Modes Mega ships open only content?

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Like I said, they used the words that conflict with yours.

I think you guys need to get on the same page because they are mutually exclusive positions.
Don't ask me to explain your (collective) inconsistency.

100% this. he does this a lot.

Another thing thats old and needs to change.

 

[Stealthie]

What do you make of point #2 and #5?

I'm genuinely confused as to what's going on here.

Surely we're not suggesting that an FDev employee(?) saying "It's okay to force another player to engage in combat" can be spun into meaning "It's okay to force another player into Open so you can engage them in combat"?

Cos, that's like reading the rules of boxing, realising that it's okay to punch another person in a boxing ring and then trying to suggest that it's okay to go and kidnap somebody off the street and take them to a boxing ring so you can beat them up.

All that email says is that if somebody's already IN Open, it's okay to force them to engage in PvP.
It offers no opinion on whether or not players should be forced into Open so they can be engaged in PvP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Like I said, they used the words that conflict with yours.

I think you guys need to get on the same page because they are mutually exclusive positions.
Don't ask me to explain your (collective) inconsistency.

They were talking about encounters in either of the multi-player modes - there's no requirement to play in them (even if one can).

So I don't read the words as in conflict - just in a particular context. PvP in multi-player game modes is unrestricted. Not everyone does (or can) play in multi-player game modes. Hence PvP cannot be forced on all players.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I'm genuinely confused as to what's going on here.

Surely we're not suggesting that an FDev employee(?) saying "It's okay to force another player to engage in combat" can be spun into meaning "It's okay to force another player into Open so you can engage them in combat"?

Cos, that's like reading the rules of boxing, realising that it's okay to punch another person in a boxing ring and then trying to suggest that it's okay to go and kidnap somebody off the street and take them to a boxing ring so you can beat them up.

All that email says is that if somebody's already IN Open, it's okay to force them to engage in PvP.
It offers no opinion on whether or not players should be forced into Open so they can be engaged in PvP.

Read my previous posts.
I already addressed this in no uncertain terms, ftr.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm genuinely confused as to what's going on here.

Surely we're not suggesting that an FDev employee(?) saying "It's okay to force another player to engage in combat" can be spun into meaning "It's okay to force another player into Open so you can engage them in combat"?

Cos, that's like reading the rules of boxing, realising that it's okay to punch another person in a boxing ring and then trying to suggest that it's okay to go and kidnap somebody off the street and take them to a boxing ring so you can beat them up.

All that email says is that if somebody's already IN Open, it's okay to force them to engage in PvP.
It offers no opinion on whether or not players should be forced into Open so they can be engaged in PvP.

Exactly.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Read my previous posts.
I already addressed this in no uncertain terms, ftr.

Care to link to them - as a few out of c.5,100 might take a while to find - and whether they address the point may well be a matter of opinion.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Like I said, they used the words that conflict with yours.

I think you guys need to get on the same page because they are mutually exclusive positions.
Don't ask me to explain your (collective) inconsistency.

Seems simple enough to me. PvP is 100% optional by choosing to play in PG or solo but at the same time if you log into open you accept that anything goes.

The BGS however runs through the heart of the game and is agnostic of the mode

I don't think that contradicts anything said by FD

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

They were talking about encounters in either of the multi-player modes - there's no requirement to play in them (even if one can).

So I don't read the words as in conflict - just in a particular context. PvP in multi-player game modes is unrestricted. Not everyone does (or can) play in multi-player game modes. Hence PvP cannot be forced on all players.

You are obfuscating.
You used almost exactly the same phrasing, and I made certain there could be no misunderstanding when I clarified this has nothing to do with modes or the BGS etc.

The point is, FDev have UPHELD players forcing other players into PVP/their playstyle.
That is mutually exclusive with what you wrote.

 

[Stealthie]

Read my previous posts.

I read your previous posts, hence my comment that I'm thoroughly confused.

It reads like somebody thinks they've figured out the meaning of life after mainlining onionhead for a week.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are obfuscating.
You used almost exactly the same phrasing, and I made certain there could be no misunderstanding when I clarified this has nothing to do with modes or the BGS etc.

The point is, FDev have UPHELD players forcing other players into PVP/their playstyle.
That is mutually exclusive with what you wrote.

In the multi-player game modes, certainly. The option to play in Solo is a contradiction of the interpretation of the CS e-mail applying to Solo.

It is your interpretation that "this has nothing to do with modes" - whereas my interpretation of the CS e-mail is in the context of three modes existing (which they do) and players having a free choice as to which mode they play in (which they do, if they have access to the multi-player game modes).

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

The option to play in Solo is a contradiction of that interpretation of the CS e-mail.

No it is not.
That is ridiculous.

Force assumes certain conditions are in place.
That those conditions can be changed is exactly what is at stake here.

Your premise that I responded to is plainly false.

 

[Braandlin]

Its pretty broken.

Read what people are saying in that thread. Dont take my word for it.

Everyone knows why.

Lets stop pretending and playing dumb about this issue. Thats all I am asking.

Its time to acknowledge it.

The BGS is a mechanism to enable FDev to offer a single gaming universe with a single story to everyone. I play on Xbox. If you play on PC you will NEVER* see me. But i contribute to a game world that has SPECIFICALLY been created to enable all players no matter their game style or platform to contribute to the ongoing story of a dynamic galaxy. I think that's pretty neat and to my knowledge not done elsewhere.

It works.

It demonstrably is NOT broken.

The BGS is doing exactly what it set out to do. Creating a single game environment across four platforms and three modes that enable all players to interact with a single universe.

The fact that you don't like it does not make it 'broken' and no amount of bleating from you or others changes that.

What you actually mean is "The BGS doesn't work the way I want it to". I'd agree with you there.

But, and here is the killer - Your opinion does not equal FACT.

You seem to have great difficulty with that concept.

Its not even true that MAJORITY Opinion equals fact. and it is safe to say that there is nothing like a majority view in agreement with you here.


Now, I'm not saying the BGS is perfect and does not need some work - and we have seen some of the steps FDev are taking to develop it. But it is demonstrably clear that making the changes to you and a vocal misinformed MINORITY are continually demanding is not even under consideration by the game designers.

So you can continue your street corner preaching and your lazy attempts to belittle and stereotype others that don't agree with you. It's a relatively free forum, you can express your views mostly as you wish. But if you can't come up with coherent, logical, factual arguments to support your limited and narrow view then you should probably brace yourself for robust rebutal and swift disappointment.



* unless we have some huge change in crossplatform play which also happens to be seamless and does not disadvantage either side. that is some way off both technically and more so politically between the platform developers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No it is not.
That is ridiculous.

Force assumes certain conditions are in place.
That those conditions can be changed is exactly what is at stake here.

Your premise that I responded to is plainly false.

How does a player in Solo (or a Private Group with a carefully selected membership) get forced into PvP?

 

[jasonbirder]

At the end of the day it seems fairly straight forward to me...
Elite isn't and was never meant to be Counterstrike with Spaceships...
The BGS isn't and was never meant to be a tool to set up "king of the hill" style PvP
In RL conflicts aren't won by the best planes/best pilots...but by those with the best economy/best logistics...so it makes sense for BGS/PMF competition to be decided NOT by PvP combat but by Economic/Influence factors
There has never been any hint whatsoever that FDev has any intention of introducing Open Only or Open-Insentivised elements to the BGS
At one point (probably due to a rush of blood to the head by one of the more "arcade-style" developers) the idea of insentivising Open-based PP was floated...it was quickly pushed onto the back-burner and is unlikely to rear its ugly head again...
I can't see how any of those points is in anyway controversial...which kind of negates much that has been posted in the previous 13 pages...

 

[Ian Phillips]

Please everyone.

We think this is a good, relevant discussion about issues arising from the Livestream, but if the thread continues in this fashion it will be moved to the Modes discussion section, as that is all it is right now.

Please concentrate on the main topic. Thanks.

 

[Stealthie]

How does a player in Solo (or a Private Group with a carefully selected membership) get forced into PvP?

Again, I might be completely wrong because this all seems too wacky to be for real but it seems like misunderstanding a fragment of a sentence in an email is being used as the justification for a campaign to abolish all modes except for Open.

Personally, I'd suggest that if FDev has the urge to make anything Open-Only, they should test it out on Powerplay first.
That way, once PP has become a wasteland as a result of becoming the sole domain of a bunch of murder-hobos who only ever wanted to explode stuff and have no interest in actually doing PP, they might decide to think twice before applying the same concept to any other aspect of the game.

And then they can restore PP to it's current form again, for the oddballs who like to participate in it.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Please everyone.

We think this is a good, relevant discussion about issues arising from the Livestream, but if the thread continues in this fashion it will be moved to the Modes discussion section, as that is all it is right now.

Please concentrate on the main topic. Thanks.

Sorry thats my bad. You know how I get.

I wanna eat them hollow squares up like Mrs Pacman.

The new objectives they added in the game. Are really neat. Its just gonna suck if we cant see our opponents. The invaders shouldn't get to chose if they are seen or not.

Silent running? yes thats fine.

 

[Braandlin]

Preventing a BGS transaction for a faction from happening is not opposing that transaction, it doesn't result in a transaction that hurts the faction or that is helpful for a different faction.
The transaction simply doesn't happen.

The action that results in the BGS transaction to get canceled might have an other BGS transaction effect, but that again is just an other transaction.

The whole BGS is intentionally designed in a way that makes direct opposition to BGS transactions impossible. This is required as the BGS is intended to work in all game modes, in all time zones and between all players no matter their internet connection (lag, ping…).

This might be at first a bit confusing, but is really a quite elegant solution.
By disconnecting the various actions and counter actions the BGS is accessible for everybody and provides a fair chance for everybody. It affects everybody and everybody can affect it (is affecting it).

Eloquently said.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Bob, Robert, you're taling about different contexts, and you're both right. At least ... I think.

When Bob meets another player in Open, he can force PvP upon the other player.
Robert is talking one step before that, choosing which mode to play in order not to be subject to that force.

When talking about the game as a whole, you cannot force PvP upon another player. Once a player encounters another player (provided it's not in a PvE PG) you can't (or you can, but you will get banned from that server, so more accurate is: you're not allowed)

edit: and then I read Ian's post .... so how about that livestream?

 

[Toumal]

We can do this 2 ways. I can blow people up over objectives. Or I can nuke random people all day.

trust me, id rather be fighting over objectives.

But im not going to play the objective game. Until I can fight my enemy. And the BGS with player factions is Objective based gameplay.

I do believe you genuinely miss the point here, completely. Allow me to try and elucidate the actual issue here:

Elite Dangerous is at heart a P2P multiplayer game. This means several things:

1) Frontier can't validate everything that clients do
2) In a "combat log" situation, Frontier can't validate whether a player combat logged or his opponent employed a script to add a firewall rule, which would look indistinguishable to the other guy combat logging (Just in case you ask for punishing combat loggers, like so many have before)
3) The BGS is shared across different platforms that can not have their respective players meet up and engage players on another platform.
4) Elite is being played by people in private groups who would, essentially, lose a good part of the game if you made the BGS open only.
5) NPCs contribute to the BGS in a way that is opaque to you - you do not see all NPCS, just like you never see all players.

In essence, you are asking for the ability to blockade a system for example. And don't get me wrong, I am not against this, quite the opposite! However this would mean MMO multiplayer on a scale that dwarfs Planetside 2 by orders of magnitude, and getting rid of P2P completely. That's not realistic.

You could go on and suggest a BGS "instance" that is only available to open players, and another BGS instance that solo and private group players get to play in. But that would split the universe and Frontier have to date avoided doing this - and for good reason. And even if they did, you still cannot see your opponents all the time. You can see *some* of them, *some* of the time. Just like now.

And ultimately, even if the BGS was open only, I could still block you ingame, and/or I could even go ahead and make it so that P2P negotiations always fail and I *always* get into a new instance that nobody else can join either. I can even whitelist clients and make it so that only my friends can ever join me. And there's nothing Frontier can do to prevent that, except to kick players whose P2P negotiations fail - which is a good number of them because I only recently fixed a network issue for a friend who complained that nobody is playing Elite anymore, when it turned out he just never got into any instances. I wonder how many people play with broken networking without ever realizing it.

So bottom line: There's no way to make the BGS open only while the game uses P2P. There's no way to ask Frontier to host as many servers as needed for the amount of concurrent players without a huge investment of developer time, as well as vastly increasing the running costs of the game for Frontier. And even then it's doubtful that this is achievable.

Conversely, if Frontier decided to make the BGS open only, I could release a tool that lets you play the BGS in solo or with a group of people you whitelist within a few days. And if I don't do that, others would.


I hope you can see the issue here.

The whole BGS is intentionally designed in a way that makes direct opposition to BGS transactions impossible. This is required as the BGS is intended to work in all game modes, in all time zones and between all players no matter their internet connection (lag, ping…).

This is extremely well put. +rep.