Modes Obligatory "Merge solo, open, private groups" thread

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Some people have had enough - however not all players enjoy direct PvP (nor engage in it) - and Frontier designed a game where players can choose whether, or not, to play in a game mode where direct PvP is possible - each and every time they launch the game.

How large the subset of the player-base that has "had enough" is is not known. What is known is that every single player bought or backed a game with three game modes and a single shared galaxy state.

You got this on copy and paste? Is this a template now like those customer service people have?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed. And was powerplay a success? Its okay for our l0rd and Savior David Braben to be wrong every once in a while.

I mean its pretty obvious what the issues are here.

It would seem not - though assumptions as to issues contributing to its lack of popularity are just that - assumptions (even if some seem obvious).

 

[Robert Maynard]

You got this on copy and paste? Is this a template now like those customer service people have?

Nope - hand crafted every time.

 

[Han_Zen]

I mean, theres about 5 + years of Hotel California that continues to roll on because people wanted Powerplay Open Only. Its only spoke about everytime powerplay is mentioned anywhere. But hey, guess those statistics you were involved in, almost every thread that comes up about it. Nah you yourself showing up to fight against them is not enough of a statistic.

They were introduced in a small area in colonia, and have existed for quite a while in the bubble too. Before Colonia.

But when the game was created, the original BGS mechanics had nothing to do with PMF's. On top of that we see how they roll out content. They lay a foundation and make changes when needed. This year "beyond" Is about all the catching up core gameplay mechanics. Im pretty sure the BGS is pretty much Core if there ever is one. So is Risk and Reward.

Risk and Reward is a part of every game created. Remember super mario brothers? Remember that mushroom that fell to opening hole every time. Are you gonna rush to risk it?

Well, im telling ya bud. One day there will be adjustments to this stuff. I dunno when or how. But my bet is on beyond. It would be for the betterment of the game.

Not just for PVPers, but those guys that dont understand what open is about. There would be defining gameplay loops built around the player. The personal progression, exploring, credit making and personal goals would all stay the same.

If some dumb ol monkey like me can see it. So can they. And so can you.

Nobody loses here.

I think most players(not Robert) would accept a layer to the BGS that involved obligatory multiplayer interaction. That would not work well as the game is now though.

Unless players are members of a faction, their actions can not be directly countered by other players or the game it self. If the BGS is to be given any meaning, it has to generate reactions from the game. For example when Facece was turned into an independent system, there was not response from the Imperial navy. It shows that the game does not care. The BGS is just a funny way of displaying player statistics.

FD are currently thinking about linking squadrons to player minor factions. This is probably the only layer that will give functionality for PvP, with regards to the BGS. Unless you are member of a squadron linked to a player faction, you are neutral.

Even though squadrons might give a link between players and the BGS, there are clear indications that it will not be open only.

I think part of the reason for this is that the game is not balanced around risk/reward on any level. Regardless of mode, only traders can be exposed to risk.
Combat ships(both PvP and PvE) are balanced to have the possibility of no risk in any situation. In combat, risk is opposite of reward.

Combat focused players have time and time again demanded the option to be fully protected(even from hull damage). Unless this trend is reversed, there will never be acceptance for additional risk for traders.

 

[EdzUp]

That was hardly obligatory

Just 10 min ago, I forgot I was in Open, I go to the surface at the Darnielle's Progress surface port, I'm instantly targeted and blasted . Poor explovette didn't survive. But it's fine. Big bad boy only wasted 6 seconds of my time and 13MCr of my 2.5BCr

Yay C&P!

This is the one thing Open suffers from, basically no consequences to speak of just a small credit hit. Most of the issues are only problems if they get killed. The C&P response should be equivalent to the ship they are in so a Corvette would get hit with powerful ATR vessel's.

Obligatory "No!!!!!" post.

There are downsides though - as console players without premium platform access *cannot* play in either of the multi-player game modes.

Plus the fact that Solo was used by Frontier in mitigation when they cancelled Offline Mode.

Plus the fact that we have all bought a game where we can choose how many players to play among on a session-by-session basis.

This is the wall that stops the whole thing.

That's my take too - while PowerPlay offers opportunities for players to engage in consensual PvP (which it obviously does in the multi-player modes) it does not require players to play in a multi-player mode to participate.

From the man himself from his AMA on PowerPlay, April'15: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/140032-David-Braben-Powerplay-AMA

But a PvP flag would stop the attackers as they wouldn't get instance's with non PvP players. NonPvp players cannot harm other players yes this would throw up the kamikaze shield berks who fly into people's fire but they would just be wasting time.

For those in Open it would mean it would be more enjoyable and allow for more to be IN open than shying away from it. Power play would override the PvPflag.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think most players(not Robert) would accept a layer to the BGS that involved obligatory multiplayer interaction.

If it was a new layer, i.e. an addition to the game that took nothing away from what everyone has bought, I'd support it.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

That's my point and ironically we're back to: I'm right, you're wrong. Not based on the strength of your argument, but because "of experience".

And your portrayal of my argument:


So I'll pass thank you very much. I'm happy to discuss this with people who are willing to discuss.

You're discussing balancing a part of the game. You have no interest in being a part of. But deciding to throw your own two cents in as feedback. I dont think thats very fair for someone to do that. It wouldnt be fair for me to talk about mining right, I dont care for it. Or exploring.

Bottom line, we shouldn't have people dropping feedback in a place. Where they arent involved in the activity. The Multiplayer part of the game is suffering. Its suffering because there is no direct outlet for PVP, Toxicty is damn near league of legends level. And the equivalent of bronze players are giving feedback for PVP activities.

It makes no flippin sense.

I think most players(not Robert) would accept a layer to the BGS that involved obligatory multiplayer interaction. That would not work well as the game is now though.

Unless players are members of a faction, their actions can not be directly countered by other players or the game it self. If the BGS is to be given any meaning, it has to generate reactions from the game. For example when Facece was turned into an independent system, there was not response from the Imperial navy. It shows that the game does not care. The BGS is just a funny way of displaying player statistics.

FD are currently thinking about linking squadrons to player minor factions. This is probably the only layer that will give functionality for PvP, with regards to the BGS. Unless you are member of a squadron linked to a player faction, you are neutral.

Even though squadrons might give a link between players and the BGS, there are clear indications that it will not be open only.

I think part of the reason for this is that the game is not balanced around risk/reward on any level. Regardless of mode, only traders can be exposed to risk.
Combat ships(both PvP and PvE) are balanced to have the possibility of no risk in any situation. In combat, risk is opposite of reward.

Combat focused players have time and time again demanded the option to be fully protected(even from hull damage). Unless this trend is reversed, there will never be acceptance for additional risk for traders.

Sure, but no one is going to put themselves out there for people to "gain merits" or whatever reward for PVP. Simply deny them by not being in open. And they will never have the chance to get those PVP points to influence the BGS.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is the wall that stops the whole thing.

It would seem so.

But a PvP flag would stop the attackers as they wouldn't get instance's with non PvP players. NonPvp players cannot harm other players yes this would throw up the kamikaze shield berks who fly into people's fire but they would just be wasting time.

For those in Open it would mean it would be more enjoyable and allow for more to be IN open than shying away from it. Power play would override the PvPflag.

Proposals for a PvP flag don't usually suggest that the flag should affect the matchmaking system - however that's an interesting idea.

Even if PowerPlay over-rode a PvP flag it does not over-ride mode selection.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're discussing balancing a part of the game. You have no interest in being a part of. But deciding to throw your own two cents in as feedback. I dont think thats very fair for someone to do that. It wouldnt be fair for me to talk about mining right, I dont care for it. Or exploring.

And now we're back to Ad Hominems.

I'd welcome anyone's input on exploration. Especially an outsider opinion.

Bottom line, we shouldn't have people dropping feedback in a place. Where they arent involved in the activity.

Forum's open to anyone. If you have an issue with my argument, address the argument.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You're discussing balancing a part of the game. You have no interest in being a part of. But deciding to throw your own two cents in as feedback. I dont think thats very fair for someone to do that. It wouldnt be fair for me to talk about mining right, I dont care for it. Or exploring.

Bottom line, we shouldn't have people dropping feedback in a place. Where they arent involved in the activity. The Multiplayer part of the game is suffering. Its suffering because there is no direct outlet for PVP, Toxicty is damn near league of legends level. And the equivalent of bronze players are giving feedback for PVP activities.

It makes no flippin sense.

Claims that players in Solo and Private Groups would be unaffected by the proposed changes are inaccurate - given that some of the proposals have included removing all effect from players in those modes from the BGS, PowerPlay, etc..

The game is multi-player regardless of which game mode one selects due to the fact that everyone both experiences and affects the single shared galaxy state - so to suggest that only players in Open should be able to give feedback would seem to be seeking to stifle opposition.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

And now we're back to Ad Hominems.

I'd welcome anyone's input on exploration. Especially an outsider opinion.

Its not Ad Hominems ziggy. Its a fact.

I really dont care what they do with exploration, ill probably use it for Point A to Point B. Ill never just wonder around aimlessly. Not my thing.

 

[Shadowdancer]

What y'all don't seem to get is that I don't want to see other people in my experience. I'm playing games for escapsim, seeing some dumb entity labelled "xXxDumbong420killaxXx" having "the lulz" or whatever is not part of that.

 

[seko]

Open player 'moaners', remind me of another group of 'remoaners' in the real world - let it go, and play your own game, don't interfere with others enjoyment, and leave things as rhey are. If it isn't broke then don't fix it

 

[EdzUp]

It would seem so.



Proposals for a PvP flag don't usually suggest that the flag should affect the matchmaking system - however that's an interesting idea.

Even if PowerPlay over-rode a PvP flag it does not over-ride mode selection.

I agree it wouldn't override the mode select but if more people were in Open it would make the game more interesting and by default Dangerous for PP players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree it wouldn't override the mode select but if more people were in Open it would make the game more interesting and by default Dangerous for PP players.

If the proposed PvP flag were to affect matchmaking then Open might appear less well populated to those who had it enabled.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Claims that players in Solo and Private Groups would be unaffected by the proposed changes are inaccurate - given that some of the proposals have included removing all effect from players in those modes from the BGS, PowerPlay, etc..

The game is multi-player regardless of which game mode one selects due to the fact that everyone both experiences and affects the single shared galaxy state - so to suggest that only players in Open should be able to give feedback would seem to be seeking to stifle opposition.

NO maynard. Im talking about the people involved in Group Vs Group activities, and their involvement. He doesnt get involved.

Man you're really good at trying to derail the subject.

HAVE YOU EVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS? Or did you just decide to answer my question with a question?

Was Powerplay Successful as part of a Consensual PVP program as Sandro Mentioned. Or does the Majority of the community think it failed. Mainly because the main selling point. THE PVP PART, IS IMPOSSIBLE when someone is in Solo taking that objective.

Did it fail?

Open player 'moaners', remind me of another group of 'remoaners' in the real world - let it go, and play your own game, don't interfere with others enjoyment, and leave things as rhey are. If it isn't broke then don't fix it

It is broke. People are interfering with others enjoyment through the game modes. They want to be the only commander in the universe! Oh by the way im attacking this player faction. Dont mind me...

 

[Robert Maynard]

NO maynard. Im talking about the people involved in Group Vs Group activities, and their involvement. He doesnt get involved.

Man you're really good at trying to derail the subject.

HAVE YOU EVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS? Or did you just decide to answer my question with a question?

Was Powerplay Successful as part of a Consensual PVP program as Sandro Mentioned. Or does the Majority of the community think it failed. Mainly because the main selling point. THE PVP PART, IS IMPOSSIBLE when someone is in Solo taking that objective.

Did it fail?

The BGS has been sold as a game feature for all players - not just those in Groups.

Same with PowerPlay.

It really is that simple.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Its not Ad Hominems ziggy.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

Textbook

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Textbook

Ziggy. Ill say it again. YOU ADMITTED You have nothing to do with this part of the game.

Why do you think your input is valuable. If you dont do anything with it?

I dont know what point you're trying to get at. You seem to have lost it completely. Ground control to major tom?

The BGS has been sold as a game feature for all players - not just those in Groups.

Same with PowerPlay.

It really is that simple.

Thats what I thought. You wont answer that question. Because you know what it means.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thats what I thought. You wont answer that question. Because you know what it means.

Frontier chose to implement a feature that offers players the option (but no requirement) to engage in consensual PvP - that there are players that consider that any participant should play in Open is obvious - however it is just as obvious that Frontier did not design it that way.

Direct PvP (even consensual direct PvP) remains optional in this game.