Modes Can we secede Open Play data from other modes.

[Goose4291]

As much as understanding reality is hard. Yeah, it's ok, I sympathize with you.

Boo-hoo... Boo-hoo.

Seriously, Goose, you're not "less" of a man because you mourn for what "could have been".

I see what youre doing, hoping I'll get all personal insulty so you can spam report me and get me banned, and also this thread shut down, much lime you always do. It so painfully transparnet anyone with an IQ slightly greater than a mentally deranged haddock can see it.

But its okay, keep.responding to posts in a manner in which none of the quoted material you use bares any relevance to your attempt at a barbed insult.

Ahh, so Naval Action was made with PvP in mind, where as Elite: Dangerous wasn't.

Its a little more, complex than that.

A lot of the things I just wrote there regarding Naval Action could be equally comparable to the Open Only Powerplay proposal, as seen by the early period of powerplay where it was predominately done in open (as many of the avid powerplay gurus have said multiple times in these threads.

 

[Jockey79]

Its a little more, complex than that.

A lot of the things I just wrote there regarding Naval Action could be equally comparable to the Open Only Powerplay proposal, as seen by the early period of powerplay where it was predominately done in open (as many of the avid powerplay gurus have said multiple times in these threads.

It's not more complex though is it, PvP in ED is optional. So the game was made so people can play every aspect of it without ever seeing another person.
Half the fun with Naval Action (I'd imagine) is sailing after another ship and engaging them.

Yet the Naval Action forums do have the same complaints we get here.
https://forum.game-labs.net/forum/1-naval-action-gameplay-discussions/

Including people wanting to know how to find a PvP fight.
(Perhaps you need to give lessons )

And of course, "ganking" etc..
It's almost like a copy paste of these forums in places lol

 

[Sylveria]

I see what youre doing, hoping I'll get all personal insulty so you can spam report me and get me banned, and also this thread shut down, much lime you always do. It so painfully transparnet anyone with an IQ slightly greater than a mentally deranged haddock can see it.

But its okay, keep.responding to posts in a manner in which none of the quoted material you use bares any relevance to your attempt at a barbed insult.

Goose! But now I'm unsulted! I really meant what I said, that I seriously empathize with you that you wanted a totally different game and that I'm helping you try to get past the "what could have been..." and move forward toward the "what really is".

Never mind, it's apparent that you're stuck in 4+ years ago and thinking that Frontier is "listening" to the PvP community's hostage demands.

Maybe as much as Munich 72. As in... not at all.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Conflating the BGS with PP in your opening paragraph isn't helping your argument.

The BGS was designed from the start to be influenced by all players, in all modes from any platform.
This has never been debated for change as Frontier have firmly states this is what they want.
Same goes for CGs. They were designed around the mode system for everyone to enjoy, not just gankers.
And if Frontier want a system blockaded, it will be - that was never a choice we were ever going to be given.

PP was debated, the initial response from David Braben was;

Without any proof to the contrary and without any more statements, we have to take this on face value.

Sandro Sammarco since then asked the community some questions about our views on Power Play.
Nothing has happened since then, apart from some clarification that he was only talking about Power Play - as some people got over excited and saying the BGS was going to be mode locked.
So Sandro had to correct them and point out he was only ever talking about Power Play.
Sandro also pointed out that most people (by a significant margin) play open. So why do we need open only content, when so many people are there anyway???

All in all, making content Open Only does not solve the inherent problems with PvP.
All it does is annoy anyone who uses and enjoys the game as it was made, advertised and sold.

hang on,

Arn't we arguing for the same thing?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Well, I've got Mixed feelings on this one. In principle I wholeheartedly agree that PowerPlay has to be open Open Only, this game mode really doesn't work with the other modes being able to circumvent it. Yes you can argue that that's not what Frontier promised (The statement that MB said that all modes act equally on the BSG) but when the game mode is broken because of those game modes, then surely you do something about it. I'm quite sure the rewards that powerplay gives you could be earned in another way for Solo/PVT group players.

By Extension you could argue the same for the BSG that only actions carried out in open affect the outcome. However, I remember that there is a lot of background calculations in the BSG which doesn't take Player actions into account. I.e. the amount of NPC trade which is calculated for every tick. It means player action doesn't have the same impact as it does in powerplay, (even though it is a more popular mode).

The one thing that people don't like me saying is that I also think that CG's should be Open Only as well. In a perfect system, player's should be able to challenge a CG that they don't agree with and be able to blockade a system to try and prevent a CG. But I understand that would exclude console players who haven't paid they Multiplayer Sub (or should that be their Extorsion sub) and exclude them from gaining the same rewards.

And to be honest, until they come up with a solution to stop or punish combat logging, the arguments for or against the modes are all moot anyway.

The new BGS defaults back to none if players aren't working them.

 

[Jockey79]

hang on,

Arn't we arguing for the same thing?

Well you said you had "mixed feelings" and then talked about why everything should be open only.
There was nothing about what you liked with the mode system in your post. So not sure how your feelings are "mixed"

I have very firm feelings that people shouldn't buy a game that is 90% of what they don't want then complain about it.
I'm 100% sure I got the game that was developed, advertised and sold to me. With continuing development adding new features.
I am really happy with the mode system and how the content interacts with it. But I would like some AI adding to CQC to help offset waiting times (or give practice (unpaid) games).

So I'd say no, unless you really messed up your other post.

 

[orfeboy]

I think it's cute that you guys still have hope left after 5 years![wacko]

Still stirring it.

How is life? Where do you boys congregate these days?

 

[DAB42]

If not for the gankers seal clubbing new players and combat logging when they lose, open may be a great place to play.

I would like to see a public PVE option added to the main menu where meaningless gankers are severely punished for their senseless disruption of the gaming enjoyment of others.

If pvp'ers must fight each other then maybe there should be an playpen for them to play in. as from my experience most gankers don't care about the CG's or BGS only the seal targets gathered there.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

If not for the gankers seal clubbing new players and combat logging when they lose, open may be a great place to play.

I would like to see a public PVE option added to the main menu where meaningless gankers are severely punished for their senseless disruption of the gaming enjoyment of others.

If pvp'ers must fight each other then maybe there should be an playpen for them to play in. as from my experience most gankers don't care about the CG's or BGS only the seal targets gathered there.

I care very much about the BGS and my player group. Its why I came to these forums and asked about it.

You see when people remove themselves over territory wars. All thats left are the seals, combat loggers or people not even involved in territory wars.

The wrong people are in solo, and the wrong people are in open.

The whole damn thing is backwards. If people are going to fight over territory against each other. Whether it be the BGS or Powerplay. Those are the guys that should be dying against each other. Not the people just putting around working on their personal progression.

 

[Dietger]

I care very much about the BGS and my player group. Its why I came to these forums and asked about it.

You see when people remove themselves over territory wars. All thats left are the seals, combat loggers or people not even involved in territory wars.

The wrong people are in solo, and the wrong people are in open.

The whole damn thing is backwards. If people are going to fight over territory against each other. Whether it be the BGS or Powerplay. Those are the guys that should be dying against each other. Not the people just putting around working on their personal progression.

Modes provide some strange synergies.
There is much to be said for Open only of some aspects in Elite. While modes are a reality in Elite, not all of their benefits are entirely helpful.
As we easily see.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Modes provide some strange synergies.
There is much to be said for Open only of some aspects in Elite. While modes are a reality in Elite, not all of their benefits are entirely helpful.
As we easily see.

Yep, the right activities just need to happen in them. When that happens all of the griefing and name calling we see today goes down the drain. And eventually the word "Carebear" will die off because there will be no more commanders attacking other peoples systems while they rub it in your face that you cannot defend against them.

Its an obvious change that will eventually be made. I just dont like that people play dumb about it.

 

[DAB42]

If we are in a territory war in open and fighting in a conflict zone and you and your three local timezone friends are on one side and I am on the other side with my three friends in different time zones on the other side you win one battle against me but my three friends win 3 battle against your side. What difference did playing in open make to the war?

playing against other players does not affect a conflict or the BGS, only a players enjoyment. Any group that has players in all time zones win every time, as a battle may be fought in any time zone at any time.

 

[Kyokushin]

I personally believe that the BGS and Power Play, should be disable for Solo and Private Group. But that's more ridiculous selfish talks. So how about we settle for a independent Open Play! Seceding Open Play from Private Group and Solo Play is the most logical path here.

Anyways why do you solo and private group players. Care about what happens in a mode, that y'all have stated so many times. You want nothing to do with.

This should make both camps happy. Solo and Private groups don't affect Open Play's BGS and Power Play. And Open Play don't affect Solo and Private groups BGS and Power Play.

How do you people, of the Elite Dangerous forum community feel about this?

+1 to separate modes.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

If we are in a territory war in open and fighting in a conflict zone and you and your three local timezone friends are on one side and I am on the other side with my three friends in different time zones on the other side you win one battle against me but my three friends win 3 battle against your side. What difference did playing in open make to the war?

playing against other players does not affect a conflict or the BGS, only a players enjoyment. Any group that has players in all time zones win every time, as a battle may be fought in any time zone at any time.

[video=youtube;cnYXTh4TCVo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo[/video]

I think its pretty obvious thats a lie. This guy knows we could stop them.

Kind of hard to refute this with video evidence. If this were a murder trial. They would be sentenced to life in prison.

Its pretty blatant.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think its pretty obvious thats a lie. This guy knows we could stop them.

Kind of hard to refute this with video evidence. If this were a murder trial. They would be sentenced to life in prison.

Its pretty blatant.

Apart from the simple fact that the BGS is, and has always been, for all players - a fact recently restated quite clearly by Frontier.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Apart from the simple fact that the BGS is, and has always been, for all players - a fact recently restated quite clearly by Frontier.

Indeed. And unfortunately the greatest part of their game will suffer just like powerplay did. Especially in places like colonia.

I know thats what they said. But it will eventually have to change to bring meaning to conflict.

Again the only difference between powerplay and the BGS is crime and punishment systems. Its the same game, same types of conflict zones, Simple trading vs in depth trading. Bonds and Merits. All the same animal with different names.

Its really not hard to understand that right?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I know thats what they said. But it will eventually have to change to bring meaning to conflict.

Given their continued commitment to a six year old design decision, I'd not hold my breath....

.... especially as PvP remains an entirely optional play-style, as it has always been.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Given their continued commitment to a six year old design decision, I'd not hold my breath....

.... especially as PvP remains an entirely optional play-style, as it has always been.

Optional in a PVP game, eventually you will be forced to PVP in a PVP game.

If the goals are to fight over territory and win wars against each other. Thats a PVP game. No matter how you try to spin this? Its a PVP game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Optional in a PVP game, eventually you will be forced to PVP in a PVP game.

If the goals are to fight over territory and win wars against each other. Thats a PVP game. No matter how you try to spin this? Its a PVP game.

How can it be a PvP game if PvP is entirely optional and has little or no effect on the game world, other than delaying other players engaging in PvE activities?

It's certainly a game where players can choose to engage in PvP, just as it is a game where players can choose never to engage in combat with another player.

That does not make it a game where PvP is unavoidable - a characteristic that I would suggest is mandatory for a game to be considered a PvP game.

 

[Asp Explorer]

And, pray tell, just how are you going to force PVP?