Modes Can we secede Open Play data from other modes.

[Jockey79]

Personally I've often wondered why the Ironman mode was never implemented as well. It seems like there would definitely be enough "interest" for those who seek more challenge in their own games.

I'd definitely support it as an optional choice. IMO it really would be a good way to implement "difficulty slider mechanics" in online games, considering once you've chosen, you're locked into the choice.

Scale "reward" according to the challenge being requested by the player- it's no different from cherry-picking missions or quests in any game. While one could argue which "activities" deserve more or less, having damage mechanics where someone is putting up their entire "pilot experience" as an ante is really difficult to argue against, because it's not simply relegated to a single activity. That would definitely deserve a "base bonus", IMO.

Hell, I might even be tempted to partake in such with a new save.

I did start a thread over at https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/470796-Frontier-what-ever-happened-to

Been some interesting replies so far from people.

 

[Mouse]

Indeed, you do prefer we all do not have a choice. And it's great that we all do.

Some want to "shoot stuff", some want to "shoot other players", some want "explore the galaxy", and some want to play "truck driver".

Yet, only one of those options has the ability not only to interfere with others experience, but it's entirely non-consensual. What happens if I don't want to "engage you in combat"? I simply don't get a choice because that's your wish? What about my wish?

That's why the modes exist. Not everyone wanted to play Space Paintball.

Bares repeating..


and 1000 units of Cubeo Razorback Bacon!

 

[Cmdr Beteran]

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.


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

I despise Powerplay, never had anything to do with it, never will.
But, if BGS is not taken into consideration for my Solo or Private sessions, i could stick to couple of systems i'm comfortable in and never leave my shell as the states of the stations would be constantly the same.
That would be quite boring.
Change is good.

 

[Dietger]

Bares repeating..

There 's more to PVP than deleting players.




For once, on one hand all have the same rights.
On the other, no one is protected, deserve an advantage outside his or hers own abilities, no special circumvention granting immunity, impunity, all sacrifices are made at liberty.

All succombe to this equality. No lies. No help outside of PVP itself and no excuses. PVP conflict happens up front.

All goals present themselves freely - only presence matters.*

This is PVP.








ps
You have to be there to PVP
And thats why instancing is not an issue, in Open





*modes kill PVP

 

[Asp Explorer]

*modes kill PVP

I thought CQC did?

 

[Dietger]

I thought CQC did?

Go ask some PVP folks if it did.



[big grin]

 

[Nova McCool]

Funnily enough, myself and a lot of open types who've now left these forums were heavily in favour of this as well, going further by suggesting your open 'account' was seperate to your solo/pg one so earnings and assets accrued of anyone you encountered were done at the same level of 'risk', and people couldnt 'stealth move' their ships about (e.g. a pirate switching to solo to go get repairs etc when the bounty hunters came knocking).

The problem with it though in terms of forum QQ was always which set of servers got to determine the outcome for lore etc. In the events of CGs/BGS conflicts.

As to 'we all bought the game we wanted after extensive research' conundrum, Im still waiting on my Offline (more so at the moment now I'm away from home) and Iron Man modes, both of which were advertised features when I chipped in.

I'm also waiting on Iron Man mode and escape pods

As for the question of what mode would effect the Lore I gotta laugh. The Lore is effected by the CG and the CG is written by the Devs, both versions of the game would have the same lore as a CG never fails, unless it's a competing CG and they never effect the lore any more than a system influence.

Too bad Frontier doesn't have a thousand man crew with writers dedicated to possible alternate timelines depending on what the players do and who wins confrontations...... If only space simulates were as popular as sports and prime time television.

 

[Robert Maynard]

*modes kill PVP

If it came down to a choice between forced PvP or "dead" PvP, I'd expect that a significant proportion of the player-base would not seek to save it.

.... given that some players have been quite enthusiastic in sharing their preference for PvP since well before launch - and have caused hardened attitudes towards it in doing so. Plus the instruction to "git gud or go Solo / Mobius" when players have expressed their dissatisfaction after being destroyed by another player.

 

[Jockey79]

There 's more to PVP than deleting players.

In a PvP game, I agree. But Elite: Dangerous isn't a proper PvP game.

This is where 90s is right (yes, I said that );

The way PvP works in Elite: Dangerous currently mixed with the attitude of people in Open Mode.
All it leaves is arranged fights and "griefing" / "ganking".

You could be the nicest, friendliest, kindest pirate / PvP'er ever.
The moment you interrupt someone else playing the game - they assume you're an a-hole who will kill them and combat log or speak to you like dirt.
Almost all random PvP encounters go horribly wrong because the person being pulled over doesn't want to be pulled over or assumes you're a nasty "bad guy".
Due to the game having no way to tell the nice "bad guys" apart from the nasty "bad guys"

I'm going to suggest something now that will get me some forum hate...

This is where one game did get something right and it's a system we could do with here.

EVE-Online had the pilot rating, so if you see a pilot with a security rating of -10. You knew they will shoot you first and not bother asking questions later.
That kind of system here *could* help. Because if someone pulling me over, still had a decent pilot rating. I'd stick around to ask why they pulled me over.

 

[Asp Explorer]

EVE-Online had the pilot rating, so if you see a pilot with a security rating of -10. You knew they will shoot you first and not bother asking questions later.
That kind of system here *could* help. Because if someone pulling me over, still had a decent pilot rating. I'd stick around to ask why they pulled me over.

Indeed - an easily visible "Nasty Factor" attached to CMDR's for their deeds would be a great thing. Colour coded against a scale so you'll have a fair idea of their mischievousness as metriced against other CMDR's and connection quality

Make it persistent and permanent too, it'll survive a wiped save, and if you want to erase a bright neon pink "Ah's a gunna XPLODEU lulzor" mark off your record, you'll have to buy a new account

 

[Nova McCool]

EVE-Online had the pilot rating, so if you see a pilot with a security rating of -10. You knew they will shoot you first and not bother asking questions later.
That kind of system here *could* help. Because if someone pulling me over, still had a decent pilot rating. I'd stick around to ask why they pulled me over.

I like it but who would be deturmining the rating? Would it be like notoriety and dissipate or like a good or bad scale and if so what actions could result in a positive increase?

 

[Toumal]

And *another* thread. Seriously?

 

[Dietger]

If it came down to a choice between forced PvP or "dead" PvP, I'd expect that a significant proportion of the player-base would not seek to save it.

.... given that some players have been quite enthusiastic in sharing their preference for PvP since well before launch - and have caused hardened attitudes towards it in doing so. Plus the instruction to "git gud or go Solo / Mobius" when players have expressed their dissatisfaction after being destroyed by another player.

I see that Maynard.
Part of "equality" inside of PVP, is the right to avoid it entirely. And subject to PVP is everyone in Open.

However, leaving it plank and "open", underdeveloped is another matter. That's up to Frontier to do the homework and incorporate game mechanics in Open to be fit for liberty. PP, CG, Bounty huning, system security, Conflict Zones, Aliens.

Maybe, I consider it from time to time, maybe all is fine? PVP deserve its status quo inside of Open? Are PVE oriented players to soft? To selfish?
Are PVP'ers unsocial? Unbearable?

Having said this however I do know what PVP is certainly all about, its presences. To be here right now and there.

Getting a PVP potential Open in a frame, denying its core neglecting sense and accomplishment - outside of it (MODES) is self defeating.

Regards

 

[Sylveria]

I like it but who would be deturmining the rating? Would it be like notoriety and dissipate or like a good or bad scale and if so what actions could result in a positive increase?

I'd like to see the latter, personally.

I made a previous suggestion when the notoriety system was being discussed that the Pilot's Federation Record reflect one's deeds for everyone to see. Apparently they chose to go with a system that doesn't permanently reflect on a Pilot, and gradually decreases over time. I think it seriously diminishes the social aspects of the game, and relegates it into more arcadey style gaming, but mine isn't the only opinion, either.

Players have constantly wanted a "leaderboard" type of system, and this would be a good segway into providing such a system- collecting the background data via the actions of a pilot.

 

[Jockey79]

I like it but who would be deturmining the rating? Would it be like notoriety and dissipate or like a good or bad scale and if so what actions could result in a positive increase?

In EVE it was based on your actions and didn't fade over time.

When I gave my old EVE account away, I had a max positive rating. 6 months later, the friend I gave my account to had max (-10) on that account.
I was gutted, as it would take at least 12 months hard work (at the time) to get my rating back. (So if you ever play EVE and see Jockey79 in EVE, it isn't me, and he will kill you).

I'm not sure how it could work for Elite, as we do have consensual PvP, Open PvP, RP PvP and unwanted PvP (report crimes)
But a way to tell "gankers" / "griefers" / "murder hobo's" apart from actual pirates / criminals would be a welcome change.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

In a PvP game, I agree. But Elite: Dangerous isn't a proper PvP game.

This is where 90s is right (yes, I said that );

The way PvP works in Elite: Dangerous currently mixed with the attitude of people in Open Mode.
All it leaves is arranged fights and "griefing" / "ganking".

You could be the nicest, friendliest, kindest pirate / PvP'er ever.
The moment you interrupt someone else playing the game - they assume you're an a-hole who will kill them and combat log or speak to you like dirt.
Almost all random PvP encounters go horribly wrong because the person being pulled over doesn't want to be pulled over or assumes you're a nasty "bad guy".
Due to the game having no way to tell the nice "bad guys" apart from the nasty "bad guys"

I'm going to suggest something now that will get me some forum hate...

This is where one game did get something right and it's a system we could do with here.

EVE-Online had the pilot rating, so if you see a pilot with a security rating of -10. You knew they will shoot you first and not bother asking questions later.
That kind of system here *could* help. Because if someone pulling me over, still had a decent pilot rating. I'd stick around to ask why they pulled me over.

Nailed it.

This is what Notoriety is for and the huge rebuys and discounted rebuys for repeat offenders. Their version of what EVE has is already in the game in the form of those rebuys and Scaling ATR.

 

[Jockey79]

Nailed it.

This is what Notoriety is for and the huge rebuys and discounted rebuys for repeat offenders. Their version of what EVE has is already in the game in the form of those rebuys and Scaling ATR.

The problem is, those who are not part of the PvP community have no idea about this system.

Heck, I've been around how much longer than you?
And I've had to add information from you to the WoI, because Frontier have failed to update folks properly.
The entire C&P section of the WoI came from forum users / PvP players for the same reason.
Players know more about the game than those making it!!!

Something so important, and it's not documented by Frontier for the average player to understand anywhere.
And people wonder why we get tons of "salty" posts on the forums.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The problem is, those who are not part of the PvP community have no idea about this system.

Heck, I've been around how much longer than you?
And I've had to add information from you to the WoI, because Frontier have failed to update folks properly.
The entire C&P section of the WoI came from forum users / PvP players for the same reason.
Players know more about the game than those making it!!!

Something so important, and it's not documented by Frontier for the average player to understand anywhere.
And people wonder why we get tons of "salty" posts on the forums.

I agree. They arent really transparent in explaining how they want their game to be played. They leave it up to us.

However, this was spoke about quite a bit. But everyone is mad because "Crime and Punishment doesnt really punish the ganker" "ATR doesnt do its job!".

Well they weren't made for what people thought they were made for.

They were made for Open Interactions within the BGS. It still works in solo and private. But 90% of it was reworked for player interaction.

They did a hell of a job if and when all the players are in the right place. Everyone will see it work like its supposed to.

 

[Sylveria]

I agree. They arent really transparent in explaining how they want their game to be played. They leave it up to us.

However, this was spoke about quite a bit. But everyone is mad because "Crime and Punishment doesnt really punish the ganker" "ATR doesnt do its job!".

Well they weren't made for what people thought they were made for.

They were made for Open Interactions within the BGS. It still works in solo and private. But 90% of it was reworked for player interaction.

They did a hell of a job if and when all the players are in the right place. Everyone will see it work like its supposed to.

I see a lot of conflation in this reply. You're taking multiple separate issues and trying to reach a singular conclusion with them. Not going to work, sorry.

C&P is broken, and we all know it. It's not that it doesn't "punish the ganker" it's that they laughably applied the reasoning that a player's actions should punish an inanimate object- the ship. There's no residual consequences for the player themselves, just punishment of their ship. It's not only completely illogical, it's downright insulting to intelligence.

It's like saying if a person commits a murder, we charge the gun for a crime and let the person pay a small fine and walk away.

Yeah, that's a bit of utter and complete nonsense, sorry. People do indeed have a right to challenge it. It's as ridiculous as gun control advocates saying reducing availability to guns will lower gun crime. Um, criminals don't usually use their own registered guns now, do they? Do you seriously think they care about the laws to begin with? Why do you think they're criminals?

And before we begin the "Oh, but if you can question that mechanic, then I can question another!" there's a huge difference in questioning a core mechanic of how the game was advertised, marketed and released- to a mechanic that was introduced years later that caters to a minority of players and makes absolutely no sense. Might as well rename it to "Giving Criminals a Free Pass" instead of Crime and Punishment.

As to ATR "not doing it's job"... what do you think the purpose of ATR serves to begin with? Please, do tell. If they're not there to "respond" what were they created for?

They were "made for Open Interactions within the BGS"? Even by your own admission, if it works in all modes, it wasn't "made for Open" period. If it was, it simply wouldn't work in Solo/PG now would it? C&P nor ATR were specifically designed for Open at all. 1+1+1 = 3, not 1.

As to your last statement... whatever. Hasn't happened since release, won't happen in the future, no matter how many times you wish it be true.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I see a lot of conflation in this reply. You're taking multiple separate issues and trying to reach a singular conclusion with them. Not going to work, sorry.

C&P is broken, and we all know it. It's not that it doesn't "punish the ganker" it's that they laughably applied the reasoning that a player's actions should punish an inanimate object- the ship. There's no residual consequences for the player themselves, just punishment of their ship. It's not only completely illogical, it's downright insulting to intelligence.

It's like saying if a person commits a murder, we charge the gun for a crime and let the person pay a small fine and walk away.

Yeah, that's a bit of utter and complete nonsense, sorry. People do indeed have a right to challenge it. It's as ridiculous as gun control advocates saying reducing availability to guns will lower gun crime. Um, criminals don't usually use their own registered guns now, do they? Do you seriously think they care about the laws to begin with? Why do you think they're criminals?

And before we begin the "Oh, but if you can question that mechanic, then I can question another!" there's a huge difference in questioning a core mechanic of how the game was advertised, marketed and released- to a mechanic that was introduced years later that caters to a minority of players and makes absolutely no sense. Might as well rename it to "Giving Criminals a Free Pass" instead of Crime and Punishment.

As to ATR "not doing it's job"... what do you think the purpose of ATR serves to begin with? Please, do tell. If they're not there to "respond" what were they created for?

They were "made for Open Interactions within the BGS"? Even by your own admission, if it works in all modes, it wasn't "made for Open" period. If it was, it simply wouldn't work in Solo/PG now would it? C&P nor ATR were specifically designed for Open at all. 1+1+1 = 3, not 1.

As to your last statement... whatever. Hasn't happened since release, won't happen in the future, no matter how many times you wish it be true.

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.

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.