Modes Help me understand pls

[Mouse]

it was more an ironic paraphrasing than an educational analogy, but still ...



both are 'companies'



both strive to maximize audience and profits



mcdonalds could sell high quality or original burgers or whatnot. they opt for standarized cheap products that appeal to masses, supported by a heavy marketing campaign, specially aimed at young and infant audience with little gastronomic or nutritional judgement. why else would they give away toys with burgers? anyway, i guess the point is the desire of maximizing the audience over any other parameter.

btw, everything is poison depending on the dose
i'd wholeheartedly recommend you don't abuse industrial fast food, but be my guest ...



while the mode oddity is indeed flexible and makes many 'ways' possible, it is anything but optimal for any of them in particular. the virtual world could be an example of cognitive dissonance precisely because of modes, multiplayer is so-so, pvp is directly disfunctional and solo works fine but could be so much better in many aspects if frontier could have invested in it the time, resources an energy that went instead into the complexity of a multiplayer system that in the end is way below average. same can be said of the effort of compatibility for consoles (and the drop in quality, i know this is a controversial topic but that's just my take on it, no need to go into that right now, you just asked) and although that is a different topic than modes it boils down to the same: more audience instead of a better game.

I disagree because if Elite wanted to "maximise profits" there are other ways it could have gone. Instead they laid out what they wanted to do and why and have done a good job of sticking to what was laid out. And the Mode system is unique I think, but not an oddity. You claim it makes it not optimal for any of the modes, and again I disagree. In all three modes people play and enjoy the game and again, "play it the way they want to", that is rather optimal, optimal balance. What you seem to want is Optimal play style, whereas the game is optimized for one playstyle. It was never that type of game. And you seem to think they sacrificed a "better' game for more audience. Again I disagree because their business model was never a rake in as much cash as we can from the most amount of people. Instead they offered a game that was customizable to how you played and gave people options instead of shoehorning into one way or another.

 

[00nutzy]

FDev made the game they wanted to make. There was a decision even before offline mode was brought up to have a game where there was no one correct way to play it. Could the game be better, thats true about everything really. Its even true that the mode system could be better although its pretty spiffy right now.

The mode system does not detract from the core of the game, it simply allows a more diverse group of players.

I know RL has little to do with games, however even in real life numbers often determine the winners of conflicts, and not every conflict is with guns.

In a universe as large as the one modeled in Elite, even if every player were on the same power we would be outnumbered exponentially.

The game is good and the modes are brilliant and everyone has their own opinions and wants from the game. Nobody is more important than anyone else

 

[znôrt]

why so defensive, i'm not attacking frontier. i know, the mcdonalds thing didn't help then forget it.

simply put, elite is a great (vr) experience but as a multiplayer game or virtual world it just doesn't work. this is bloody obvious. where's the stuff going on? where are the hubs full of players thriving? where are the war fronts? there's a reason powerplay is crumbling down (even frontier sort of admits it) and that pvp is merely a gankfest bar the occasional duel or tournament. they could aswell have spared themselves the effort but then ... solo games do not sell so well these days. i can totally understand it, i'm not painting them like greedy bast*rds, it's just how it is.

and it's not the size. if there is some game to share, players naturally come together regardless. imo it's the disjointed reality created by modes. there's also little gameplay provoking content, but even if there were ...

 

[Braandlin]

why so defensive, i'm not attacking frontier. i know, the mcdonalds thing didn't help then forget it.

simply put, elite is a great (vr) experience but as a multiplayer game or virtual world it just doesn't work. this is bloody obvious. where's the stuff going on? where are the hubs full of players thriving? where are the war fronts? there's a reason powerplay is crumbling down (even frontier sort of admits it) and that pvp is merely a gankfest bar the occasional duel or tournament. they could aswell have spared themselves the effort but then ... solo games do not sell so well these days. i can totally understand it, i'm not painting them like greedy bast*rds, it's just how it is.

and it's not the size. if there is some game to share, players naturally come together regardless. imo it's the disjointed reality created by modes. there's also little gameplay provoking content, but even if there were ...

I find plenty of hubs of players, true not hundreds, but i'm a member of a few teams that work on PP and BGS plus go exploring or buckyball racing together. We're all in PG as it turns out. Mostly because we dislike the 'shoot anything that moves' style of play and the ganking that has become prevalent when in popular zones in Open. And the reason that open PvP moves in that direction is its the behaviour of the lowest common denominator and they have almost nothing to lose. No consequences.

Now I'll agree that the idea of war fronts is a little sketchy, but its usually pretty straightforwards to put a minor faction into a war with another one and create your own combat zones in system. You need a little finesse and team work with the BGS. Biggest issue I see with that is that most (many?) players see the BGS simply as the way the mission boards are populated and they are only interested in what the missions can give them in credits rank and mats.

Minor faction wars are transient though. If you were looking for something bigger, then remember the Superpowers and even the powerplay factions spend most of their time trying NOT to end up in all out war but to manipulate themselves into positions of greater power.

Help me understand what you mean by 'game to share'. I've never understood what people mean when they say there is no gameplay. I find it completely the obvious. I want to set my own goals, find my own interests, compete with others on challenges we set our selves. I don't see a lack of things to do at all.

and before you go on about blaming modes again, I remind you there are 3 platforms, PC, Xbox and PS4 and those dont have interaction but they all influence the same background sim.

 

[WingNuts]

Well this went south pretty fast. Appreciate those that kept it on track and thanks for the info. Others well ......................

 

[znôrt]

I find plenty of hubs of players, true not hundreds, but i'm a member of a few teams that work on PP and BGS plus go exploring or buckyball racing together. We're all in PG as it turns out. Mostly because we dislike the 'shoot anything that moves' style of play and the ganking that has become prevalent when in popular zones in Open. And the reason that open PvP moves in that direction is its the behaviour of the lowest common denominator and they have almost nothing to lose. No consequences.

Now I'll agree that the idea of war fronts is a little sketchy, but its usually pretty straightforwards to put a minor faction into a war with another one and create your own combat zones in system. You need a little finesse and team work with the BGS. Biggest issue I see with that is that most (many?) players see the BGS simply as the way the mission boards are populated and they are only interested in what the missions can give them in credits rank and mats.

Minor faction wars are transient though. If you were looking for something bigger, then remember the Superpowers and even the powerplay factions spend most of their time trying NOT to end up in all out war but to manipulate themselves into positions of greater power.

that's all true. it is not, however, made possible by modes. these merely allow you to do all that 'your own way' which means basically 'undisturbed by others'. while this might sound like a good thing, in the big picture this means that there is no real life in the virtual world, with all the logical interaction, exchange and friction.

Help me understand what you mean by 'game to share'.

exactly the above. the simple fact that players can live in their own bubble and avoid others means that there is little incentive or even reason to share or to compete. take powerplay as an example, and why sandro would suggest (too late, sadly) to make it open only. because it's the only way in which such 'content' really makes sense in a virtual world (as opposed to a spreadsheet game, where you don't need fancy visuals nor vr at all): there are competing powers and you can take sides, the natural consequence is some routes being pushed and protected, others being blocked, armies raised, fronts created and stormed, diversions created and lots of smuggling around. except it doesn't happen. why would you bother to smuggle whatever your power needs if you can simply haul it around unmolested? it's kind of self defeating.

I've never understood what people mean when they say there is no gameplay. I find it completely the obvious. I want to set my own goals, find my own interests, compete with others on challenges we set our selves. I don't see a lack of things to do at all.

yeah, that's cool in a sandbox. and here's where size really matters. you don't need modes for your own very personal goals that don't have global significance, because the galaxy is big enough to hide so no one will ever find you if you don't want to.

and before you go on about blaming modes again, I remind you there are 3 platforms, PC, Xbox and PS4 and those dont have interaction but they all influence the same background sim.

it's the same basic problem, imo that's also a terrible idea. it is slightly different though, without modes at least each platform would have a shared living galaxy. modes are even more fragmenting and disrutpive, by design. this makes the bgs be just a fancy backdrop.

 

[znôrt]

Well this went south pretty fast. Appreciate those that kept it on track and thanks for the info. Others well ......................

sorry, this is a public forum, not your personal support line. have a good day.

 

[Mouse]

sorry, this is a public forum, not your personal support line. have a good day.

Oh I'm sorry, I hadn't realized someone asking for help understanding something didn't have the right to be disappointed because their request was pushed to the side for other things. Nice way to show your backside with this comment.

 

[Braandlin]

I didn't mean to suggest that differing modes made the BGS possible.

that's all true. it is not, however, made possible by modes. these merely allow you to do all that 'your own way' which means basically 'undisturbed by others'. while this might sound like a good thing, in the big picture this means that there is no real life in the virtual world, with all the logical interaction, exchange and friction.

I'm interested in your view of "logical interaction". I would love to play in the game where there was 'logical interaction'. However I do not find the "i shoot you because I can, and there is no consequence or risk to me" behaviour to be remotely logical or fun. Its shallow powerplay.

It seems we are both looking for a similar thing. Some immersion, logical consistency and interaction. You believe modes and platforms breaks it, I believe that lack of consequence that doesn't regulate player behaviour does it.

You would resolve this by removing modes, and I and a lot of pg and solo gamers would quit, it wouldn't be fun for us.

I would resolve it by removing many of the artificial safety nets that limit consequences and a lot of player behaviour would self moderate within the community based on the perception of risk/reward. However a lot of PvP gamers that believe a game is only fun if they are on a path of ever increasing power acquisition and who's game goals are heavily associated with just combat would quit. It wouldn't be fun for them.

One issue tackled by opposing approaches. Neither is ideal.

The difference is that there is a continued and growing voice to limit the aspects of game play in solo and PG. But a contrasting approach to properly deal with the problematic aspects of game play in open isn't discussed, or at best is seen as carebearism (TM). Recent C&P system changes made zero difference.

Many of the people I know would have no problem getting caught in PvP combat now and again, especially if they are out in dangerous places and taking a risk. But getting ganked by a lone ship in Cubeo one of the most populous and secure systems in the galaxy gets old and ridiculous quickly. Being unable to contribute to a peaceful community goal without having to go tooled up like a prize fighter on steroids because the petulant 'shoot everything that moves its only a game and I have a billion credits i can afford my rebuy' brigade sit in the supposedly high security system and hit everything that flies in.

I got PvPed at SagA* and lost months of exploration data by a player who admitted he was only doing it for sh*ts and giggles and wouldn't bother to fly back, he'd just suicide. That fails every 'logical interaction' ideal going.

Personally I dont know anyone who flies in PG or solo for the purposes of gaining some kind of advantage, though i accept some advantages may be conferred. I am not saying that they dont exist - i'm certain some players fly solo as a tactic in PvP conflicts. But we do it to avoid having to deal with illogical, often childish behaviour that is supported by the game mechanics there.

I've never understood what people mean when they say there is no gameplay. I find it completely the obvious. I want to set my own goals, find my own interests, compete with others on challenges we set our selves. I don't see a lack of things to do at all.

yeah, that's cool in a sandbox. and here's where size really matters. you don't need modes for your own very personal goals that don't have global significance, because the galaxy is big enough to hide so no one will ever find you if you don't want to

This is where we will disagree. I never said I want to be in a sandbox not attached to anything else that goes on in the galaxy. Or that my own goals dont have global significance. I want to be able to continue to play with PP or the BGS, I'd even be happy playing it in open if there was a remotely serious attempt to actually encourage or allow people to play that wasn't utterly destroyed by the behaviour of some sections of the open community.

Again, this is the compromise between playing a game that needs some kind of balance to ensure that new/old and weak/powerful gamers can somewhat coexist and find enjoyment versus the more realistic simulation that challenges players with genuine and significant risk and consequential loss.

In summary, you want to force everybody into open to interact by closing solo and PG.

sorry, this is a public forum, not your personal support line. have a good day.

Well I was trying to have a reasonable debate. But with this you just demonstrated exactly the kind of petulant entitled patronising attitude that people play in solo to avoid.

 

[WingNuts]

Hey Znort up you__'s

 

[Braandlin]

Hey WingNuts

sorry your question got entangled in a rather long and ongoing thorny issue.
As you can probably tell its a complex arrangement Fdev have created. It has pro's and con's.

Don't let the passionate nature of the debate put you off

o7

 

[Chaparral]

Just played my daily ten minutes for 10 million at robigo. Felt just like fast food.

If there was something that felt modestly player-oriented in this game instead of BGS related, I'd probably play more.

 

[znôrt]

It seems we are both looking for a similar thing. Some immersion, logical consistency and interaction. You believe modes and platforms breaks it, I believe that lack of consequence that doesn't regulate player behaviour does it.

i'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. i critizise the 'modes' design in a generic way, for being just incompatible with a working virtual world, and thus a lazy approach for 'flexibility'. i'm not going into the solo/open debate or the eternal ganking affair to which you always seem to return to. those are different issues, addressable on a different level. we could be all in open and have those problems solved in many different ways like many other virtual worlds do: player policing, consequences like you say, security levels, real bounties or letting the playerbase autoregulate, i'm confident lots of cmdrs would step in who currently see no point, etc. it has all already been done. and it's not just about pvp or ganking (which modes ostensibly do not solve), the modes create a host of other problems, like the one prompting this very thread, and everything that affects the virtual world or the bgs or powerplay factions getting miffed by invisible enemies.

imagine for a moment that each mode had its own state, bgs and such. that would make sense. except it would give birth to zillions of parallel universes, which otoh would be kind of silly to call a multiplayer game, and i can't even start to imagine how ad-hoc created private groups would work. how just slamming all those universes onto the same bgs is a better approach i really can't understand.

You would resolve this by removing modes, and I and a lot of pg and solo gamers would quit, it wouldn't be fun for us.

i'm just saying infinite modes operating on the same world makes no sense. i would have one mode, or as many worlds as modes. then, i would try to address any issue within that framework.

I got PvPed at SagA* and lost months of exploration data by a player who admitted he was only doing it for sh*ts and giggles and wouldn't bother to fly back, he'd just suicide. That fails every 'logical interaction' ideal going.

that sucks. well, maybe if that jerk had a war to fight he wouldn't be there in the first place. or maybe if after that he could be chased to hell and back by a full squadron of very angry explorers for weeks he would think and act differently. or this could be against the rules and dealt with by support (both punishment and restitution of your data). and maybe, just maybe, this "you need to carry all these tons of data back home" thing isn't such a smart exploring mechanic after all? but the solution is just to fragment the world? honestly, still don't see the brilliance in this. this is throwing out the baby with the water.

In summary, you want to force everybody into open to interact by closing solo and PG.

in the same way something is forcing you and me into this world we live in

again, i am just commenting game design. you are making assumptions again.

Well I was trying to have a reasonable debate. But with this you just demonstrated exactly the kind of petulant entitled patronising attitude that people play in solo to avoid.

i see nothing wrong with what i demonstrated. op publicly belittled some participants in a public discussion. presumably he thinks any content in this thread is subject to his approval just because he started it. that's petulant entitlement in my book.

 

[Jockey79]

i see nothing wrong with what i demonstrated. op publicly belittled some participants in a public discussion. presumably he thinks any content in this thread is subject to his approval just because he started it. that's petulant entitlement in my book.

Care to show me where OP "belittled" people?
As I've gone through this thread several times now and cannot see OP do that.
Seen other people doing it, but not the OP whom you've openly attacked.

 

[znôrt]

Oh I'm sorry, I hadn't realized someone asking for help understanding something didn't have the right to be disappointed because their request was pushed to the side for other things. Nice way to show your backside with this comment.

his request was sufficiently solved in less than 20 minutes on post #2 already (which was yours, actually).

he got several different explanations more on how people can ua bomb without ever been seen, after which a discussion ensued about such a dumb game design. which is something to be expected on a forum. too bad he didn't like that discussion, but it was for free, still on topic, and all he had to do is skip it. implying 'others' made the thread 'go south' is just passive aggressive nonsense.

Care to show me where OP "belittled" people?
As I've gone through this thread several times now and cannot see OP do that.
Seen other people doing it, but not the OP whom you've openly attacked.

sure. it's quoted in the same post where you imagine i attacked him. which i didn't do. care to show now how and why i supposedly attacked him? i just reminded him this is a forum.

Hey Znort up you__'s

it's allright, no hard feelings.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

UA bombing is a dumb mechanism. Some players like it though. I wish Frontier wouldn't cater to these simpletons.

 

[Mouse]

sure. it's quoted in the same post where you imagine i attacked him. which i didn't do. care to show now how and why i supposedly attacked him? i just reminded him this is a forum.

sorry, this is a public forum, not your personal support line. have a good day.

Pretty much the tone you took and how you said it...and I have to admit the tacking on to the end "have a good day" almost drips with the internet's version of the southern phrase "oh bless their hearts".

 

[znôrt]

Well this went south pretty fast. Appreciate those that kept it on track and thanks for the info. Others well ......................

Pretty much the tone you took and how you said it...and I have to admit the tacking on to the end "have a good day" almost drips with the internet's version of the southern phrase "oh bless their hearts".

ok, apologies.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

ok, apologies.

What did you do that for? [mad]

Where's the fun in that? [sad]

 

[znôrt]

What did you do that for? [mad]

Where's the fun in that? [sad]

i'm probably getting more soft. or more twisted.