Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place

[Rampant]

Perfect, then the changes ive asked for wouldn't effect you or anyone else thats not connected to Powerplay or a Player faction. You'd still be able to do the same thing you are now.

You may sit down. Thanks for your time.

That would be a lie, my friend.

The changes you ask for *would* affect him, and what's more, I think you *know* they would affect him and every single other player in the game.

You conveniently ignored the main point that Jockey made - that you are asking for something to be removed from us all, that we all paid for. No matter whether we use that feature, currently - currently, we have access to it, and may yet use it in future or plan to use it. What you want is for some people to have their access removed, and that isn't cricket, dear boy, just not cricket at all. And that's why Jockey said he was involved. Similarly for me - "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept". I don't accept that your request is "fair", so I will not walk past without adding to the discussion.

Do you understand this removal of paid-for content viewpoint yet, and how it would affect everyone, regardless of whether they use it or not, because it appears that you didn't?

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[ALGOMATIC]

The three mode system was clearly designed such that PvP would not be dominant - and, if dominance is what is required to make PvP meaningful, then it would seem unlikely to become so as it remains an optional element of the game.

You are repeating what we all know. I am not debating that the original design wasnt indented, what I am saying is that theory and practice are different things and we can see what Open has become as result of missing content, so the original design did not anticipate the outcome properly.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are repeating what we all know. I am not debating that the original design wasnt indented, what I am saying is that theory and practice are different things and we can see what Open has become as result of missing content, so the original design did not anticipate the outcome properly.

The design would seem to cater perfectly to one side of the quite predictable division in the player-base - as it means that those that do not enjoy direct PvP can still play the game and leave Open to those that do. What it does not do is allow players to dictate the terms of any engagement through the BGS, Factions, PowerPlay, etc. (other than through the PvE actions that form the indirect PvP that the game is based on, of course).

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Again I'll ask, is open dead or a "slaughter house"?

I keep seeing the same few GSPs claiming open is dead and needs people forcing into it, then in another thread it's just a gank fest because you're all bored.
You know dead and "slaughter house" are exclusive arguments, it cannot be both.

And the selective mode system is a success, not just here but also in other games that have it - antisocial players who just want to wreak others time are furious, so the mode system is a raging success.
All future MMOs should take note - they don't need to pay for CS or GMs and can save money by having a selective mode system.

Thats hilarious. There is no multiplayer content with this design, its not a patent its a catastrophic failure. They might as well made a SOLO only game, the result would be the same. Hopefully other games wont make the same mistake and will see how empty of content ED is, and the 3 modes are a huge contributor to this.


As for Open, its full of cmdrs, thats not the issue, the issue is that many of them will run off to SOLO for PP or BGS to have an advantage.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

The design would seem to cater perfectly to one side of the quite predictable division in the player-base - as it means that those that do not enjoy direct PvP can still play the game and leave Open to those that do. What it does not do is allow players to dictate the terms of any engagement through the BGS, Factions, PowerPlay, etc. (other than through the PvE actions that form the indirect PvP that the game is based on, of course).

Correct, which makes PP and BGS undesirable, and as a result turns Open into a massive salt mine.

 

[Jockey79]

I think the reality is probably some where in the middle of extremes but thats just my observation so ymmv

Oh I know, but thanks for saying.

See what some of the vocal minority cannot grasp is that quite a few of us use open and play in open.
So I know all too well what open is like. As do many others that like the mode system and make full use of it.

But you won't find me at a CG, because I'm bored of them. You won't find me doing rare trade runs, I don't need them.
My friends and I have our own little corner of the universe, where we can trade, do missions or NPC hunt our little hearts out.
And the vocal minority will never find us, regardless of mode.

I've even gone AFK outside Lave back when it was really busy. 30 minutes later my T6 trade fit was still there, albeit 100Km away from the station due to the drift, but it was there

 

[Robert Maynard]

Correct, which makes PP and BGS undesirable, and as a result turns Open into a massive salt mine.

Maybe for players who wish to dominate them through PvP - however that is to restrict their options to oppose others in relation to these features to an optional element of the game that other players rather obviously eschew (the majority of other players, from what one Dev has indicated).

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Maybe for players who wish to dominate them through PvP - however that is to restrict their options to oppose others in relation to these features to an optional element of the game that other players rather obviously eschew (the majority of other players, from what one Dev has indicated).

PP cannot be done individually, its a group effort, if you do it alone it will be a massive grind because the numbers would be too small. If you go to the PP threads there are many arguments and dirt slinging at each other for going to PG/solo to achieve PP victories, many wish it would be an open only, its not just some "vocal minority", in fact I dont think you will find anyone who is an honest PP player who refuses to abuse the system that wouldnt want for Open to have incentive.

 

[Jockey79]

There is no multiplayer content with this design,

Weird, my friends and I seem to have found it.
Perhaps you're not looking in the right place?

its not a patent its a catastrophic failure.

Only for those who came here for the sole purpose of trying to make other people miserable.
Turned out, the Dev team were on to you from the start and made a game that would actually do the opposite and make GSPs miserable.

Genius idea. DBOBE and the team should be given knighthoods... oh wait, DBOBE was given one!

They might as well made a SOLO only game, the result would be the same.

They did make a solo game, then added the ability to invite friends along for the ride.
Friends, not random strangers but friends.... play alone or with friends - it's on the website if you look.

Hopefully other games wont make the same mistake and will see how empty of content ED is, and the 3 modes are a huge contributor to this.

ED has shown the success and value of the selective mode system, Shroud of the Avatar uses exactly the same system and is having similar results.
Warframe has a selective mode system with their F2P MMO and it is a success.
Even Star Citizen is going to be using a similar system where you can move a slider to reduce how often you get put with random strangers.

Selective Multiplayer Gaming isn't the future - it is now. I get to pick who I want to play with and it is glorious

 

[Robert Maynard]

PP cannot be done individually, its a group effort, if you do it alone it will be a massive grind because the numbers would be too small. If you go to the PP threads there are many arguments and dirt slinging at each other for going to PG/solo to achieve PP victories, many wish it would be an open only, its not just some "vocal minority", in fact I dont think you will find anyone who is an honest PP player who refuses to abuse the system that wouldnt want for Open to have incentive.

It's no surprise that there are some PowerPlayers who would prefer that PowerPlay was Open only / given a bonus for Open play. What proportion of all PowerPlayers they represent is a matter of opinion - as there are no published figures regarding either how many PowerPlayers there are nor which game mode(s) they play in.

 

[Jockey79]

It's no surprise that there are some PowerPlayers who would prefer that PowerPlay was Open only / given a bonus for Open play. What proportion of all PowerPlayers they represent is a matter of opinion - as there are no published figures regarding either how many PowerPlayers there are nor which game mode(s) they play in.

The only people who can possibly be shouting for PP to be open only is Aglo and his group of friends.
Because he keeps telling us Power Play is dead and no one plays it.

 

[Sylveria]

The only people who can possibly be shouting for PP to be open only is Aglo and his group of friends.
Because he keeps telling us Power Play is dead and no one plays it.

LMAO

 

[Rampant]

I just cannot be bothered with that as a competition, especially with basically zero reward. Gimme something like Ziggy's proposal, and I'd jump into PP arms wide.

^^^^
You see, you just summed up PvP for what I believe to be the majority of Elite: Dangerous players.

Nothing at all to do with being "scared" - the entire notion of PvP combat is just tedious for some people.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[StiTch]

The changes you ask for *would* affect him, and what's more, I think you *know* they would affect him and every single other player in the game.

Changing headlights to vivid pink would "affect" every player in the game.

Without weighing in on whatever specific argument you're having, it'd be super cool if people could stop chanting "but that would change my game experience" with no indication or justification as to why that's relevant.

"This change would stop me partaking in a PvE activity" is quite different to "Well it'd mean the game is different, and that's bad, mmkay".

You are repeating what we all know. I am not debating that the original design wasnt indented, what I am saying is that theory and practice are different things and we can see what Open has become as result of missing content, so the original design did not anticipate the outcome properly.

Don't stress yerself mate. Various people like to refer to advertisements and design discussions as having nothing to do with PvP in the blind hope we won't realise the advertisements and design discussions do refer to PvP.

I am not sure about each one having its own score, would that not require a second server, therefore more cost to FD and then to us? Perhaps there is a way to do it without punishing FDev but I wouldnt know how to do that (do i keep mentioning how rubbish I am at most things)

To clear up something I think I explained badly; I am not talking about separating the BGS. It'd all take effect on the same server, BGS, PP scenario.

A rudimentary example of the proposed implementation (and would absolutely require refining to be avoid exploitation) would be that while in Open, you can only gain merits from x activity, and while in PG/Solo, you can only gain merits from y activity. The activities themselves are different - as an example, one week, the Open activity for Mahon would be leaflet deliveries and his PG activity would be CZ fighting.

If Mahon supporters refuse to engage in PG/Solo CZ fighting, he gets hurt on account of being thoroughly ousted on one front - and the same applying to Open leaflet deliveries. I.e. both are essential, but no player is forced into either; you get to choose which you partake in, and if you choose to partake in the Open activity, you cannot avoid the conflict - but you made the choice.

I think one of the problems of escorts/interference is the instancing more than the modes although the mode do affect it as well. Another aspect is you have to find some people who are willing to be the transporters (dont mind getting blown up) and the people who are willing to try and run escort since it sounds like (although i might enjoy it) a lot of people would find that boring and a waste of time even if there was some way to make it profitable.

As a transport player, if you relegate yourself to the role of "getting blown up", then it gonna happen!

Get turrets, get multicrew, get armoured, cause as much hassle as your escorts before high waking out

I would be willing to play any part especially if there was some way to ensure i got to play everypart not just one even in the current situation (but lets be real nobody ever asks do they)

It's difficult to discuss, as we don't have any roles in ED that rely on each other; it's incredible how much this game lacks in terms of multiplayer content. Even multicrew just takes a single ship and makes it moar powerful.

I for one would be more than happy to take on any role, but as I highlight above - I am happy to blaze my own trail Give me a trader, and I'll make it the most pain-in-the-backside trader to murder I can.

Thats awesome.
I was in open at the Oracle and didnt get blown up (because i am so sneaky hey dont take away my delusions) had a few close calls with the damn station though.

Them damn griefing stations, tho....should really be asking your consent for Player v Station content.

^^^^
You see, you just summed up PvP for what I believe to be the majority of Elite: Dangerous players.

Nothing at all to do with being "scared" - the entire notion of PvP combat is just tedious for some people.

Yours Aye

Mark H

I don't want to make this personal...but you really have nothing better to do, do you? -_-

The two are not mutually inclusive notions. I was referring to PvP vs. PvE content in all gaming.

Don't take that ED cannot even succeed as a multiplayer game as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" for "all PvP sux forevah".

Entirely different discussion. Galaxies apart, my friend.

 

[Fokker]

Toxicity is the bane for many games, and with PvP in any game, you get very high levels of toxicity generated by PvE players that are terrified of the idea of interacting with other human beings.

No, PvP isn't immune to toxicity, but it gets much worse when any discussion around it is instinctually invaded by pitchfork wielding knights on high horses.

Have you played a MOBA? Toxicity is a component that goes hand in hand with online interaction with individuals these days and a byproduct of less face-to-face socialization.

 

[Rampant]

This is where you still fail to understand that PvP would not work and you would still lose the BSG battle if you have a PvP side v a PvE side in open in a BSG battle say 20 strong each side the PvP side would be sitting their patrolling in small wings trying to cover several instance's to defend their system, this is all taking place in open with no block feature all the PvE team would have to do is make sure they are wing together and make sure they are all on each other friend list's and time their jumps together and as wings are king followed by friends list on the matchmaker server their be a good chance you wont even instance with them. The PvE group could even get 5 of their team to unfriend and have unarmed cheap throw away ships to keep jumping into your system to increase the chance of a instance with you and as long as they stay clean let the PvP group interdict them and blow them up (which would get very boring for the PvP group) this would also help the PvE group as it would lower your rep with your own faction and make you hostile in your own system. The five ships may even be carrying missions for your faction you won't know so by destroying them you could also be weakening your own faction by doing so.

You be better off running missions for your faction the time wasted running around on the lookout for a ship you could have run several missions to strengthen your faction, the only time I would see PvP a good option would be when the system enters a state of war then perhaps PvP could be used to drive out the opposing group from CZ's to help when that war

Mate, this is the absolute truth of it and it has been said before, but, you see, the PvP combat crowd. Just. Will. Not. Accept. It.

Well done for trying, though, but I can almost guarantee that you will be ignored. As I have been after I have described how this works.

My conclusion is that there is another motive and end-state that the PvP combat crowd desire, and I'm pretty sure that I know what it is, because of analysis, but we'll see how this pans out in time.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[StiTch]

My conclusion is that there is another motive and end-state that the PvP combat crowd desire, and I'm pretty sure that I know what it is, because of analysis, but we'll see how this pans out in time.

"I will not listen to another's arguments because I have a predetermined idea of how I think the situation is".

My, that's a remarkably similar complaint to one I just read. I'll see if I can find it for you

 

[Jockey79]

Don't stress yerself mate. Various people like to refer to advertisements and design discussions as having nothing to do with PvP in the blind hope we won't realise the advertisements and design discussions do refer to PvP.

Which one?
Show me.

I want to see the advert that says Elite: Dangerous is a PvP game and not a game with optional PvP.

 

[StiTch]

Which one?
Show me.

I want to see the advert that says Elite: Dangerous is a PvP game and not a game with optional PvP.

If yer gonna challenge someone on semantics, do be correct yourself.

I never said adverts tell us ED is a PvP game, I said adverts refer to PvP.

Like the advert link that got put up earlier to tout all the "community" bits, and happens to state "or just hunt other CMDRs" as an activity halfway down

 

[Rampant]

Changing headlights to vivid pink would "affect" every player in the game.

Without weighing in on whatever specific argument you're having, it'd be super cool if people could stop chanting "but that would change my game experience" with no indication or justification as to why that's relevant.

"This change would stop me partaking in a PvE activity" is quite different to "Well it'd mean the game is different, and that's bad, mmkay".

No - I hope you're not misinterpreting me deliberately.

I said "access to", not "change my experience on something" (while, presumably, still being able to access that something?).

Changing things such that only a certain mode has "access to" a certain mechanic, whatever that mechanic might be, is a whole different ball game than just "changing my headlight colour", so it would be better if you didn't try to sarcastically trivialise the point (because doing so just diminishes your position).

Just saying that some players don't use that mechanic right now would be no justification for removing it from them. They have access to it. Removing their access to it is a fundamental change, not a superficial one.

In the discussion over "removing content" or "changing superficial content" - there is no equivalency. Sure - change or add content, this is entirely reasonable, but don't advocate removing content from players, even if they do not currently use that content - because that would not be a reasonable request.


Changing things like you would prefer - and removing Solo an PG? Again - this would be *removing* content that many people bought the game hinging upon. Trying to trivialise that by saying that "hunt other CMDRs" isn't available... well, actually, it appears that it *is* available. Even in this very thread our friend Algo mentioned the word "slaughter" or some such other.

Thanks again.

Mark H