Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[quelcertoleo]

Make bgs open only

that would be nice, but honestly, we need to give the possibility for the frightened pg/solitary guys to play in the galaxy and still live the illusion of “all modes are equal”.
it would be enough to add a coefficient to players doing their stuff in open. After all, there’s no rewarding mechanism to pkayers in open who, in the end, are risking their minmaxed trading shieldless miner t9s but get no reward opposed to someone flying in solo and logging to npc interdictions.
just adding a multiplier to people who mine/sell/bgs/powerplay in open would work as incentive to play in open.

 

[MadSinUN]

Indeed - and not all who responded liked the development of a proposal made previously.

And many who did not like your offer did not make their own constructive suggestions. Therefore, I suggest that we consider your proposal as a basis for now.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not in Open as its current rule set is setup though.

Indeed, it would be under the strictest PvP toggles and block rules.

Not really - at least one of those PGs is "full" with very nearly 20,000 members - which means that another one needs to be found. That's the main issue with Private Groups - the membership limit.

If there was an Open PvE server Mobius level PGs would not be needed.

 

[MadSinUN]

Isn't that actually impossible?

I'm sorry but I didn't understand you, there may be translation difficulties. I just think that by searching for constructive changes, you can find the Golden mean. I am sure that only the Pve community is satisfied now.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed, it would be under the strictest PvP toggles and block rules.

Which may be beyond Frontier's limits in terms of willingness to make changes to features put in place specifically because of "people" in a multi-player game.

If there was an Open PvE server Mobius level PGs would not be needed.

Indeed - but there isn't one - and a not insignificant portion of the participants in these threads are rather opposed to one existing - then there's the fact that DBOBE has indicated that removing all PvP vectors would be a significant task (which indicated to me, when he said it back in the Engineers launch stream such a mode is highly unlikely).

Which means that the Open we do have will likely remain the compromise mode that it is at the moment.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I am sure that only the Pve community is satisfied now.

Not even that can be assumed in all cases - as the lack of an Open PvE mode remains an issue for some. (even though the game design information, as published in the Kickstarter, includes the possibility for more than one Open mode where the rules can be different to suit different play-styles)

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which may be beyond Frontier's limits in terms of willingness to make changes to features put in place specifically because of "people" in a multi-player game.

Indeed - but there isn't one - and a not insignificant portion of the participants in these threads are rather opposed to one existing - then there's the fact that DBOBE has indicated that removing all PvP vectors would be a significant task (which indicated to me, when he said it back in the Engineers launch stream such a mode is highly unlikely).

Which means that the Open we do have will likely remain the compromise mode that it is at the moment.

The thing is, if FD tiered it intelligently then there would be fewer issues- solo, PG, Open PvE, Open PvP / Powerplay are a nice stack. Open PvE would be a combination of smart rounds, blanket auto docking (so no-one within say, 10Km of a station can deploy weapons so no speeders) and a few other tweaks. What you'd need is to chat to the SDC who could tell you all approaches.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The thing is, if FD tiered it intelligently then there would be fewer issues- solo, PG, Open PvE, Open PvP / Powerplay are a nice stack. Open PvE would be a combination of smart rounds, blanket auto docking (so no-one within say, 10Km of a station can deploy weapons so no speeders) and a few other tweaks.

It could probably work, given sufficient time and resources, but I'm not sure there's the impetus to move in that direction, on either the Open Powerplay or Open-PvE front - given that it's over two years since the end of the Powerplay Flash Topics with little or no change to Powerplay other than what seem to have been a few tweaks.

What you'd need is to chat to the SDC who could tell you all approaches.

That'd be a Frontier discussion - and, given SDC's history, I'd be unsurprised if it didn't happen.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It could probably work, given sufficient time and resources, but I'm not sure there's the impetus to move in that direction, on either the Open Powerplay or Open-PvE front - given that it's over two years since the end of the Powerplay Flash Topics with little or no change to Powerplay other than what seem to have been a few tweaks.

Well, since Powerplay was discussed slightly before FCs (and then aborted) I assume Powerplay is on at some point (I hope EDO in some form). Hopefully the CMs will detail at some point the features being updated beyond the new legs.

That'd be a Frontier discussion - and, given SDC's history, I'd be unsurprised if it didn't happen.

When you want to rob a bank, you chat to burglars, not police

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, since Powerplay was discussed slightly before FCs (and then aborted) I assume Powerplay is on at some point (I hope EDO in some form). Hopefully the CMs will detail at some point the features being updated beyond the new legs.

Something may happen with Powerplay - we don't know which subset of the proposals in the first Flash Topic are even being considered for implementation though.

When you want to rob a bank, you chat to burglars, not police

Other burglars are available....

 

[Rubbernuke]

Something may happen with Powerplay - we don't know which subset of the proposals in the first Flash Topic are even being considered for implementation though.

My only fear is that the entire proposal hinged on Open- if it is enacted in part it will just make things worse. If they play it ultra conservatively, people will get voting for votes (i.e. vote for what votes to keep- I'm not making that up ) and a slight change to about two formulas, again not changing anything or adding substantive change.

If I have to wait 8 months to know I can vote on votes and thats it, I'm not going to be best pleased.

Other burglars are available....

Indeed

 

[Robert Maynard]

My only fear is that the entire proposal hinged on Open- if it is enacted in part it will just make things worse. If they play it ultra conservatively, people will get voting for votes (i.e. vote for what votes to keep- I'm not making that up ) and a slight change to about two formulas, again not changing anything or adding substantive change.

If I have to wait 8 months to know I can vote on votes and thats it, I'm not going to be best pleased.

I understand that - however just being on the list of proposals in an investigative Flash Topic that was declared to "not be a fait accompli" and then an alternative proposal, i.e. a reappearance of the Open play bonus from Mar'16, in the second Flash Topic doesn't guarantee that it will.

 

[lysan]

Not in Open as its current rule set is setup though.

Not really - at least one of those PGs is "full" with very nearly 20,000 members - which means that another one needs to be found. That's the main issue with Private Groups - the membership limit.

Make two groups, PVE and PVP, completely separated with their own BGS, SOLO can join PVE as there is no reason to have a SOLO mode if you have a dedicated PVE mode.

Win-win unless it's an attempt to shoehorn PVE players into a PVP mode. Not gonna happen.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I understand that - however just being on the list of proposals in an investigative Flash Topic that was declared to "not be a fait accompli" and then an alternative proposal, i.e. a reappearance of the Open play bonus from Mar'16, in the second Flash Topic doesn't guarantee that it will.

One of the main reasons I support Open Powerplay is because really in that proposal thats the only real gameplay thats added. If FD redesign the whole lot to be fun across modes I'd be equally as happy.

In the end it comes down to FD wanting meaningful PvP or not.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Make two groups, PVE and PVP, completely separated with their own BGS, SOLO can join PVE as there is no reason to have a SOLO mode if you have a dedicated PVE mode.

Frontier ruled out splitting the BGS over five years ago - and when the two consoles were added they joined the PC players in sharing the single galaxy state. Unsurprisingly given that all players affecting and experiencing a single galaxy state has been part of the game design since it was published over seven-and-a-half years ago.

 

[Brrokk]

Ah, I get it at last. This thread is some kind of performance art; like dancers whirling around each other, rapidly repeating the same steps over and over, never making contact. How could I have been so blind? Now that I comprehend, it's magnificent! I can't imagine how much practice you must have all put in to perfect this! It's truly amazing.

But what if the music never ends? Won't you all get tired?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Won't you all get tired?

No.

 

[Havvk]

No.

X

 

[lysan]

Frontier ruled out splitting the BGS over five years ago - and when the two consoles were added they joined the PC players in sharing the single galaxy state. Unsurprisingly given that all players affecting and experiencing a single galaxy state has been part of the game design since it was published over seven-and-a-half years ago.

I know, so why are we discussing it? it is what it is.

 

[Robert Maynard]

One of the main reasons I support Open Powerplay is because really in that proposal thats the only real gameplay thats added. If FD redesign the whole lot to be fun across modes I'd be equally as happy.

Also understood. It depends on how much Dev time Frontier are prepared to allocate to a feature which appears to have suffered from a low player participation level.

In the end it comes down to FD wanting meaningful PvP or not.

Indeed.