Modes Can we secede Open Play data from other modes.

[Jockey79]

Right now Rare and Meaningful are killing the people that dont want to die.

Right now Rare and Meaningful is killing someone to get a reaction out of them.

It could be Rare and Meaningful gameplay within the game. That everyone would have to be a part of if they wish to continue those activities against each other.

Otherwise, right now Rare and Meaningful is nothing more than a drama show.

Good luck with distant worlds

If only there was a Frontier approved, PvP Only mode where PvP had objectives/ goals and those pesky PvE players couldn't interfere with it.
Somewhere that game PvP "meaning" and all things were balanced and fair.

*cough* CQC *cough*

 

[Dietger]

If only there was a Frontier approved, PvP Only mode where PvP had objectives/ goals and those pesky PvE players couldn't interfere with it.
Somewhere that game PvP "meaning" and all things were balanced and fair.

*cough* CQC *cough*

Where and when is PvP fair?

While there are PVP approved modes, yes - Modes approved - to be PVP inclusive, "those pesky PvE players" are not offensive to anyone PVP.


CQC Go there Jockey.

Enjoy!

 

[Dietger]

While Modes have their benefits, be fair.
Lets don't get unnecessary stupid, shall we?

 

[Jockey79]

CQC Go there Jockey.

Enjoy!

If I didn't have to wait so long for a game, I'd play a lot more of it.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Temporarily impairing a CMDR's effectiveness does not take pieces off the field. It may slow them down - but unless there's going to be a 24/7/3 Platform patrol, many would be missed.



Short term goals - the BGS starts again each day and does not stop counting. There are no permanent "wins" or "losses".



I'm removing nothing - Frontier did not choose to implement the game in a manner where those became PvP win/lose conditions - because the BGS is for all players, as they recently reminded us.



To remove something, it had to be there in the first place.



I'm quite happy to get shot at if the game decides I need to be - as we agreed previously, Frontier are in control of the parameters regarding game difficulty....



Of course losing matters - but the form of the contest is up to each player.

.... and whether the game is being "held back", or not, is a matter of opinion. I accept the three mode / shared galaxy state design - and have done since the very beginning. It's Frontier's design - and they have not only stuck to it for over six years but have recently clearly restated it.



If play-style doesn't matter, why are some players intent on forcing their optional play-style on others who don't share their preference?

Because it was never about the playstyle with you.

Its about losing.

God bless harry potter lol.

You know what you're doing removing yourself from everyone else.

Again its not about playstyle.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit here lately. People were even calling you out on it in the UA bombing thread too.

Its about losing. Its about winning conditions. Its about risk and reward vs the people you're facing.

Not a playstyle. If its a PVE playstyle you'd like thats fine. But that means you dont get player based objectives either.

What Fdev has built compared to what they say are two totally different things. I think we both know it

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because it was never about the playstyle with you.

Its about losing.

It's all about the play-style - and the fact that in the same instance PvP has always been entirely optional. I don't enjoy it and choose not to inflict it on others - the consequence of which is that they don't get to inflict it on me, well, apart from the odd meaningless Beta encounter.

You know what you're doing removing yourself from everyone else.

Again its not about playstyle.

Yup - playing the game as Frontier designed it - in my preferred play-style.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit here lately. People were even calling you out on it in the UA bombing thread too.

People disagreed with the idea that UA bombing removal was a "good thing".

Its about losing. Its about winning conditions.

.... and every player can engage in it, from any game mode, by design.

Its about risk and reward vs the people you're facing.

There is no requirement to "face" people, in this game where PvP remains entirely optional - I would have thought that the shared BGS and three modes made that clear.

Not a playstyle. If its a PVE playstyle you'd like thats fine. But that means you dont get player based objectives either.

Frontier decided long ago who gets what in relation to this game - and recently restated it. It's not for players who prefer an optional play-style to decide who gets to affect what in the game.

What Fdev has built compared to what they say are two totally different things. I think we both know it

Given that Frontier have been quite clear, in my opinion - we'll see what, if anything, changes - in time, of course.

 

[Jockey79]

What Fdev has built compared to what they say are two totally different things. I think we both know it

Really, as I have a whole thread dedicated to them saying the want and support the mode system, mode mobility and player choice of whom to interact with.
They even recently updated their website to say "If you choose to play in open play"

I'd say Frontier have made it very clear what they want, is nothing like what you keep pretending they want.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

It's all about the play-style - and the fact that in the same instance PvP has always been entirely optional. I don't enjoy it and choose not to inflict it on others - the consequence of which is that they don't get to inflict it on me, well, apart from the odd meaningless Beta encounter.



Yup - playing the game as Frontier designed it - in my preferred play-style.



People disagreed with the idea that UA bombing removal was a "good thing".



.... and every player can engage in it, from any game mode, by design.



There is no requirement to "face" people, in this game where PvP remains entirely optional - I would have thought that the shared BGS and three modes made that clear.



Frontier decided long ago who gets what in relation to this game - and recently restated it. It's not for players who prefer an optional play-style to decide who gets to affect what in the game.



Given that Frontier have been quite clear, in my opinion - we'll see what, if anything, changes - in time, of course.

The question is, after all this time.

Is who, is really messing with who?

 

[Robert Maynard]

The question is, after all this time.

Is who, is really messing with who?

Interesting question - given that few, if any, players seem to have exactly what they want from the game.

It could be argued that we are all being "messed with" by particular design decisions in the game - and Frontier are obviously in control of the design decisions.

At the end of the day we can only play the game on offer - as Frontier make the decisions which define the rules.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Interesting question - given that few, if any, players seem to have exactly what they want from the game.

It could be argued that we are all being "messed with" by particular design decisions in the game - and Frontier are obviously in control of the design decisions.

At the end of the day we can only play the game on offer - as Frontier make the decisions which define the rules.

I read this in Alexa's voice. Is that weird?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I read this in Alexa's voice. Is that weird?

Truly.

 

[hunvagy]

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.

Funnily enough back in the days of development, I also thought that we would get separate character slots to do just this. Guess that wasn't the case. And yeah, let me know when Ironman arrives

 

[Jockey79]

And yeah, let me know when Ironman arrives

We're having a chat about it in General, jump on over - you never know, Frontier may answer....

Hey look, a flying pig!!

 

[Sylveria]

Truly.

Indeed. It's almost as if there's a more serious problem with the perspective and interpretation of your statements.

No worries, I'm sure someone who has a fixation with you would relate you to an AI because that's the way they interpret "reality".

Anyway, moving on... Back to the original topic, even as futile as it may be to discuss.

 

[Jockey79]

... even as futile as it may be to discuss.

I do love how despite Frontiers stance since 2012 up until the website update at the end of 2018, they have never deviated from mode mobility or PvPvE yet we see;

Open Only
Open PvE
PvP / PvE Servers
Mode Locked Content
Mode Locked Bonuses

And the ever so fun, they touched me in my power play so ban them.

Sure some of this would be cool. I can see why an Open Only version of the game would be fun for some folks, just as an Open PvE version of the game would be fun for me.
None of us are going to get it though, the game was built around mode mobility on a single shared galaxy. That's what Frontier what so that's what Frontier are providing.
All this kicking and screaming (from both sides - I'm just as guilty as anyone else) isn't going to achieve anything, besides keeping the Mods busy and possibly entertained slightly

I mean we don't even see a willing orange name around here anymore.
Last time I seen an orange name here, the thread was in General and it was moved here - so the orange name was held hostage with the thread move.

But hey, it keeps us of the streets and out of trouble if we keep posting here; so I want a PvE Server

 

[phong]

Nope. Simply because, as a Moderator, there is a proscription against Moderating threads participated in as a forum user.

Hats off to you sir.So... can i haz yure stuff?

 

[Goose4291]

You pointed out your Ironman mode hasn't turned up - which it still could, but as very few people seem to mention it FD must have assumed it's not a popular feature.
Get some folks to show an interest in it and remind Frontier it was part of the DDA and it should turn up.

Except it won't. I've known this for some time. There's a quote somewhere from Michael Brookes that confirmed this.

1 page out of the DDA, out of how many?
On a topic that doesn't interest me.

Nothing stopping you colelcting information on keeping a record to remind Frontier of their obligations.
In fact I've suggested it to others several times in Hotel California, build your own WoI.

Exactly why I'm surprised you're saying you dont remember this, as you pride yourself regularly on being a collator of 'all things mode' from the mouths of FDev employees, and you and I have had many a discussion where Iron Mans been brought up, and I've linked you to said quote.

 

[Goose4291]

Funnily enough back in the days of development, I also thought that we would get separate character slots to do just this. Guess that wasn't the case. And yeah, let me know when Ironman arrives

I believe that was the original plan. You'd have one 'normal save' as we have now, plus a iron man only one for each account.

 

[Jockey79]

Except it won't. I've known this for some time. There's a quote somewhere from Michael Brookes that confirmed this.

That's a shame, as there is genuine interest in my thread over in general about it.
Perhaps if enough people keep bugging them, they'll revisit the DDA and pop some stuff back on the to-do list.

Exactly why I'm surprised you're saying you dont remember this, as you pride yourself regularly on being a collator of 'all things mode' from the mouths of FDev employees, and you and I have had many a discussion where Iron Mans been brought up, and I've linked you to said quote.

I know I've talked about Ironman before and supported the topic, as I think player options and player choices are a great thing.

As for the links, as a fair few of the mods can attest to, I've lost my WoI due to thread locks etc a few times (didn't have a back up).
So Mods have been nice enough to grab what they can, but some things didn't survive the rewrites I've had to do with it.
And my first proper back up which did have Ironman info was on my PC desktop when my PC died.

I've also been known to do my edits on a Friday or Saturday night... after a beer to two, so some stuff has been lost that way.
So I honestly couldn't tell you where that information went from an earlier version.

I now keep an updated version on Google Drive, as well as having my own thread for it.
And I still have my own "to-do" list for edits / updates to it, including adding the last bit of info you game me.
Though I need a new topic heading for that spoiler tag. Not sure if I want "Ignored Ideas" or "Forgotten Ideas"

 

[Sylveria]

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.