigade have a LOT more control over this than those that prefer PvE play.

You (collectively) could take ownership and do something about this on your own terms.

The fact that *I* (and many others) play in the PG is largely irrelevant in your argument anyway - because we have it on good authority from FDev that Open is the most popular game mode anyway. (PLUS - I'm playing my PS4 CMDR - so that may mean we can *never* meet, regardless of mode.) So in actual fact it would appear that you do *not* require those PG players to be in Open for your play-style to be viable. **YET**.

It all boils down to the following:

One group of players *fundamentally require* other players in order to play their way - but that play-style appears to, at best, either completely ambivalent about whether the other players enjoy their gaming experience with your group, or at worst, care fundamentally that they invoke as unhappy an experience as possible onto the other group in order to feel at all satisfied that they have had fun.

The other group of players, meanwhile, require no other players to enjoy the game to the maximum.

That would be a fair assessment, would it not?


So the basic question I would pose is this:

How do you feel about group one (PvP, pirate,...) being *responsible* for persuading group two (PvE gamers) to turn away from Open? (despite fundamentally requiring them for their desired play-style to be viable.)

How do you think that you could persuade group to flock back to Open?

Do you think it needs to be a one-mode game? What do you think the implications might be if the game was a single mode only? Do you think that the circa 10,000 DW2 PG players would stay in the game at all and pay for the next DLC? What do you think FDev believe about this - and what would your advice to FDev be in terms of a business plan to ensure continued maximum game sales and profits?



So I'm pretty sure I've got this nailed and nothing I've said is absurd. The PvP community *could* do something. I happen to be a player who has been "persuaded" by the PvP community that I have better fun feelies in PG mode. So, have you any ideas on how could the PvP community persuade players like me to start choosing Open at the start screen? Or is it just more "FDev - make this game Open Only"?
Remember it's a GAME. I know you said the fun of the target is of no concern to a pirate. That is exactly the phrase I will throw back when you ask me, as a player, to choose Open mode. You *could* look at it from the perspective of the player instead. It absolutely *is* a PvP player's concern whether the players that they want to interact with choose not to interact with you because you care not about whether this GAME will be fun for them or not.

I used to play football (soccer). Sometimes my team won. Sometimes my team lost. But during every single game I had fun.
I've lost a lot of chess in the past, but each game was fun.
I used to compete at Scottish level in field archery. Didn't win much. Probably 2 trophies in several years.
I competed in sprint motorsports a few years ago. I won my *class* a couple of times.

Basically, if it wasn't fun, I would not have continued to do those and many other activities things. The fact that I did continue with them signals that I had fun feelies.


In context of this thread, to keep on topic, it isn't the rebuy that needs much in the way of rebalancing, even if it is a bit harsh for many players, particularly explorers...

... it's the balance of whether the game is fun or not.
And that means

You provide fun (and that might even mean me losing at combat or failing to escape a piracy attempt). I'll play in Open with you. But let me tell you that being destroyed in a "piracy" attempt is incongruous in this game and that is where it stops being fun any more.

If one group of players make this game *not fun* for another group, how can it come as a surprise if the second group chooses to not play with the first?

Yours Aye

Mark H

[Morbad]

The beauty of chess is that it's based on a simplistic, easy to learn and to understand ruleset that all the amazingly complex gameplay is build upon as a result. EVE is another example of the opposite approach: Obfuscating any 'balance' behind a sheer endless number of modules, a road that ED unfortunately also has entered by now.

I don't disagree with that assessment, but EVE (at least from what I recall) and Elite: Dangerous have fundamentally different goals from chess. They are supposed to immerse the player in their role as a fantasy space pilot.

Chess is too much of a sport to ever be immersive. It teaches strategy and tactics in a wholly abstract way. Comparing it to these space games is like comparing Tetris to Minecraft, or football to practical infantry combat.

A sentence I all too often hear on this forum and which is usually not being dissented: "more options are good". I seem to be the only one who wholeheartedly disagrees

Games are defined by their rules/limitations, so I agree with the premise that unlimited options are not always desirable.

My big issue with the mechanisms ED is using is that there is no cohesion or consistency. We have disparate systems, resembling entirely different games, that mesh together poorly.

In an open world game of this type, once the boundaries are drawn and coherent mechanisms set to enforce them, anything goes. The possibilities of what can occur in the real world are only limited by the laws of nature, and for Elite to not seem like a game from a CMDR's perspective (an important facet of immersion) there cannot be a slew of such arbitrary mechanisms implementing a heavy handed balance. Balance should flow from the basics; stuff that should work should would, and stuff that doesn't work shouldn't work for a reason.

FD, while always shirking around to provide some clear win/lose mechanics, is obviously showing that they don't want to lose paying customers.

I also think this is a problem. They are catering to too broad a market, and doing so in a haphazard way that undermines the core niche of the game.

Right now it's pretty limited - "access" to higher paying combat missions. It should mean more and have more perks. It should also reflect whether the ranking was earned in pve or pvp combat imo. Other games do have skins, titles, and assets restricted to certain ranks.

I was thinking more of in-character terms, but the actual mechanisms influenced by it would certainly be relevant.

Still, I think I'd rather just see combat get more dangerous, and the economy fleshed out so that losses intrinsic to combat weren't as easily dismissed.

[Robert Maynard]

Your being in a Closed mode is not 'right', regardless of what either of us considers 'fun'.

Right or not (which remains a matter of opinion), it's the way that Frontier sold the game to all players.

You should be able to enjoy Open, on your own terms with other players, infact every other player that wishes to play on similar terms.

.... or not, as the case may be - some players rather obviously don't want to play among other players (and don't need to in this game).

That isn't currently possible with this game.

Indeed it isn't - and, given what DBOBE has said, it's very unlikely that Frontier would consider attempting to implement an Open-PvE game mode.

As it stands, in order for you to have your fun, on your terms, someone else has to give up theirs, and vice-versa.

The "someone else" is giving up nothing - as they did not have it in the first place and cannot force others to play with them, by design.

This is broken.

Other opinions naturally vary, in a game where PvP has always been entirely optional.

[Darth-Vader]

Other opinions naturally vary...

/Forum

[Darth-Vader]

The fact that *I* (and many others) play in the PG is largely irrelevant in your argument anyway... you do *not* require those PG players to be in Open for your play-style to be viable.

You're misunderstanding my argument as it relates to PvE'ers. I don't want PvE'ers in Open (as Open is currently understood). I don't want PvE'ers in my game at all. Everyone that is in 'my game' should be facing the same threats that I am, the same risks with the same reward ratio.

1 - How do you feel about group one (PvP, pirate,...) being *responsible* for persuading group two (PvE gamers) to turn away from Open? (despite fundamentally requiring them for their desired play-style to be viable.)
2 - How do you think that you could persuade group to flock back to Open?
3 - Do you think it needs to be a one-mode game?

1 - I couldn't care less, if that's how you want to play the game. More power to you. There are plenty of Open CMDRs who enjoy the pirate experience, and even go out of their way to thank the pirate for the enjoyable diversion. As has been pointed out, Open is the most popular mode so I have plenty of playmates.
2 - I don't want to. I want you to play the game you enjoy playing. It sounds as though you think being pirated would be a bad time so it sounds like you should stay in Solo/PGs.

3 - No. There should be 2 modes. [PvEMode] and [PvPMode], with each occupying their own separate galaxy.

So I'm pretty sure I've got this nailed and nothing I've said is absurd.

Famous last words...

[Rampant]

3 - No. There should be 2 modes. [PvEMode] and [PvPMode], with each occupying their own separate galaxy.



Famous last words...

So you think there should be 2 BGS and 2 diverging storylines as a result...

...but you never responded on what you think FDev should do for maximum game sales and profit in order to expand and run this game.

While I would be ambivalent about your divergent BGS 2 mode architecture, I somehow don't realistically see that happening. Do you?

Please let's talk about this elephant in the room, because it underpins what you suggest for the future of the game.

And realistically, if we are to continue with the current architecture, my thoughts and comments are all still valid. I just think it is a very real possibility that the more and more the pirate group play as if they don't give 2 hoots about anybody else's entertainment, then you could be emptying your own barrel until in the end there are only very few fish left. I just think it worthy of your consideration and protection of your enjoyment. Taking the moral high ground here, because I actually *do* care about your enjoyment even if you don't care about mine. Personally, I reckon the long term future of the game depends on it and I sincerely wish this game to have a very long longevity.

All the best

Mark H

[00nutzy]

3 - No. There should be 2 modes. [PvEMode] and [PvPMode], with each occupying their own separate galaxy.

There are players who would like to have a PvP Open and another PvE Open, it has been discussed quite a bit.

Many PvPers state that would split the game too much, I dont think it would but there is a lot of opposition to the idea.

DB stated that an Open PvE would be too difficult to implement in a past interview.

The diverging BGS would at least double the work of FDev.

So while the idea would satisfy some of the players, there are others that it would not. And lets not forget there are players that are happy with the way it is, the modes while not perfect seem to do most of the heavy lifting, while the fringe extremists wouldnt be happy unless only their play style was supported.

[Commander Danicus]

There are players who would like to have a PvP Open and another PvE Open, it has been discussed quite a bit.

Many PvPers state that would split the game too much, I dont think it would but there is a lot of opposition to the idea.

DB stated that an Open PvE would be too difficult to implement in a past interview.

The diverging BGS would at least double the work of FDev.

So while the idea would satisfy some of the players, there are others that it would not. And lets not forget there are players that are happy with the way it is, the modes while not perfect seem to do most of the heavy lifting, while the fringe extremists wouldnt be happy unless only their play style was supported.

I don't think it is fair to say that player's desiring a pve experience are "fringe", but I could be misinterpreting your statement.

I don't think reacting to the loss of months of exploration data as a heavy handed death consequence is necessarily "fringe".

I don't think players wanting social interaction with minimal penalty in an mmo is "fringe" either.

[00nutzy]

I don't think it is fair to say that player's desiring a pve experience are "fringe", but I could be misinterpreting your statement.

I don't think reacting to the loss of months of exploration data as a heavy handed death consequence is necessarily "fringe".

I don't think players wanting social interaction with minimal penalty in an mmo is "fringe" either.

No I am not saying pve is a fringe nor the pvp but there are fringe elements in both camps. You are misinterpreting what I said.

I will try again. There are certain elements in each camp that are fringe extremists. They feel that only their way to play is right everything else is easy mode or grieferville.

I feel that the majority just enjoy the game.

Loosing months of exploration data is crappy and while there are players (perhaps fringe) that go out of their way to ruin another's game I dont think its the majority of them.

What I am saying while two separate games (one PvP and one PvE) would make some players happy, its economically unlikely.

I am one of those careless bears myself so I would love a co-op open experience with no player to player damage, but dont expect it to happen.

[Powderpanic]

Edit... Calenders are hard

Powderpanic
The Voice of Griefing

[AtariST]

Why not wing up and try to actually fight back? You know, strength in numbers?

Some may. But some may not be able to do that. (I don't know anyone who plays ED).

Also, in order to succed in this type of gameplay, you sort of have to change the way you are playing. I can either trade/explorer/discover or I can posse up and roam the verse hoping to stumble upon a ganker. That's assuming I can tell that's what they are doing when they see a bunch of ships flying close. It means giving up playing a game the way I want, because someone has taken that away from me.

In the end it is a game and I want to have fun. I'm not sure these types of players make it more fun.