Modes Can we secede Open Play data from other modes.

[Sylveria]

You know that link in your signature about EVE in cockpits. I think you should probably do us a favor and click your own link.

So in other words, you have no response. Got it.

It seems all you're able to do is conflate issues to form conclusions, rather than sticking to a particular subject and following logic.

Do us all a favor, and stop trolling the forums with nonsense, if you're not willing to discuss posts you make.

Its been explained many times. Im not going to do it again. Its pretty straight forward.

Bait comment is bait. I used to entertain it. But now I cant tell if you're serious or not.

So instead im going to say learn the game or just be disappointed.

Going back and editing your posts doesn't add any more validity, either.

It's not a bait comment- and if you think it is- report it and we'll see if the moderator thinks it is. I simply took your post and responded to each and every "point" you made individually. That's not "bait". You just don't like the fact that someone disagrees with your perspective and responded with logic.

As to your additional "comments" it only proves the fact that you're trolling the forums.

 

[Jenner]

Is there some unwritten rule that whenever this topic is debated people have to start shanking one another?

Discuss the topic, not the poster.

 

[Jockey79]

Is there some unwritten rule that whenever this topic is debated people have to start shanking one another?

Yup.

 

[Sylveria]

Is there some unwritten rule that whenever this topic is debated people have to start shanking one another?

Discuss the topic, not the poster.

I think it's pretty evident where the "shanking" occured. I replied to a post with logical points and because the poster didn't like the response, they decided to attack me personally rather than address my response.

 

[Asp Explorer]

So instead im going to say learn the game or just be disappointed.

<clicks Solo>

What exactly am I supposed to be disappointed about?

 

[Sylveria]

<clicks Solo>

What exactly am I supposed to be disappointed about?

Shhh.... we're not supposed to know about that stealth change that Frontier's going to make "removing the modes to make about 20 people playing the game happy".

I mean, it's quite obvious that all other issues with the game are a correlation of "intent" here, right?

*hold breath... turns into a Smurf*

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah..." Oh wait, that's not right, is it?

 

[Asp Explorer]

I mean - if I <click Open> and I see all these rubberbanding CMDR's unable to maintain respectable latencies - should I be disappointed in that they <clicked Open> or that their Walmart UltraKillRig can't maintain 10 FPS and their Tesco Value Broadband has severe issues rivaling dialup?

I could say those people should get better rigs and connections or have no place in my game.

But Solo and PG offer those buttery smooth experiences with pizza, beers, and peers at 10Gb. It's the junkscrublords ruining Open

 

[Mouse]

Is there some unwritten rule that whenever this topic is debated people have to start shanking one another?

Discuss the topic, not the poster.

Love the new avatar Squeeeee!

 

[Darkfyre99]

But you would still get the shared BGS.

Let me draw a picture using my awesome mspaint skills.

Just starting to get caught up on this thread. I would be 100% in favor of such an arrangement.

I am also 100% certain that such an arrangement would result in only a handful of players playing on the open only server. This is because I'm 90% certain that 90% of the "open only" advocates have zero interest in playing against players who are interested in PvP, as opposed to playing against the insignificant minority of players who have zero interest in PvP, and express that disinterest by playing in Solo or Private Groups.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just starting to get caught up on this thread. I would be 100% in favor of such an arrangement.

Given the fact that one account = one save slot, I'd expect that splitting the game into two divergent BGS would result in the player requiring to make a one time choice as to which they wanted to play in.

the insignificant minority of players who have zero interest in PvP, and express that disinterest by playing in Solo or Private Groups.

How was the size of the player-base subset who eschew PvP determined?

.... given that Sandro indicated that both Solo and Private Groups enjoy "significant portions" of the game population and that one Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP....

 

[Darkfyre99]

So what, Fdev isn't allowed to make changes to better their game because it's was "advertised" a certain way when it was launched? What a laughable argument.
Well, it wasn't "advertised" as having engineers when it was released so maybe you should take them to court for it. ROFL

They’re allowed to make improvements to the game.

What they would be foolish to do, however, is make changes that negatively impact a significant majority of their player base, especially to a feature that does a marvelous job at reducing GIFT-ed behavior while encouraging a significant majority of players to play in Open.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

They’re allowed to make improvements to the game.

What they would be foolish to do, however, is make changes that negatively impact a significant majority of their player base, especially to a feature that does a marvelous job at reducing GIFT-ed behavior while encouraging a significant majority of players to play in Open.

Open only might make sense if the game had mechanics and features that deterred and stopped GIFT-ed players. Only really games designed around PvP at least can handle them to some extent. I'm not really aware of any mixed PvE/PvP games that do a good job of it. (And i mean truly mixed, not like EvE which is a PvP game with PvE mechanics that drive the PvP). Only games with separate servers (WoW, Ark) or modes (ED) seem to give players the option to avoid engaging with such people should they desire.

Our Neverwinter Nights persistent world handled it by making PvP by consent only. From a roleplay perspective if challenged to PvP and you didn't want to partake, you had to move away/back down, which was fine, at long as the challenger was not being abusive in any way (in which case a DM could step in). Unfortunately there is no real way of supporting that in ED. For example, someone flies into a system to undermine them, the protector says i challenge you. They say I decline. They would have to back out of the system for some time to avoid the PvP. That's not going to work in ED because it would require everyone consenting to those rules. We could handle it on our server due to the relatively low player population, we could manage disputes. No way in ED for FD to handle that though.

 

[Old Duck]

Anyone who wants a parallel universe (open-only BGS) should have to travel to Sag A to get there, only taking the ship they are in when they enter the black hole

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Given the fact that one account = one save slot, I'd expect that splitting the game into two divergent BGS would result in the player requiring to make a one time choice as to which they wanted to play in.



How was the size of the player-base subset who eschew PvP determined?

.... given that Sandro indicated that both Solo and Private Groups enjoy "significant portions" of the game population and that one Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP....

Have you ever given this some thought?

Now this may blow your mind so bare with me. You might want to sit down for this.

What if Elite Dangerous was supposed to be a PVP game this whole time?

Its quite simple really, all the balancing they do is based off Open Play.

Stuart GT a guy whos been to their offices and have asked several times about this was told by them seperate servers wont happen.

People were supposed to be properly PVPing this whole time. But they aren't.

So do you guys really think a developer of a video game. Is going to continue to allow parts of their game to be broken and not work?

Or do you think they will eventually take the proper steps to fix it?

Given that they have expressed they wont be doing seperate servers.

What option do you think thats left while the modes stay in tact?

Thats right, eventually, one day. Multiplayer assets will be moved to Open. Solo and Private will be used for personal progression.

Just like I have said for several years now.

I dont know when. But that is the correct move to make their game work fluidly giving PVP meaning.

If you dont want to PVP. Then you obviously dont get those objectives either.

Pretty straight forward guys. I dont know why people cant understand that. Its pretty basic, common sense thinking.
Also, contrary to popular belief, I like using the modes. I've just never liked the unbalanced risk and reward when it comes to working against one another.

Remember we still have the Karma System, Combat Logging and Short FSD cooldown timers changes to look forward to. Sandro has touched on these over the years. Where is he? Probably on the next Xpac.

As I have said elsewhere, I dont think this was ever about peoples feelings, playstyle or preference. It was due to the technical limitations the game started out with.

Fdev had to start somewhere, so they used what tech that was available at that time. As Fdev continues to grow, just like we watched Riot Games and Blizzard grow. I've said this many times in the past.

They can start using some of that newer technology to tie their games together.

I cant tell you how many times I've DC'd, lost ELO because of server disconnects in League of Legends. Look at League now, Still on top after 10+ years. Runs like a well oiled machine, their game changes consistently. This is what Elite needs. Consistent balance changes and meta shifts with ships and BGS and Powerplay. Which they have started doing.

Once ED gets their ducks in a row. HOLY SMOKES this game is going to be on top too.

If I were a betting man and I am. Since I like Friendly competition.

I think Elite Dangerous in the end is going to kick the ever loving SNOT out of Star Citizen.

Anyways, I dont know if people intentionally dont understand this stuff. Or they just dont want to. But the Elite Dangerous I and others see will eventually happen. There are so many parts of this game we haven't seen or experienced yet because it really needs both sides working against each other in the same mode.

A grief free experience where PVP is enjoyable. Losses mean something and winning means even more.

If you guys really think this has all come down to a "playstyle" or people not wanting to get blown up like other video games out there. You've got another thing coming.

And maybe that was the direction Fdev wanted it to go. Instead of saying this is what we want, but we cant deliver that yet because we need to grow as a company. Everything they built in this game speaks to you if you play all of it.

So maybe it was their idea to allow the majority of the community to catch up. Like that Powerplay thread that opened up. Did you guys see all the support for that?

If you go back several years before that. You can see that most of the people were against it. So, really they showed it was on the community's shoulders instead. Maybe prioritized due to community feedback.

Either way. What they have built speaks to you. Regardless of mode selection. This includes the BGS. I dont care what they said at that time. Actions speak louder than words.

Just like every ship is built with spacelegs in mind. With elevators and even stickers behind the seats you cant see or use at the moment. Multicrew trust me is a SHELL of what its eventually going to be.

Think of Fdev Planting seeds for it to grow later.

But it wasnt ever because of me complaining here, or Maj or anyone else is why this will eventually change. It never was.

Pshh, we haven't even touched on space legs, atmospheric landings, Graphic Engine updates. God knows what else. Exciting times ahead.

Buckle Up Buckaroo. We're in for a wild ride!

 

[Robert Maynard]

What if Elite Dangerous was supposed to be a PVP game this whole time?

If it was, then Solo and Private Groups would either not have been included in the Kickstarter pitch or, if they did, then they would not have been able to affect the single shared galaxy state.

It follows then that, as Solo and Private Groups both continue to exist and continue to affect the single shared galaxy state, it can be inferred that Elite Dangerous was designed to be and continues to be a game where PvP is not required in any way....

Either way. What they have built speaks to you. Regardless of mode selection. This includes the BGS. I dont care what they said at that time. Actions speak louder than words.

Actions do - and the restatement of what the BGS is and who it is for speaks quite clearly and concisely - as does the pan-modal implementation of Squadrons.

 

[Sylveria]

If it was, then Solo and Private Groups would either not have been included in the Kickstarter pitch or, if they did, then they would not have been able to affect the single shared galaxy state.

It follows then that, as Solo and Private Groups both continue to exist and continue to affect the single shared galaxy state, it can be inferred that Elite Dangerous was designed to be and continues to be a game where PvP is not required in any way....

^ This. Logic would dictate if the game were always intended to be PvP centric, you simply wouldn't have the freedom to choose another mode at all.

Everyone would be in one single mode.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

If it was, then Solo and Private Groups would either not have been included in the Kickstarter pitch or, if they did, then they would not have been able to affect the single shared galaxy state.

It follows then that, as Solo and Private Groups both continue to exist and continue to affect the single shared galaxy state, it can be inferred that Elite Dangerous was designed to be and continues to be a game where PvP is not required in any way....



Actions do - and the restatement of what the BGS is and who it is for speaks quite clearly and concisely - as does the pan-modal implementation of Squadrons.

okay

 

[Darkfyre99]

Of which has been the central focal point for ending the "Open Only" argument for years... there would still always be three different platforms of "Open".

That said, INB4 "Make Open Cross-Platform And Get Rid of PG/Solo!" arguments incoming. Again.

It's "all be done before", we've seen every argument before in the Hotel. Every. Single. One.

And, not one person has ever been able to suggest something which everyone can agree upon, not even that PvP and PvE are mutually exclusive to one another.
(the latter of which has become spin language in order to obfuscate/conflate the true intent of PvP to begin with) /yawn. "Oh but I like to do both!" Great, that still doesn't explain how they're mutually beneficial to one another, does it?

Moral of this story is there simply isn't a mutually beneficial solution.

If they change it where Open is exclusive, then players will be unhappy from the selling point of the "single shared universe", and if they don't - well... it's the exact same issue. People will continue to debate what actions should or should not affect that single shared universe, and from what modes. It was a flawed concept for sure, but the players aren't to blame for what was marketed and sold to them. Frontier's eyes got bigger than their stomach and they thought they had that "Holy Grail of Gaming" in their grasp... till it turned out to be a mirage.

They underestimated their players- both PvE and PvP alike. Guess who gets to pay the price? We ALL do. No matter what "camp" you belong to here.

Problem is that when it comes to PvP, there aren’t just two camps, and players aren’t binary. By my count, there’s at least fivecamps, only one of which, camp GIFT-ed, has truly paid the “price.”

That's why I find all the salty tribalistic bickering amusing. At the end of the day, we're all just pawns... not one of us is a "King or Queen" here, and in the end it's always going to be Frontier's decision alone. What they need to do is exactly what should have occured from the beginning... two different modes, each completely isolated from each other. PvE Cooperative and PvP Battle Royale.

"You put chocolate in my peanut butter!", "You put peanut butter in my chocolate!" Reese's Peanut Butter Cups commercial adline. Best one ever.

Speaking as fan of Reese’s Pieces, I’m quite happy with the wide selection of candy Frontier’s brilliant tri-mode design brings to the table. Depending upon my mood, I can go with a simple milk chocolate Hershey’s Bar, Reese’s peanut butter cups, Reese’s Pieces, MnMs, Kit Katz, or maybe a Milky Way. When it comes to sweets, I always want some form of chocolate. Peanut butter by itself is unappealing as a desert, but it can be used as an accent to other things, including chocolate.

If a game forces me to choose between peanut butter or chocolate, I’d rather choose chocolate. If I chose peanut butter, I’ll soon get sick of it sticking to the roof of my mouth, and set it aside for something more appealing, with chocolate in it.

 

[Dietger]

Getting along.

Competence, Competitive Your here to stay.

 

[Goose4291]

Just starting to get caught up on this thread. I would be 100% in favor of such an arrangement.

I am also 100% certain that such an arrangement would result in only a handful of players playing on the open only server. This is because I'm 90% certain that 90% of the "open only" advocates have zero interest in playing against players who are interested in PvP, as opposed to playing against the insignificant minority of players who have zero interest in PvP, and express that disinterest by playing in Solo or Private Groups.

I'm not really able to properly respond right now, but I'm just going to say, based on my experience and the people and their associated groups that I've flown both with and against who have this opinion, that is an absolute nonsense number, as well as a stupid argument up their with the 'OMG, Pirates are griefers, because they only attack people with cargo racks, not combat builds' tripe of late 2014.