Modes Can we secede Open Play data from other modes.

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

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.

I think we are both aware Developers of any game are capable of making these changes Given they have the proper tools and updated servers like every other game company does.

No game stays the same. Infrastructure, development and ideas change constantly.

You know that right? Multiplayer games die off without changes like this.

We have a lot of people about to go exploring. Then the numbers will drop down a bit.

Good news is they are currently in the process of making these changes. So its pretty awesome to watch.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think we are both aware Developers of any game are capable of making these changes Given they have the proper tools and updated servers like every other game company does.

No game stays the same. Infrastructure, development and ideas change constantly.

You know that right? Multiplayer games die off without changes like this.

Of course the Developers of a game can choose to make such changes - I'd suggest, with the recent reiteration regarding the BGS, that the BGS becoming an Open Only feature is extremely unlikely.

Whether any infrastructure changes affect the likelihood of Frontier performing an about turn on the optional nature of PvP remains to be seen.

Not all multi-player games require PvP....

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Of course the Developers of a game can choose to make such changes - I'd suggest, with the recent reiteration regarding the BGS, that the BGS becoming an Open Only feature is extremely unlikely.

Whether any infrastructure changes affect the likelihood of Frontier performing an about turn on the optional nature of PvP remains to be seen.

Not all multi-player games require PvP....

The do if they are intentionally fighting over territory people sign up to represent name and work for.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The do if they are intentionally fighting over territory people sign up to represent name and work for.

There's no membership control over who can ally with a Faction - never has been.

Multiple Squadrons can affiliate with a Faction though - and they cannot be the "only" one to affiliate - as there is no control over Squadron / Faction affiliation, other than the one-time choice by the Squadron Leader.

There has never been a requirement for any player to play in multi-player to affect the BGS - by design - as it is a core part of the desired game experience offered by Frontier (plus the fact that not all players have access to multi-player). Frontier's recent restatement simply reinforces this basic fact.

 

[Zieman]

The do if they are intentionally fighting over territory people sign up to represent name and work for.

Sorry, that's all make-believe in Elite.
I think EVE vas built on that principle though.

 

[Havvk]

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.

The only thing you proved is how easy it is for one player can tip the scales against a whole Player minor faction effortlessly when it comes to BGS and maybe PP.

With that said, why can't you use that same tactic in an organize mass 'attack' against your 'enemies "hiding" in solo/PGs'? but with your entire group?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

There's no membership control over who can ally with a Faction - never has been.

Multiple Squadrons can affiliate with a Faction though - and they cannot be the "only" one to affiliate - as there is no control over Squadron / Faction affiliation, other than the one-time choice by the Squadron Leader.

There has never been a requirement for any player to play in multi-player to affect the BGS - by design - as it is a core part of the desired game experience offered by Frontier (plus the fact that not all players have access to multi-player). Frontier's recent restatement simply reinforces this basic fact.

Yep. This is true and its a garbage design to allow someone to sign up and they tell them they own a faction. And then turn around and take it away, then allow anyone they want to sign up for something they named, picked a system and work for.

To be honest its a slap in the face to all player groups and trust me I am not the only one Peeved about it.

Whats the point in offering something like that, then take it away?

Its counter intuitive and will eventually drive each one of those groups away from working on their own stuff the moment they get attacked by another group.

Worst design ever with 0 forethought or accountability to the other player groups working against each other.

I hope to god its a placeholder like multicrew is.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yep. This is true and its a garbage design to allow someone to sign up and they tell them they own a faction. And then turn around and take it away, then allow anyone they want to sign up for something they named, picked a system and work for.

To be honest its a slap in the face to all player groups and trust me I am not the only one Peeved about it.

Whats the point in offering something like that, then take it away?

Its counter intuitive and will eventually drive each one of those groups away from working on their own stuff the moment they get attacked by another group.

Worst design ever with 0 forethought or accountability to the other player groups working against each other.

Control of Factions was never offered - so it was not taken away. Neither was territorial control through entities over which players have control.

Player Groups were offered the chance to name a Faction, create it's back story and choose where it would call "home" - nothing more. After insertion, a player supported Faction is no different from an NPC Faction.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Control of Factions was never offered - so it was not taken away. Neither was territorial control through entities over which players have control.

Player Groups were offered the chance to name a Faction, create it's back story and choose where it would call "home" - nothing more. After insertion, a player supported Faction is no different from an NPC Faction.

Which means they wont care about it. Just like many of us dont right now.

Hard to call a place home if you dont own it. Or cant represent it if others are able to just move right into a place you picked and named.

Hell Maynard, im going to move into your house. Its technically just part of the environment. Im taking the big room too. Pack your stuff.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which means they wont care about it. Just like many of us dont right now.

Hard to call a place home if you dont own it. Or cant represent it.

Hell Maynard, im going to move into your house. Its technically just part of the environment. Im taking the big room too. Pack your stuff.

Not all players require to be able to exert direct control to enjoy engaging in an activity....

My house exists in a Private Group - to which only those and such as those are invited. Sorry and all that.

 

[Havvk]

Which means they wont care about it. Just like many of us dont right now.

Hard to call a place home if you dont own it. Or cant represent it if others are able to just move right into a place you picked and named.

Hell Maynard, im going to move into your house. Its technically just part of the environment. Im taking the big room too. Pack your stuff.

As an Independent pilot of the Pilot's Federation, you own nothing but your wallet and your ship; which is your only home. Every other place is just a place you visit, some pilots have 'extended visits' (AKA 'home system' such as Sol or the only system under the control of the Pilot's Federation)

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

A couple of points, if I might. First, before we even think about "Open-only" gameplay, Frontier needs to give us cross-platform play. Otherwise Aunt (very nice graphic, BTW) is going to need to make a chart showing THREE circles for the Open-only subculture - one for PC, another for XBox, and a third for PS4. Because let's face it, as soon as I fix my bandwidth issues and switch back to Open mode, I'm going to wreck havoc on the OP's BGS from OPEN, and he'll not be able to do a thing about it unless he buys a PS4

Second, I would really like extra information added to the current game that subtly identifies the mode and platform players are on. I don't have a chart, but I do have an example. When I currently look at the "most-wanted list" at a station, I see names of CMDRS and their ships who who need to be brought to justice. However, it is a waste of my time chasing them because I have no idea if they are in Open and on my platform. If would be nice if this list somehow highlighted (green text, perhaps) those CMDRs that I actually could "interact with" in Open on my platform if I chose to do so. Same goes for discovery tags, Codex, etc. Either that or give us cross-platform play.

Any way you slice the loaf, there is no true Open mode right now. Even in Open, we're playing in one of three private groups - PC, PS4, or XBox.

After letting slip that your bandwidth can't support open play on another post you have a lot of getting gud to do before you can compete tick for tick my friend.

Aside from engineering, the main issue people have with PvP is the skill ceiling being incredibly hard to reach without serious time sank. But people do it, despite it being longwinded and expensive. Just bear in mind that without a volume of players to help you, you won't make a dent in another groups BGS without the skill levels gained from fighting other players. It really is that much of an edge. VS stupid NPC's after being against players is an absolute cakewalk. You won't be killing more, or handing in more missions that people who BGS in open unless your group is very large.

 

[Jockey79]

Which means they wont care about it. Just like many of us dont right now.

Hard to call a place home if you dont own it. Or cant represent it if others are able to just move right into a place you picked and named.

Hell Maynard, im going to move into your house. Its technically just part of the environment. Im taking the big room too. Pack your stuff.

Not all players require to be able to exert direct control to enjoy engaging in an activity....

My house exists in a Private Group - to which only those and such as those are invited. Sorry and all that.

Following this conversation and path of "logic".

All PMFs should only exist in PGs of the person who submits it, so then people may "care" about the faction and they cannot be attacked from anyone outside of the PG that "owns" it.

Sounds like a cool idea actually. I'd like a faction of Jockeys in my PG.
My mate all being little Jockeys, riding the BGS for our own amusement.

 

[Mouse]

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.

There is a playpen for them it is called CQC, but the ones clamoring most for Open Only and such don't use it nor like it because they want soft targets no equal engagements. It is more dominating others than actually having a fair fight. Which is sad because it harms those PVPers who DO want to actually PVP and fight against other PVPers.

 

[Goose4291]

At the risk of repeating something level headed Ive said a few times, regarding the old days of BGs faction dramas (which have gone the way of the dinosaur for the most part as the game as aged and the early, confrontational empire building groups have for the most part left), locking conflict zones in such a way they force you into an open instance once you drop into them would be a reasonable happy medium.

On the one hand, everyone still gets to play the BGS.
On the other, when youve got to the stage you're deliberately kicking over a factions sandcastle (as the wars outcome determines controlled assets/system control status) so its only fair you should potentially habe the risk of meeting those whose work you've been undoing across a battlefield, where your (or their) deaths can make an impact on the end result.

 

[Jockey79]

At the risk of repeating something level headed Ive said a few times, regarding the old days of BGs faction dramas (which have gone the way of the dinosaur for the most part as the game as aged and the early, confrontational empire building groups have for the most part left), locking conflict zones in such a way they force you into an open instance once you drop into them would be a reasonable happy medium.

On the one hand, everyone still gets to play the BGS.
On the other, when youve got to the stage you're deliberately kicking over a factions sandcastle (as the wars outcome determines controlled assets/system control status) so its only fair you should potentially habe the risk of meeting those whose work you've been undoing across a battlefield, where your (or their) deaths can make an impact on the end result.

While I'm not opposed to the idea, I've seen systems that will have 10+ CZs active at a time.
And at yet again asking the technical questions, how are the defenders going to defend?
With limited space in instances, and multiple CZs for people to bounce around. You're not going to be able to cover everything.
And if you're spending time bouncing from CZ to CZ to find those attacking you, you're losing valuable time you could be picking up bonds to hand in to counter their actions.

Not to mention console users without premium subscriptions being locked out of content.
Plus, back to the in game tools of blocking people and controlling your friends list properly.

As well as the ever so popular, more underhanded ways such as throttling your internet connection, installing a strict firewall, learning the weakness of P2P (takes about 10 minutes) and NAT.
Heck, I just need the missus to carry on watching Friday Night Dinner on Netflix and my scanner empties. Not very helpful for PvP, as I'd be accused of combat logging.
Oh yeah, even more people combat logging.

Why encourage unsportsman behaviour, resentment and cheating with locked content?
When the game lets everyone play and be a part of the galaxy no matter the mode.

You can get all your high octane PvP action and space pew pew over at https://robertsspaceindustries.com/ or for 3rd person www.eveonline.com

Let Elite: Dangerous be what it is supposed to be, a pick up and put down game for everyone to enjoy.

 

[Old Duck]

After letting slip that your bandwidth can't support open play on another post you have a lot of getting gud to do before you can compete tick for tick my friend.

I also let slip that I'm shelving ED, except for some casual exploration now and again. I'll be getting gud at swinging a sword blindfolded instead.

Spoiler

If I'm going to play a game with unrealistic, fantasy combat, I might as well do so wearing high heels

 

[Robert Maynard]

At the risk of repeating something level headed Ive said a few times, regarding the old days of BGs faction dramas (which have gone the way of the dinosaur for the most part as the game as aged and the early, confrontational empire building groups have for the most part left), locking conflict zones in such a way they force you into an open instance once you drop into them would be a reasonable happy medium.

Forced PvP, in a game that has never required it, to continue to engage in activities that have been recently restated as being for all players, on all platforms and in all modes, does not sound like a "happy medium" - it sounds like wish fulfillment for players who can't force an optional play-style on others.

On the one hand, everyone still gets to play the BGS.
On the other, when youve got to the stage you're deliberately kicking over a factions sandcastle (as the wars outcome determines controlled assets/system control status) so its only fair you should potentially habe the risk of meeting those whose work you've been undoing across a battlefield, where your (or their) deaths can make an impact on the end result.

In this context "only fair" is an interesting term - as it is rather subjective. Arguably, the BGS is "fair" at the moment - as every player has the ability to engage with the BGS using the same tools - both in attack and defence - however it does not seem to specifically reward PvP actions (probably due to the fact that some players will collude, where possible).

Additionally, every player bought (or backed) a game with no requirement to engage in PvP and where their actions affect the single shared galaxy state - it would not be "fair" to remove their choice of game mode to satisfy the play-style preference of those who prefer an entirely optional play-style.

PvP, like multi-player itself, has always has been an optional part of the game. The BGS is not optional - it's been touted from the outset as something for all players to both experience and affect. Unsurprisingly, players who prefer to engage in that optional play-style might seek to remove choice from players who don't share their preference. Frontier have been aware that some players are dissatisfied with the fact that Factions are affected by players in all game modes for a long time - that has not changed their stance, as shown in the Background Simulation & Scenarios stream (and subsequent summary thread) where they reminded us who the BGS is for, i.e. all of us. Frontier would also seem to be "well aware" that PvP is a minority play-style (even if the majority of players do play in Open).

We'll see, in time, whether Powerplay is changed to encourage PvP, as, from what Sandro has indicated several times, Powerplay is the only candidate for change with regard to either Open Only or an Open play bonus.

 

[Mouse]

I also let slip that I'm shelving ED, except for some casual exploration now and again. I'll be getting gud at swinging a sword blindfolded instead.



If I'm going to play a game with unrealistic, fantasy combat, I might as well do so wearing high heels

FFX14 samurai?

 

[DD_Crash]

Maybe if a Military option where you could use Empire or Federation ships in a player or very high level AI instance and take on the opposition in PvP that might work but as pointed out some people will bend the rules.