General [MEGATHREAD] Rebalances and fixes for the progression system, risk/reward ratio, ingame learning curves, pvp, and more!

Because the game allows for PvP, doesn't mean PvP has to dominate the game. In fact, if you objectively look at how the game has been designed, and implemented, PvP has almost no relevance to the game. Obviously that was, and is, on purpose. And, this is right from the very base level of the game. The modes. Not too long ago FD reinforced their 'PvP only if you want to' policy by strengthening the block feature. What do you make of that?

What do you offer a player not interested in PvP, that for almost six years could enjoy E|D without it, in exchange for that static environment? What about all of those PMFs attached to PvE players? Are we expected to just let them whither and die, for the sake of PvP?

It appears that someone may have bought the wrong type of game. PvP just isn't that important.
Quoting for truth
PVP is a minor part of Combat which in turn is minor part of the whole. The other two parts being Trading and Exploration.

The game is ok as it is - open only requests are only showing lack of understanding ED as a whole - infrastructure & networking, gameplay and target audience (community as a whole)


disconnect Solo Play and Private Group BGS and Powerplay from Open Play but keep those features in seperate the gamemodes.

And OP, IF FDev wanted a disconnected mode - they would have kept offline mode - but they dropped it during kickstarter. It should say something to you
So yea, as been said already - it seems to me you are in the wrong game...
 
You say this but if it is true why do you and your fellow "moderators" regularly report and or block every post that contradicts with your personal view points on game mechanics and player interactions. That is not allowing for the free flow of conversations. and proposals. Not if the proposal must be an idea you already agree with to last as top for conversation.
That assertion is simply not true. There is no basis in fact for this post. Plus, a Mod who participates in a thread, does not Moderate that thread. That's why you see an impartial Ian, pop up and take care of business.
 
If they are in our territory, they have to let themselves known in order to prevent friendly fire incidents.
As said, there is no other way to do something like this as we are all limited in our actions that we can do within the game.

The loss of one straggler who could have worked for us or not is not a big problem for us, we are a huge coalition and can compensate for the small loss of one random player and therefore rather choose this way of engagement with players in our systems in combination with roleplay than just sitting still and watch without taking action.
It's not your territory though. You don't own it.
 
So basically your saying only lawful players can even use solo or PG or dock at 95% of all stations? Clearly you have no idea how and game breaking that idea is.
@captain kitty

ok a little more explanation on this.

if there would be a live tracking and a mission to hunt high grade criminals of course this would be and must be open only gameplay. how should a bounty hunter find a target otherwise.
and yes when a player did such serious crimes then he shouldnt be able to hide in solo or PG as long his crimestat is not cleared.
 
What do you mean it works against our own faction? If they have missions, they fail upon death and failure lowers faction influence in system. And besides, we run an anarchy faction so murder is cool n good
You don't know they have a mission. If they have a mission, you don't know who for. If they are clean, you are killing law abiding pilots, giving yourself a bounty and damaging your own faction rep.

PvP is literally the worst way to deal with the BGS.
 
You don't know they have a mission. If they have a mission, you don't know who for. If they are clean, you are killing law abiding pilots, giving yourself a bounty and damaging your own faction rep.

PvP is literally the worst way to deal with the BGS.
I dont get this idea that BGS is only a pvp thing, there is so many things that effect BGS to say its only effected by pvp is just...false. At the end of the day Fdevs are the real ones that control it. BGS is just the scafolding used to build the story and game.
 
I'm sorry, but after reading nearly 15 pages of people throwing mud on each other's ideas, and making unverified claims about what FDev does and doesn't want, or how systems should vs actually interact.

That issue aside, I think many of the things that were discussed in this thread were useful to the discussion as a whole to find a compromise that a vocal majority might be able to rally behind to persuade FDev to take it into consideration. However, not questioning FDev on the development of the game means that mistakes made in direction and design could lead to the overall collapse of a game that many people find enjoyment in. This is why I made suggestions that I did about the first FC Beta about owners being able to store their modules and ships on their FC without the need for outfitting/shipyard services on the FC. FDev listened because a vocal majority made the suggestion openly and repeatedly.

My opinions on the original intent of this discussion are thus:

If Elite Dangerous is a risk vs reward game, then the highest risk exists in Open Play, then Player Groups, and finally Solo Play. Thus it stands to reason that the greatest reward potential should reside in Open Play, then Player Groups, then Solo play. With that logic established, Game Systems that affect that risk/reward ratio should be weighted on that risk/reward matrix. So things like Faction Influence gains and losses, BGS, Power Play, System state influences should all have less impact when performed outside of Open Play. Not "zero" effect, but not equal to. This would keep the overall intent of a one persistent galaxy intact while allowing player choice, with the possibility of rewards given in Open to be increased to offer players to choose if the reward for them fits the risks they take.

However, if this idea were to be adopted by FDev, changes would need to be made with some systems, which include the blocking system that they currently employ. Though if FDev would be kind enough to explain how they believe their blocking system is intended to work, that would go a long way into fixing instancing issues that some players even within this thread have reported to have experienced.

TLDR; Please stop throwing mud on each other's ideas. Let's get this discussion back on track. Risk/Reward Matrix, Not Only Open Play, Player Choice Please!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sir.Tj

The Moderator who shall not be Blamed....
Volunteer Moderator
Ok, please see below quoted text of the forum rules regarding disputing a moderator action on the forum.

To give everyone a chance to cool down the thread will be closed until a community manager can review.

Thanks.

Appealing A Moderation Action

To appeal a moderation action against you, email community@frontier.co.uk. Harassment and threat emails sent to us will be ignored.

Posting about it on the forums as a thread or reply to a thread is not a valid method to initiate an investigation on whether or not the moderation action performed was correct.
 

Tim Smith

Lead Community Manager
Frontier
Hi all,

Thanks to Sir.Tj for locking the thread temporarily.

We've reviewed the posts and reports involved and we've decided to open up the thread again, but with a reminder to please keep discussion friendly and constructive. Sharing of views and opinions even if they are counter to each other is allowed and encouraged, with lively debate being great but fighting and flaming being the line where we need to take action again.

Be respectful of each other and happy discussion!

Tim
 
Hi all,

Thanks to Sir.Tj for locking the thread temporarily.

We've reviewed the posts and reports involved and we've decided to open up the thread again, but with a reminder to please keep discussion friendly and constructive. Sharing of views and opinions even if they are counter to each other is allowed and encouraged, with lively debate being great but fighting and flaming being the line where we need to take action again.

Be respectful of each other and happy discussion!

Tim
Thanks Tim.
Next time you have to blame TJ, not thank him though!
 
If Elite Dangerous is a risk vs reward game, then the highest risk exists in Open Play, then Player Groups, and finally Solo Play.
I agree with the principle, but I dont recognise the distinction between Private Groups and Solo. Private Groups provide at least a balanced risk versus Solo, since any risk from other players is offset by the added safety & efficiency of being in a cooperative wing. Nevermind that anyone can create a Private Group of their own and accept no other players within it, or just have Alt accounts of their own to benefit from Wing mission rewards, multicrew pip benefits etc. If anything, the risk/reward balance of Solo and Private group is if anything favourable to Private Groups, not the other way round, but the net effect can balance so they may as well be both treated as the same minimal risk category.
 
What about if in solo and pg the missions gave less credits but also half of the influence. So in open 1 mission would count as 2 in solo or PG
 
The way ED is set up makes balancing the modes impossible, so don't try to. Instead, make features that fit that 'experience'.

So rather than try to make one 'way' fit horizontally across modes (which will always have problem areas) you instead split things vertically and have parts to suit modes better.

In game terms this sounds drastic but its not. It would look like:

1:1 PvP - CQC
Multi mode - BGS, normal generic play
Group v group PvP - Powerplay (either in whole as Sandro proposed, or split like I suggested here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal-split-tasks-to-suit-each-mode-elaborates-on-sandros-last-ideas.526335/#post-8079411)

In this way the BGS is the mirror of Powerplay- one is turn based, slower and multi mode- the other, real time (or as near as possible) and via Open. It also makes sense in that you stop Powerplay being an inferior BGS / CG clone.
 
What about if in solo and pg the missions gave less credits but also half of the influence. So in open 1 mission would count as 2 in solo or PG
That doesn't work. As someone can take the mission/cargo/whatever in open; swap to solo; relog into open; turn in for the full 'open' amount.
 
That doesn't work. As someone can take the mission/cargo/whatever in open; swap to solo; relog into open; turn in for the full 'open' amount.
Not if you do it so the missions are instantly deleted when you swap open to PG and Solo as that would stop people doing it that way or do it so you can only hand in that mission in the game mode you chose originally when you picked it up
 
That doesn't work. As someone can take the mission/cargo/whatever in open; swap to solo; relog into open; turn in for the full 'open' amount.
Unless they can't do that. ie: 'Mission cargo is lost if you switch modes with it on-board'. Its a tiny issue to implement, not a game-ender. However, balancing isnt the way, since there would always be circumstances where a solo/pg mission would be more efficient than an Open mission (such as when the basing system is under blockade) at which point people can vanish the opposition, and youre right back where we are now. Which is why ...
The way ED is set up makes balancing the modes impossible, so don't try to. Instead, make features that fit that 'experience'.

So rather than try to make one 'way' fit horizontally across modes (which will always have problem areas) you instead split things vertically and have parts to suit modes better.

In game terms this sounds drastic but its not. It would look like:

1:1 PvP - CQC
Multi mode - BGS, normal generic play
Group v group PvP - Powerplay (either in whole as Sandro proposed, or split like I suggested here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal-split-tasks-to-suit-each-mode-elaborates-on-sandros-last-ideas.526335/#post-8079411)

In this way the BGS is the mirror of Powerplay- one is turn based, slower and multi mode- the other, real time (or as near as possible) and via Open. It also makes sense in that you stop Powerplay being an inferior BGS / CG clone.
.. ^ this is the explanation & the solution. It really does make more sense and is more balanced and respectful of all extremes in the modes argument, than any other individual proposal ive seen. It cuts straight to the issue without prejudice, and just deals with the problems & imbalances as they exist.

What I would like to see though, is a consolidated proposal based on this which itemises both the additions, and the referenced 'parts of Sandro's proposals' so it can be seen in its entirety in one document, not relying on cross-referencing.
 
Unless they can't do that. ie: 'Mission cargo is lost if you switch modes with it on-board'. Its a tiny issue to implement, not a game-ender. However, balancing isnt the way, since there would always be circumstances where a solo/pg mission would be more efficient than an Open mission (such as when the basing system is under blockade) at which point people can vanish the opposition, and youre right back where we are now. Which is why ...

.. ^ this is the explanation & the solution. It really does make more sense and is more balanced and respectful of all extremes in the modes argument, than any other individual proposal ive seen. It cuts straight to the issue without prejudice, and just deals with the problems & imbalances as they exist.

What I would like to see though, is a consolidated proposal based on this which itemises both the additions, and the referenced 'parts of Sandro's proposals' so it can be seen in its entirety in one document, not relying on cross-referencing.
I am working on my Ultimate Version™ that deals with 5C, and makes everything just peachy.
 
Top Bottom