Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

Then don't you think there's a fundamental issue with the game advertising itself as an "MMO" rather than a singleplayer game with optional multiplayer? Don't you think it's odd the game is designing concepts and rewards around securing your safety and comfort in a game where nothing is relevant enough to threaten that safety or comfort? It's this illusion that you do something and it has impact when really... it doesn't? You now have unlimited supplies of ships and play by yourself in a system that will not reflect anything you do in it. You can pve the AI pirates, you can mine, you can do all the things to gain reputation and see the pretty lights reflect you did a thing and see your credits go up... but what did that genuinely change or do for you or anyone else? Nothing. What advantages and benefits did you gain for yourself to protect and empower yourself in an empty space with no one but yourself or those you deem fit to join you in it? What did it REALLY do to make an impact or change you can be proud of or look at and go "I did that!"?

It seems to fit the definition of MMO - it has a massive persistent shared gameworld, it can accommodate tens of thousands of concurrent players, and it is online. That each player can select how many, or few players they play among is part of the attraction for some players.

There are definitely NPCs that are more than capable of destroying players, as can the environment itself. That some seem to think that only other players can offer a challenge in the game does not take into account that half of players are at, or below, median skill.

Most things that players do affect the BGS, or Powerplay (if pledged) - and players in all game modes affect those features - which may lead to changes in control of different systems over time - all carried out by players.

Then there's Colonisation - where each System Architect can quite reasonably look at their colonised system(s) and take some pride in it.

 

[Darrack]

You're not offering ideas. You're encouraging complacency and this game will be dead in time as a result of this. That's a lack of wisdom and insight from considering others and their isnights. As much as I've considered yours, you've not done me the same grace. So after this post, I'm going to ignore you.

We have different ideas on the direction of the game, its naff all to do with IQ.

I wish you luck in your endeavours.

O&

 

[Venan]

It seems to fit the definition of MMO - it has a massive gameworld, it is multi-player, and it is online. That each player can select how many, or few players they play among is part of the attraction for some players.

There are definitely NPCs that are more than capable of destroying players, as can the environment itself. That some seem to think that only other players can offer a challenge in the game does not take into account that half of players are at, or below, median skill.

Most things that players do affect the BGS, or Powerplay (if pledged) - and players in all game modes affect those features - which may lead to changes in control of different systems over time - all carried out by players.

Then there's Colonisation - where each System Architect can quite reasonably look at their colonised system(s) and take some pride in it.

I think this is kinda funny not to be facetious but "massively multiplayer online" is typically associated with MMO. Ideally "massively multiplayer" is the idea there's at least thousands of players around playing, not the selective "the world is massive, the game has multiplayer, and it's online". I just think it's a lil funny to see just how proven the game's shown how segmented its gameplay is if you're using this as an example of what the game is offering LOL. That'd be like if a first person shooter was "I'm the first ever person in the game, I am a person as far as I can tell, and I am shooting!". Anyways.

As for the NPC's being capable of destroying players... absolutely... until you engineer your ship. Then it's all a peace of cake due to lack of balancing. I think the "skill issue" too is a reflection of the game not providing proper tutorials in some regards. It certainly has tutorials, but it definitely doesn't teach you some more advanced or even some basic concepts. At this point I'd even love to see support to the inara website having functions to copy/paste form the game to the website. Simplest thing being able to copy/paste the system name you're in so you can put it into inara. If the devs don't have intention of improving information and convenience to understand the game while the community is working hard to cover this end... then at the very least it'd be smart for the game to naturally guide players to the means they CAN use by having links to inara and etc imo. I understand stances on this though between officially declaring vs not so.... it is what it is and the devs are going to leave it in a grey area. I can't say I can come up with a reason as to why they don't have tutorials showing you how your ship hud and etc works though or other aspects that would matter to teaching you. The HUD changing to not allow you to hover over specific stats so players can learn what they mean is another detrimental decision that came up too.

"Most things that players do affect the BGS, or Powerplay (if pledged) - and players in all game modes affect those features - which may lead to changes in control of different systems over time - all carried out by players."

Okay but does this actually do? Just hear me out, genuinely. Say players across solo and etc do change a system. What is this result now? What changed, what benefits or disadvantages now? What is the goal that is accomplished in doing so successfully with the combined players ability to change a system's BGS/PP? I want to follow this thought train and see if we can come to an understanding where this leads.

"Then there's Colonisation - where each System Architect can quite reasonably look at their colonised system(s) and take some pride in it."

This is no doubt an improvement I have enjoyed and I hope I'm not mistaken in this regard. Though you could instance this and achieve the same effect and it wouldn't really matter. I still think system colonization has potential in this aspect and I look forward to seeing where it leads/goes.

We have different ideas on the direction of the game, its naff all to do with IQ.


I wish you luck in your endeavours.

"We have different ideas", no no sir. You have not provided anything here, you have argued to keep it as is. There is no "we" in what you've posted, it has been "you" and again, you have not bothered to read anything beyond the first sentence of what I post. Your high horse is quite short legged. The only reason the game's lasting is because they've pulled up the thargoid war and added ships to sell to people whenever they see numbers dropping to remember they have their fingers in some potential cash somewhere so long as they appeal to the veteran crowd. Eventually, it will come to an end if they don't find means to encourage new players to join in for the same reasons the veterans stayed.


Likewise, I wish you luck in... whatever you're doing lol.

 

[SergMx]

Those who want to bounty hunt players rely on players to bounty hunt - noting that players can gain bounties without engaging in PvP - only those players with bounties who choose to play in Open are available to bounty hunters.

Sorry I asked here but I didn't see much of an answer. Some PP rewards cannot be used in single player mode.
I can't figure that out. Here is the mode play it as you want, but part of the rewards for YOU will disappear if you play in single mode.
What's that called?

 

[SergMx]

We have different ideas on the direction of the game, its naff all to do with IQ.

I have thoughts on game development, but that's not for this thread. I will make another thread now.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think this is kinda funny not to be facetious but "massively multiplayer online" is typically associated with MMO. Ideally "massively multiplayer" is the idea there's at least thousands of players around playing, not the selective "the world is massive, the game has multiplayer, and it's online". I just think it's a lil funny to see just how proven the game's shown how segmented its gameplay is if you're using this as an example of what the game is offering LOL. That'd be like if a first person shooter was "I'm the first ever person in the game, I am a person as far as I can tell, and I am shooting!". Anyways.

It's certainly not a trope MMO....

As for the NPC's being capable of destroying players... absolutely... until you engineer your ship. Then it's all a peace of cake due to lack of balancing. I think the "skill issue" too is a reflection of the game not providing proper tutorials in some regards. It certainly has tutorials, but it definitely doesn't teach you some more advanced or even some basic concepts. At this point I'd even love to see support to the inara website having functions to copy/paste form the game to the website. Simplest thing being able to copy/paste the system name you're in so you can put it into inara. If the devs don't have intention of improving information and convenience to understand the game while the community is working hard to cover this end... then at the very least it'd be smart for the game to naturally guide players to the means they CAN use by having links to inara and etc imo. I understand stances on this though between officially declaring vs not so.... it is what it is and the devs are going to leave it in a grey area. I can't say I can come up with a reason as to why they don't have tutorials showing you how your ship hud and etc works though or other aspects that would matter to teaching you. The HUD changing to not allow you to hover over specific stats so players can learn what they mean is another detrimental decision that came up too.

Even after engineering - it depends on which ship, which role it is optimised for, etc..

The skill distribution is unrelated to tutorials - in any player population half of players will be at or below median skill. What skill level that is is a different question.

"Most things that players do affect the BGS, or Powerplay (if pledged) - and players in all game modes affect those features - which may lead to changes in control of different systems over time - all carried out by players."

Okay but does this actually do? Just hear me out, genuinely. Say players across solo and etc do change a system. What is this result now? What changed, what benefits or disadvantages now? What is the goal that is accomplished in doing so successfully with the combined players ability to change a system's BGS/PP? I want to follow this thought train and see if we can come to an understanding where this leads.

Players in all game modes make changes to the game world, whether affecting Faction influence or which Power controls a system.

That none of the changes are permanent is another discussion, and is unrelated to which game modes affect the game world.

"Then there's Colonisation - where each System Architect can quite reasonably look at their colonised system(s) and take some pride in it."

This is no doubt an improvement I have enjoyed and I hope I'm not mistaken in this regard. Though you could instance this and achieve the same effect and it wouldn't really matter. I still think system colonization has potential in this aspect and I look forward to seeing where it leads/goes.

Colonisation affects the mode shared game world - and is not "instanced" in that there is only one version of that system in the game world.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sorry I asked here but I didn't see much of an answer. Some PP rewards cannot be used in single player mode.
I can't figure that out. Here is the mode play it as you want, but part of the rewards for YOU will disappear if you play in single mode.
What's that called?

Which PP rewards cannot be used in Solo?

 

[Venan]

It's certainly not a trope MMO....

Even after engineering - it depends on which ship, which role it is optimised for, etc..

The skill distribution is unrelated to tutorials - in any player population half of players will be at or below median skill. What skill level that is is a different question.

Players in all game modes make changes to the game world, whether affecting Faction influence or which Power controls a system.

That none of the changes are permanent is another discussion, and is unrelated to which game modes affect the game world.

Colonisation affects the mode shared game world - and is not "instanced" in that there is only one version of that system in the game world.

"Even after engineering - it depends on which ship, which role it is optimised for, etc.."

You get a combat ship, you engineer it for shields and weapons. You can now take on threat 8's, it really is that simple lol. If you're building an exploration ship, you're not doing combat. If you're building a mining or trade ship, likewise you're not engaging in combat and can easily avoid it even after being successfully interdicted by an NPC. The difficulty here eventually escapes when you realize just how automated the AI acts.

"The skill distribution is unrelated to tutorials - in any player population half of players will be at or below median skill. What skill level that is is a different question."

This can be broadened through something the game is missing by encouraging the solo playstyle. "Experience". Which is something you gain from becoming familiar with the activity you're confronting. Much like how games will throw a boss in a tutorial to get a player familiar with how bosses function by sending something their way to confront them rather than happening across one and getting stomped which discourages them from continuing to boss. The same with pvp where players /can/ meet a wall that would encourage further pvp if they surpass it, this is usually done in other games though that have rank systems and queue's etc. I think in Elite's case, the essence is there with the "Ranking" showing how adept someone is at ship combat and etc but it's really just not well developed enough to work in a way that has meaning either since someone can not play for a year and needs to freshen up despite being an "expert". I think there could be potential to have some way to introduce players of like-skills together to get acustom to pvp if it was their cup of tea. How? I wish I had a better answer.

"Players in all game modes make changes to the game world, whether affecting Faction influence or which Power controls a system. That none of the changes are permanent is another discussion, and is unrelated to which game modes affect the game world."

No no, that's not my question. Tell me "how" these changes affect anyone or anything. Give me an example of one that matters regardless of it being temporary or not. Like you said, players in all game modes can affect faction influence(explain to me what this does) or which power controls a system(tell me how this changes anything). Give me examples of how these MATTER. Not just that we "can". We know we can change a planet's ownership from a person with a green flag to a person with a blue flag. What actually changes though that matters in that? I mean it when I say I wanna follow this train of thought.

"Colonisation affects the mode shared game world - and is not "instanced" in that there is only one version of that system in the game world."

I know... But if you instanced it, there wouldn't be much difference tbh right now. That was moreso my point and again I am eager to see how this expands because it has promise to be interesting for the open world side of the game.

Which PP rewards cannot be used in Solo?

They're referring to rebuys from being killed by opposite powers and vice versa.... Which I'm going to assume the defense for this is going to be "Some NPC's represent other powers!" which I'm going to call it right now is a terrible defense due to how easy these NPC's are to defeat again once you've engineered. If you've reached rank 100 without an engineered ship too, that's some kinda strange in itself. The real problem is we have what looks like PVP encouraging rewards, which in solo would mean don't result or do anything for you if PVE it's barely if at all ever used too. But I won't speak for them, I just have an idea where this is going and what they're meaning.

 

[SergMx]

Which PP rewards cannot be used in Solo?

Many ranks have a reward in the form of a reduced penalty payment for your ship if you are killed by another commander.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"Even after engineering - it depends on which ship, which role it is optimised for, etc.."

You get a combat ship, you engineer it for shields and weapons. You can now take on threat 8's, it really is that simple lol. If you're building an exploration ship, you're not doing combat. If you're building a mining or trade ship, likewise you're not engaging in combat and can easily avoid it even after being successfully interdicted by an NPC. The difficulty here eventually escapes when you realize just how automated the AI acts.

Avoiding interdiction by an NPC is usually possible (although rarely in a Type-9 in my experience). Avoiding interdiction by another player seems to be much more difficult - so much so that the usual advice is "submit and high-wake" - which means that ships not outfitted for combat will instance with players who have optimised their ship for combat....

"The skill distribution is unrelated to tutorials - in any player population half of players will be at or below median skill. What skill level that is is a different question."

This can be broadened through something the game is missing by encouraging the solo playstyle. "Experience". Which is something you gain from becoming familiar with the activity you're confronting. Much like how games will throw a boss in a tutorial to get a player familiar with how bosses function by sending something their way to confront them rather than happening across one and getting stomped which discourages them from continuing to boss. The same with pvp where players /can/ meet a wall that would encourage further pvp if they surpass it, this is usually done in other games though that have rank systems and queue's etc. I think in Elite's case, the essence is there with the "Ranking" showing how adept someone is at ship combat and etc but it's really just not well developed enough to work in a way that has meaning either since someone can not play for a year and needs to freshen up despite being an "expert". I think there could be potential to have some way to introduce players of like-skills together to get acustom to pvp if it was their cup of tea. How? I wish I had a better answer.

Whether a player wishes to "git gud" requires application and inclination, as well as aptitude. For some PvP is what they play the game for. For some others it's a tedious and predictable waste of game time.

The ranks are, like the original, effectively long service awards - as they are no indication of skill.

"Players in all game modes make changes to the game world, whether affecting Faction influence or which Power controls a system. That none of the changes are permanent is another discussion, and is unrelated to which game modes affect the game world."

No no, that's not my question. Tell me "how" these changes affect anyone or anything. Give me an example of one that matters regardless of it being temporary or not. Like you said, players in all game modes can affect faction influence(explain to me what this does) or which power controls a system(tell me how this changes anything). Give me examples of how these MATTER. Not just that we "can". We know we can change a planet's ownership from a person with a green flag to a person with a blue flag. What actually changes though that matters in that? I mean it when I say I wanna follow this train of thought.

Faction influence determines which Faction is dominant in a system and which Faction will expand from the system if influence is sufficiently high. Non-native Factions with low influence may retreat from a system.

Whether it matters, or not, is in the mind of each player. Some player groups seem to spend a lot of time managing a number of systems with particular Factions in residence - same with Powerplay groups.

"Colonisation affects the mode shared game world - and is not "instanced" in that there is only one version of that system in the game world."

I know... But if you instanced it, there wouldn't be much difference tbh right now. That was moreso my point and again I am eager to see how this expands because it has promise to be interesting for the open world side of the game.

If "instanced" in this context means "players in different game modes affect different game worlds" then Frontier ruled that out long ago.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Many ranks have a reward in the form of a reduced penalty payment for your ship if you are killed by another commander.

Interesting - got a link to where it states that the rebuy reduction is only available when destroyed by another player?

 

[SergMx]

Interesting - got a link to where it states that the rebuy reduction is only available when destroyed by another player?

1. To me in game commander always refers only to people.
2. To kill someone NPC it is necessary to try very hard.

Although I agree this question requires clarification.

 

[Venan]

Avoiding interdiction by an NPC is usually possible (although rarely in a Type-9 in my experience). Avoiding interdiction by another player seems to be much more difficult - so much so that the usual advice is "submit and high-wake" - which means that ships not outfitted for combat will instance with players who have optimised their ship for combat....

Whether a player wishes to "git gud" requires application and inclination, as well as aptitude. For some PvP is what they play the game for. For some others it's a tedious and predictable waste of game time.

The ranks are, like the original, effectively long service awards - as they are no indication of skill.

Faction influence determines which Faction is dominant in a system and which Faction will expand from the system if influence is sufficiently high. Non-native Factions with low influence may retreat from a system.

Whether it matters, or not, is in the mind of each player. Some player groups seem to spend a lot of time managing a number of systems with particular Factions in residence - same with Powerplay groups.

If "instanced" in this context means "players in different game modes affect different game worlds" then Frontier ruled that out long ago.

"Avoiding interdiction by an NPC is usually possible (although rarely in a Type-9 in my experience). Avoiding interdiction by another player seems to be much more difficult - so much so that the usual advice is "submit and high-wake" - which means that ships not outfitted for combat will instance with players who have optimised their ship for combat...."

It's not just usually possible, it's always possible and easy and even if you do fail you can just as easily supercruise out and be fine unscathed without issue even in an under engineered ship with no shields with a hull made of glass.

The "git gud" still has to come from some form of introduction TO the content to practice and learn. With no incentive though, there's absolutely going to be a mixed variety in how "gud" everyone is. But you're right, pvp right now is predictable and tedious, that's part of what I'm trying to discuss here... how to fix that. With balance changes and designs to encourage meaning to pvp to make it not this way.

"The ranks are, like the original, effectively long service awards - as they are no indication of skill."

The ranks, don't award you anything tbh, they're a title for yourself and that's it. A lil sticker saying "you did it". Engienering might ask for you to reach a certain point to engineer or some such but otherwise... that's kinda it?

"Faction influence determines which Faction is dominant in a system and which Faction will expand from the system if influence is sufficiently high. Non-native Factions with low influence may retreat from a system."

You're definitely dodging this question by giving a vague answer lol. Yes, I know how the PP funciton works lmao. I'm asking you WHAT CHANGES when a faction owns a system. What does that actually do TO the player regardless of game mode? What happens as a result of achieving a system change that directly does anything to do with the player?? If you just give me another repeated answer about how players can change who owns something, you're telling me nothing results from this but in name lol.


"Whether it matters, or not, is in the mind of each player. Some player groups seem to spend a lot of time managing a number of systems with particular Factions in residence - same with Powerplay groups."

Currently? Yeah, it is, because owning a system or not doesn't actually do anything for players or reflect in any way that results in a difference as I've stated above. What is the difference between your power owning a system or not? Not a single thing if you're solo and if you go solo anyways, you're not in open play to make use of any of the perks like free rebuys from opposing factions. It's not just in the mind of players, it's a design that has literally no value to players outside some fancy colors and titles over systems. There's nothing that changes crimes and punishment, there's nothing that will change in a way that will reflect in meaning to a player that isn't already achievable. Bonus credits in a system under your power's influence for doing X task? That's great... except there's already systems that do this all around so you can do this anywhere. Does it matter where? We dunno, the game doesn't specify or showcase why that would matter. At most I could see mining bonuses for selling platinum but guess what, credits don't do anything for you after you have a fleet carrier and ships. So what does that do for you actively anymore? Purchase rebuys? You mean the free ones you get after rank 100 and the rbeuys you're not using because you're solo playing?


Let's stop with the semantics and get to the point really here. There are no literal, physical, meaningful changes made in the long run so long as everyone is comfortable in their own spaces doing as they please with no incentives. Owning a territory should FEEL like owning a territory. You should fly around your power's system feeling protected, guarded, having support, making engagements easier whether it be PVE or PVP. Whilest engaging in opposing powers systems should feel like a threat, a challenge, keeping you on your toes aware you may encounter disadvantages. This just isn't the case currently and territories are purely cosmetic and RP in mind only.


"If "instanced" in this context means "players in different game modes affect different game worlds" then Frontier ruled that out long ago."


I don't know why we're still talking about this one when I agreed with you earlier but I'm saying if they made it solo instanced so anyone could build anywhere in a separate online instance, it wouldn't be different from what it is now because there isn't any social engagements in colonization atm from what I can see. That's all I'm saying, but this is too soon to judge or guage with a recently added system and it does show signs of having more than what I'm seeing on a surface level. This reply ended a while ago my friend. We'll see where it goes from here, it's a good addition to the game and I'm not disagreeing in any way with you on this lol.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"Avoiding interdiction by an NPC is usually possible (although rarely in a Type-9 in my experience). Avoiding interdiction by another player seems to be much more difficult - so much so that the usual advice is "submit and high-wake" - which means that ships not outfitted for combat will instance with players who have optimised their ship for combat...."

It's not just usually possible, it's always possible and easy and even if you do fail you can just as easily supercruise out and be fine unscathed without issue even in an under engineered ship with no shields with a hull made of glass.

For some, maybe - refer to earlier point regarding median skill.

The "git gud" still has to come from some form of introduction TO the content to practice and learn. With no incentive though, there's absolutely going to be a mixed variety in how "gud" everyone is. But you're right, pvp right now is predictable and tedious, that's part of what I'm trying to discuss here... how to fix that. With balance changes and designs to encourage meaning to pvp to make it not this way.

The form of introduction that has at times caused frustrated posts on the forums with PvP proponents telling the frustrated player to "git gud or go Solo" is common enough - and it seems that a not insignificant number of players took the advice, just not the part that those giving the advice wanted them to.

Some players react to their PvP initiation by seeking advice as to how to get better at avoiding it or actively seeking it out, some don't.

"The ranks are, like the original, effectively long service awards - as they are no indication of skill."

The ranks, don't award you anything tbh, they're a title for yourself and that's it. A lil sticker saying "you did it". Engienering might ask for you to reach a certain point to engineer or some such but otherwise... that's kinda it?

First reward for any Elite rank is a 2.5% discount on ships and modules, applicable everywhere, then there's access to Shinrarta Dehzra with its 10% discount on all ships and modules with everything in stock.

Let's stop with the semantics and get to the point really here. There are no literal, physical, meaningful changes made in the long run so long as everyone is comfortable in their own spaces doing as they please with no incentives. Owning a territory should FEEL like owning a territory. You should fly around your power's system feeling protected, guarded, having support, making engagements easier whether it be PVE or PVP. Whilest engaging in opposing powers systems should feel like a threat, a challenge, keeping you on your toes aware you may encounter disadvantages. This just isn't the case currently and territories are purely cosmetic and RP in mind only.

Players don't own territory - Factions do and Powers do but players don't actively control either, they can only affect them through game activities.

"If "instanced" in this context means "players in different game modes affect different game worlds" then Frontier ruled that out long ago."

I don't know why we're still talking about this one when I agreed with you earlier but I'm saying if they made it solo instanced so anyone could build anywhere in a separate online instance, it wouldn't be different from what it is now because there isn't any social engagements in colonization atm from what I can see. That's all I'm saying, but this is too soon to judge or guage with a recently added system and it does show signs of having more than what I'm seeing on a surface level. This reply ended a while ago my friend. We'll see where it goes from here, it's a good addition to the game and I'm not disagreeing in any way with you on this lol.

It's only still being talked about because "instanced" keeps being mentioned as a possible solution to a problem that not all players agree is even a problem.

 

[Venan]

For some, maybe - refer to earlier point regarding median skill.

The form of introduction that has at times caused frustrated posts on the forums with PvP proponents telling the frustrated player to "git gud or go Solo" is common enough - and it seems that a not insignificant number of players took the advice, just not the part that those giving the advice wanted them to.

Some players react to their PvP initiation by seeking advice as to how to get better at avoiding it or actively seeking it out, some don't.

First reward for any Elite rank is a 2.5% discount on ships and modules, applicable everywhere, then there's access to Shinrarta Dehzra with its 10% discount on all ships and modules with everything in stock.

Players don't own territory - Factions do and Powers do but players don't actively control either, they can only affect them through game activities.

It's only still being talked about because "instanced" keeps being mentioned as a possible solution to a problem that not all players agree is even a problem.

"For some, maybe - refer to earlier point regarding median skill."

This is where the line gets blurry. How low are the devs willing to drop the game's standards to appease EVERYONE but then thusly lose the appeal of players who are seeking to achieve something through higher cielings? A game for everyone, is a game for no one.


"The form of introduction that has at times caused frustrated posts on the forums with PvP proponents telling the frustrated player to "git gud or go Solo" is common enough - and it seems that a not insignificant number of players took the advice, just not the part that those giving the advice wanted them to.

Some players react to their PvP initiation by seeking advice as to how to get better at avoiding it or actively seeking it out, some don't."

Seeking advice outside the game is one thing but getting the familiarity in game when it's not provided in a comfortable way to ease players into it is another. We currently lack the latter and mostly have the former as a result of a lot of design decisions.

"First reward for any Elite rank is a 2.5% discount on ships and modules, applicable everywhere, then there's access to Shinrarta Dehzra with its 10% discount on all ships and modules with everything in stock."

That's great. I won't get into how redundant credits have become... but that's /something/ albeit not much in the grand scheme of things.

"Players don't own territory - Factions do and Powers do but players don't actively control either, they can only affect them through game activities."

Players pledge to powers, powers own territory. Again, semantics. You're still dodging my question and at this point I'm prone to believe it's because you know deep down it won't lead to anything meaningful. GG I guess.


"It's only still being talked about because "instanced" keeps being mentioned as a possible solution to a problem that not all players agree is even a problem."

I'm not bringing it up as a solution, I'm saying it would make no difference homie LOL. I never said it needed to be changed at all here or that it's even a problem.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"For some, maybe - refer to earlier point regarding median skill."

This is where the line gets blurry. How low are the devs willing to drop the game's standards to appease EVERYONE but then thusly lose the appeal of players who are seeking to achieve something through higher cielings? A game for everyone, is a game for no one.

... by making the greater challenge opt-in, as they have done with Thargoids and PvP.

"The form of introduction that has at times caused frustrated posts on the forums with PvP proponents telling the frustrated player to "git gud or go Solo" is common enough - and it seems that a not insignificant number of players took the advice, just not the part that those giving the advice wanted them to.

Some players react to their PvP initiation by seeking advice as to how to get better at avoiding it or actively seeking it out, some don't."

Seeking advice outside the game is one thing but getting the familiarity in game when it's not provided in a comfortable way to ease players into it is another. We currently lack the latter and mostly have the former as a result of a lot of design decisions.

Certainly "a lot of design decisions" mean that no player requires to enjoy, or even tolerate to play the game - not limited to game modes or the ability to block individual players but also that leaving the game via menu exit is permissible at any time (and the Dev who made the statement acknowledged that they knew that Frontier's stance would not be appreciated by all players).

"First reward for any Elite rank is a 2.5% discount on ships and modules, applicable everywhere, then there's access to Shinrarta Dehzra with its 10% discount on all ships and modules with everything in stock."

That's great. I won't get into how redundant credits have become... but that's /something/ albeit not much in the grand scheme of things.

Even not much is more than the claimed "The ranks, don't award you anything tbh, they're a title for yourself and that's it. A lil sticker saying "you did it".".

"Players don't own territory - Factions do and Powers do but players don't actively control either, they can only affect them through game activities."

Players pledge to powers, powers own territory. Again, semantics. You're still dodging my question and at this point I'm prone to believe it's because you know deep down it won't lead to anything meaningful. GG I guess.

Semantics, being the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning, would seem to be rather necessary when communicating.

What it all comes down to is that there is no player-owned territory in the game, by design. Even when player supported minor Factions were able to be applied for and implemented in the game it was clear that player supported Faction was subject to the same rules as every other Faction in the game.

Put differently, it seems that this game is not the player territorial game that some players seem to be seeking.

"It's only still being talked about because "instanced" keeps being mentioned as a possible solution to a problem that not all players agree is even a problem."

I'm not bringing it up as a solution, I'm saying it would make no difference homie LOL. I never said it needed to be changed at all here or that it's even a problem.

It would be a fundamental difference if some players no longer affected the single persistent galaxy state, as all players affecting it is part of the game as it has been sold to all players for over a decade.

 

[Venan]

... by making the greater challenge opt-in, as they have done with Thargoids and PvP.

Certainly "a lot of design decisions" mean that no player requires to enjoy, or even tolerate to play the game - not limited to game modes or the ability to block individual players but also that leaving the game via menu exit is permissible at any time (and the Dev who made the statement acknowledged that they knew that Frontier's stance would not be appreciated by all players).

Even not much is more than the claimed "The ranks, don't award you anything tbh, they're a title for yourself and that's it. A lil sticker saying "you did it".".

Semantics, being the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning, would seem to be rather necessary when communicating.

What it all comes down to is that there is no player-owned territory in the game, by design. Even when player supported minor Factions were able to be applied for and implemented in the game it was clear that player supported Faction was subject to the same rules as every other Faction in the game.

Put differently, it seems that this game is not the player territorial game that some players seem to be seeking.

It would be a fundamental difference if some players no longer affected the single persistent galaxy state, as all players affecting it is part of the game as it has been sold to all players for over a decade.

"... by making the greater challenge opt-in, as they have done with Thargoids and PvP."

PVP, I disagree there personally. Thargoids, absolutely.

"Certainly "a lot of design decisions" mean that no player requires to enjoy, or even tolerate to play the game - not limited to game modes or the ability to block individual players but also that leaving the game via menu exit is permissible at any time (and the Dev who made the statement acknowledged that they knew that Frontier's stance would not be appreciated by all players)."

When I say a lot of design decisions. I'm referring to the grand scheme of the game in this long run it's had where it's lead to discouraging a lot of social activities. Engineering creating power gaps. Lack of balancing ships as well. Crime and punishment not really doing a whole lot. Implementing solo and private group play to alleviate issues. Making specific locations provide more materials as a bandage rather than an actual adjustment to naturally encourage certain gameplay in a fun way(you're not going to tell me visiting the jameson site, scanning, relogging, and trading materials is fun I'm sorry, I don't know a soul who thinks relogging their game is intentional).

"Even not much is more than the claimed "The ranks, don't award you anything tbh, they're a title for yourself and that's it. A lil sticker saying "you did it"."."

You're correct, but it's not so black and white to say this is an issue that's resolved. It's steps in the right direction if anything.

"Semantics, being the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning, would seem to be rather necessary when communicating.

What it all comes down to is that there is no player-owned territory in the game, by design. Even when player supported minor Factions were able to be applied for and implemented in the game it was clear that player supported Faction was subject to the same rules as every other Faction in the game.

Put differently, it seems that this game is not the player territorial game that some players seem to be seeking."



Let's rephrase then if we're going to play that game and be ultra specific. What does influencing a system into the power you pledge to "do" for you that would have meaning other than gaining credits or preventing you from losing credits to another power? If you removed the power play system entirely, you'd have the same results as it were with it... which is to say you'd gain and lose nothing with or without it. Powerplay is added into the game to create diversity in decisoin making to influence systems to encourage players to have a reason to do things in specific areas... but if the rewards don't have any affect on players or only affect it they participated in multiplayer(which seems to be the case most do not want to considering what we've discussed) then it begs to ask "what is the point then?". If getting the abliity to have your rebuy covered when killed by another power exists only because powerplay exists, then removing this would result in no difference since regardless people are going to be solo or do things in a safe environment anyways. There are no other perks to owning additional systems or wanting to reduce another system down in power based off the rewards and designs in place that promote players to play solo.

When I say meaningful territory control for powers, it means if you influence a system to your pledged power... there should be a tangible result that made it worth doing to begin with. Otherwise you could make these personal achievements like the combat ranking you described and provide the same rewards individually. In a multiplayer sense, these don't do anything so long as the designs in play are in play as they are.

TL;DR: A change needs to happen for multiplayer to be encouraged at least somewhere so that doing powerplay matters to begin with. Right now for example, I might be pledged to Lavingy-Duval for the bounty increase for pve, but I already have systems(and all I need would be one) to bounty hunt in to benefit from this reward. Everything else is weapons every power gives, rebuy cost reductions from being killed by other powers (which if I'm fighting in my own power's system... this again means nothing and even less so if I'm in solo). There is no reason for me to gain another system or lower another's that I would personally benefit from or promote someone else to benefit from in a multiplayer sense. They can all go to the already owned systems and gain these benefits. There is no incentive.


"It would be a fundamental difference if some players no longer affected the single persistent galaxy state, as all players affecting it is part of the game as it has been sold to all players for over a decade."

I'm not sure what your point here is anymore so I'm gonna drop it because I believe we're saying the same thing and there's a miscommunication here. I have nothing against or for colonization and I'm happy how it's being done currently and hope to see it move forward. Much like this conversation lol.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"Certainly "a lot of design decisions" mean that no player requires to enjoy, or even tolerate to play the game - not limited to game modes or the ability to block individual players but also that leaving the game via menu exit is permissible at any time (and the Dev who made the statement acknowledged that they knew that Frontier's stance would not be appreciated by all players)."

When I say a lot of design decisions. I'm referring to the grand scheme of the game in this long run it's had where it's lead to discouraging a lot of social activities. Engineering creating power gaps. Lack of balancing ships as well. Crime and punishment not really doing a whole lot. Implementing solo and private group play to alleviate issues. Making specific locations provide more materials as a bandage rather than an actual adjustment to naturally encourage certain gameplay in a fun way(you're not going to tell me visiting the jameson site, scanning, relogging, and trading materials is fun I'm sorry, I don't know a soul who thinks relogging their game is intentional).

Noting that social activities don't need PvP for them to be "fun" for some players.

Solo and Private Groups were not a later addition to the game - they have been part of the publicly available game design information from Frontier for as long as Open has (albeit the names that Frontier used for them in the beginning were not the same as they are now).

Some locations in the game prevent re-logging by having some sort of "restock" timer that starts when the site is visited by the player, some other locations don't. It seems that Frontier may be reluctant to completely remove the ability to re-log to restock over the whole galaxy for each player for some reason - given the number of such sites, it may be as simple as data storage.

"Semantics, being the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning, would seem to be rather necessary when communicating.

What it all comes down to is that there is no player-owned territory in the game, by design. Even when player supported minor Factions were able to be applied for and implemented in the game it was clear that player supported Faction was subject to the same rules as every other Faction in the game.

Put differently, it seems that this game is not the player territorial game that some players seem to be seeking."

Let's rephrase then if we're going to play that game and be ultra specific. What does influencing a system into the power you pledge to "do" for you that would have meaning other than gaining credits or preventing you from losing credits to another power? If you removed the power play system entirely, you'd have the same results as it were with it... which is to say you'd gain and lose nothing with or without it. Powerplay is added into the game to create diversity in decisoin making to influence systems to encourage players to have a reason to do things in specific areas... but if the rewards don't have any affect on players or only affect it they participated in multiplayer(which seems to be the case most do not want to considering what we've discussed) then it begs to ask "what is the point then?". If getting the abliity to have your rebuy covered when killed by another power exists only because powerplay exists, then removing this would result in no difference since regardless people are going to be solo or do things in a safe environment anyways. There are no other perks to owning additional systems or wanting to reduce another system down in power based off the rewards and designs in place that promote players to play solo.

When I say meaningful territory control for powers, it means if you influence a system to your pledged power... there should be a tangible result that made it worth doing to begin with. Otherwise you could make these personal achievements like the combat ranking you described and provide the same rewards individually. In a multiplayer sense, these don't do anything so long as the designs in play are in play as they are.

TL;DR: A change needs to happen for multiplayer to be encouraged at least somewhere so that doing powerplay matters to begin with. Right now for example, I might be pledged to Lavingy-Duval for the bounty increase for pve, but I already have systems(and all I need would be one) to bounty hunt in to benefit from this reward. Everything else is weapons every power gives, rebuy cost reductions from being killed by other powers (which if I'm fighting in my own power's system... this again means nothing and even less so if I'm in solo). There is no reason for me to gain another system or lower another's that I would personally benefit from or promote someone else to benefit from in a multiplayer sense. They can all go to the already owned systems and gain these benefits. There is no incentive.

Given that Frontier do have their in-game analytics that show what players do, and possibly more importantly, what they don't do, it is likely that they base their decision making regarding targeting content at individual players or groups of players. As an example, Fleet Carriers were originally announced as Squadron assets, which did not receive a favourable reaction from all players, however after being delayed for some time (they were released about eighteen months after Squadrons were introduced) they were available to individual players. This may have been due, at least in part, to Frontier's analysis of how many players were a member of a Squadron and how many were not - as the time between Squadrons and Fleet Carriers was plenty of time to see if Squadrons had grasped the player-base's attention or not.

"It would be a fundamental difference if some players no longer affected the single persistent galaxy state, as all players affecting it is part of the game as it has been sold to all players for over a decade."

I'm not sure what your point here is anymore so I'm gonna drop it because I believe we're saying the same thing and there's a miscommunication here. I have nothing against or for colonization and I'm happy how it's being done currently and hope to see it move forward. Much like this conversation lol.

As this discussion has been ongoing in one form or another for over twelve years, i.e. since the game design was published during the Kickstarter pitch (about two years before the game launched), this is not the first time that the push to "instance" or otherwise segregate the effects on one or more game features by players in modes other than Open has often been used as a gateway to proposals to remove the effects of players in modes other than Open completely from most, if not all, of the game's mode shared game features.

 

[Venan]

Noting that social activities don't need PvP for them to be "fun" for some players.

Solo and Private Groups were not a later addition to the game - they have been part of the publicly available game design information from Frontier for as long as Open has (albeit the names that Frontier used for them in the beginning were not the same as they are now).

Some locations in the game prevent re-logging by having some sort of "restock" timer that starts when the site is visited by the player, some other locations don't. It seems that Frontier may be reluctant to completely remove the ability to re-log to restock over the whole galaxy for each player for some reason - given the number of such sites, it may be as simple as data storage.

Given that Frontier do have their in-game analytics that show what players do, and possibly more importantly, what they don't do, it is likely that they base their decision making regarding targeting content at individual players or groups of players. As an example, Fleet Carriers were originally announced as Squadron assets, which did not receive a favourable reaction from all players, however after being delayed for some time (they were released about eighteen months after Squadrons were introduced) they were available to individual players. This may have been due, at least in part, to Frontier's analysis of how many players were a member of a Squadron and how many were not - as the time between Squadrons and Fleet Carriers was plenty of time to see if Squadrons had grasped the player-base's attention or not.

As this discussion has been ongoing in one form or another for over twelve years, i.e. since the game design was published during the Kickstarter pitch (about two years before the game launched), this is not the first time that the push to "instance" or otherwise segregate the effects on one or more game features by players in modes other than Open has often been used as a gateway to proposals to remove the effects of players in modes other than Open completely from most, if not all, of the game's mode shared game features.

"Noting that social activities don't need PvP for them to be "fun" for some players.

Solo and Private Groups were not a later addition to the game - they have been part of the publicly available game design information from Frontier for as long as Open has (albeit the names that Frontier used for them in the beginning were not the same as they are now).

Some locations in the game prevent re-logging by having some sort of "restock" timer that starts when the site is visited by the player, some other locations don't. It seems that Frontier may be reluctant to completely remove the ability to re-log to restock over the whole galaxy for each player for some reason - given the number of such sites, it may be as simple as data storage."

You're right but when thargoids are the only activity we can cooperate together in and it requires you to engineer a ship which in itself is a grind and a half... it's a pretty lengthy period of time to dedicate before you get to even see other players and play WITH them so it'd be nice to have other activities too? Pvp aside in this scenario.

Perhaps the names for them is part of the confusion too, but regardless this makes the options to select from still available but some have less reason to exist at all.... open play in this case.

I think the reason they don't remove it is because they know engineering has caused problems in the game in the grand scheme. Things like removing relogging from player settlement materials from respawning for example makes sense because so far the on foot engineering process is pretty standard and fine as is as far as I can tell. I think the issue is that they're hesitant to redesign engineering as a whole and would rather bandage the issues than work on solutions that would overall need a lot of time and resources to be dedicated towards. This is just my belief though based off how they've gone about engineering since increasing material count has been beneficial and they understand players are not thrilled with the grind as it is implemented currently but also don't have an immediate solution or idea how to resolve it easily.


"Given that Frontier do have their in-game analytics that show what players do, and possibly more importantly, what they don't do, it is likely that they base their decision making regarding targeting content at individual players or groups of players. As an example, Fleet Carriers were originally announced as Squadron assets, which did not receive a favourable reaction from all players, however after being delayed for some time (they were released about eighteen months after Squadrons were introduced) they were available to individual players. This may have been due, at least in part, to Frontier's analysis of how many players were a member of a Squadron and how many were not - as the time between Squadrons and Fleet Carriers was plenty of time to see if Squadrons had grasped the player-base's attention or not."

The source of that issue would be imo then how squadrons have little impact or difference in gameplay. Although I think the idea for fleet carriers to be player owned was a correct step, it's like many of the decisions... a bandage to the core issue. My friend has created a squadron for us to be in but when I ask him what the goal is outside of having an in game chat to share, he cannot seem to find one. So I would relate this to the question I asked in what the point is here as well. Again, the source of this issue isn't down to just PVP or anything specific, it stems from multiple decisions isolating the objective of systems being added to begin with. Nothing really connects to squadrons having any meaning or impact on the world for example as far as I'm able to tell unless you can correct me on this.

"As this discussion has been ongoing in one form or another for over twelve years, i.e. since the game design was published during the Kickstarter pitch (about two years before the game launched), this is not the first time that the push to "instance" or otherwise segregate the effects on one or more game features by players in modes other than Open has often been used as a gateway to proposals to remove the effects of players in modes other than Open completely from most, if not all, of the game's mode shared game features."

Okay? I'm not pushing or advocating to instance it at all here though. This is a moot topic now we can disgard.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"Given that Frontier do have their in-game analytics that show what players do, and possibly more importantly, what they don't do, it is likely that they base their decision making regarding targeting content at individual players or groups of players. As an example, Fleet Carriers were originally announced as Squadron assets, which did not receive a favourable reaction from all players, however after being delayed for some time (they were released about eighteen months after Squadrons were introduced) they were available to individual players. This may have been due, at least in part, to Frontier's analysis of how many players were a member of a Squadron and how many were not - as the time between Squadrons and Fleet Carriers was plenty of time to see if Squadrons had grasped the player-base's attention or not."

The source of that issue would be imo then how squadrons have little impact or difference in gameplay. Although I think the idea for fleet carriers to be player owned was a correct step, it's like many of the decisions... a bandage to the core issue. My friend has created a squadron for us to be in but when I ask him what the goal is outside of having an in game chat to share, he cannot seem to find one. So I would relate this to the question I asked in what the point is here as well. Again, the source of this issue isn't down to just PVP or anything specific, it stems from multiple decisions isolating the objective of systems being added to begin with. Nothing really connects to squadrons having any meaning or impact on the world for example as far as I'm able to tell unless you can correct me on this.

Squadrons have at least as much impact as if the same number of players working alone would have, likely more due to having friends to play alongside, i.e. risk reduction through numbers, and Wing bonuses for particular activities.

It seems that the desire is for the effects of players in Squadrons to have even more impact than they already do.