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

[Jockey79]

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

Sorry bud, bouncing between several threads and cooking a full roast chicken dinner - lost my train of thought and got the wrong end of the stick. My bad.

Yes, PvP is indeed part of the game and I'll defend every persons right to PvP if they choose to do it.
I even have that hunt other CMDRs on the wall I think from the Kickstarter info.

I will ay though, a few of the adverts can be misleading if you're not in the right frame of mind for them.
I thought the Wings ad was pushing PvP when I first seen it but on further inspection it really didn't.
It just over dramatised what the feature was.

It rather annoyed me actually, that FD started using misleading ads with over the top graphics etc..
They even had the "not game footage" on it - which is really mental when you have a game as beautiful as Elite, to put out fake nonsense.
Same with Power Play, look at the info for it now in hindsight and the info was "correct", technically. But it's not what it lead folks to think at the time.

 

[Rampant]

"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

Disingenuous.

I listen to all discussion points carefully, cogitate, digest and discuss them in depth. Feel free to read my in depth posts. They are legion across multiple threads.

After posting my legion discussions, and often having the substance flat out ignored, my own analysis would indicate that, from the PvP enthusiast's act of ignoring inconvenient truths, there is in all probability, an ulterior motive at work.

Witness the post #691.

It was completely ignored and not a single PvP combat advocate even tried to reference to it. Just ignore it like it doesn't exist and hope not to draw too much attention to it? Perhaps, then, the truth will remain in the shadows...

That's my analysis.

It isn't a pre-determined idea. It's borne from lengthy discussions, always with a mind to "do as you ought to". Alas, my observation is that a great swathe of individuals cannot fathom this "do as you ought to" thing and just don't want to be reasonable with everyone. Instead, deliberately choosing to misinterpret as you appear to have done in the post quoted, and instead of posting substance, just arguing to the man. Not exactly helpful or moving the discussion forward, if I may observe.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

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.

Mate, in all good faith... For me, Elite: Dangerous is "brimming" with content and is a rich, deep environment in which to immerse myself.
That you keep saying it is empty for you, I feel deeply sorry for you, I truly am... Different people enjoy different things - and for that I am grateful - that we are all different.

Yours

Mark H

 

[Goose4291]

From mindless cargo hauling to a) a need to consider your leaflet hauler's build - sheer defense, stealth etc., b) a purpose for trade escorts, c) proper team management..

All of which we had at one point when the lionshare of powerplay activity seemed to be carried out in open.

'Twas a glorious period of the game, and for a lot of folk reinvigorated their love of the game and gave an easier to.get into part where they could show their love for the empire/feds/whomever within a vibrant community.

Rather than what it is now, as a shadow of its former self.

 

[Maka Gucci]

All of which we had at one point when the lionshare of powerplay activity seemed to be carried out in open.

'Twas a glorious period of the game, and for a lot of folk reinvigorated their love of the game and gave an easier to.get into part where they could show their love for the empire/feds/whomever within a vibrant community.

Rather than what it is now, as a shadow of its former self.

What happened?

 

[StiTch]

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

Not at all. I did try to make it clear I may have misinterpreted you, because I wasn't interested in the specifics of your debate, but I saw the complaint that it would result in change and no discussion of what actual change you're talking about or their negative effects.

If I got the wrong end of the stick in this case I apologise, but it's still a surprisingly common tactic, and would still rather see it buried.

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.

I agree it would be removing content, hence continuing to state I am not asking for that as change. The entire point of that statement is that I won't ask for what I ideally want because I recognise the need to meet halfway if positive change is to happen.

I also never said hunting CMDRs isn't available. I regularly profess that if a man wants PvP it's generally available, fair or not - hence comments that "all PvPers want to do is drag seals to Open" is horrifically misguided. The changes I am actually asking for would reduce "seal clubbing", as consequence is a must for this game, and give players a chance to engage in meaningful PvP instead.

Where I take objection is where people try to say "I don't want to see any PvP content because it's clearly not a relevant part of the game - look, it's not even in the adverts or design discussions!". It's an outright lie that relies on the other chappy not actually knowing any adverts or design discussions. It's also irrelevant; I mean we're changing the face of engineers just months after its release. Why are we hinging on practically ancient design notes to determine the future of the game? Anyone with any sense knows that you cannot progress without change.

They even had the "not game footage" on it - which is really mental when you have a game as beautiful as Elite, to put out fake nonsense.

You know, it's like game devs everywhere are terrified of people actually seeing the game they're going to buy.

"Not game footage"..."buy it before we've even released this game and you get this free in-game hairstyle"...wut? Sell me a game based on the game you made, son.

Witness the post #691.

It was completely ignored and not a single PvP combat advocate even tried to reference to it.

Come on mate, this is a gaming forum, and in a thread that started out as outright parody and has accumulated a surprising number of posts.

I think it's fair to say you're probably taking this too seriously if you're going to act vindicated because a single post didn't get engagement.

That said I'll take a look when I get home and comment.

Mate, in all good faith... For me, Elite: Dangerous is "brimming" with content and is a rich, deep environment in which to immerse myself.

With all due respect, even among PvE players this seems to be a minority opinion.

And don't forget, as peeps keep stating...PvE is the core of this game. I play PvE too, and notably more than I get to PvP. I am 100% for an engaging PvE game - I just don't believe for a fraction of a second ED is a fraction of what it should be.

 

[Sylveria]

With all due respect, even among PvE players this seems to be a minority opinion.

Quite fairly, this is also somewhat subjective in context. Among those players, not everyone agrees on the specifics... as demonstrated by many threads recently.

And don't forget, as peeps keep stating...PvE is the core of this game. I play PvE too, and notably more than I get to PvP.

I am 100% for an engaging PvE game - I just don't believe for a fraction of a second ED is a fraction of what it should be.

We've actually got a lot more in common than you realize, here- because although I tend to mainly PvE in ED, I also want to see the PvP community get what they want/need in some respects, too. I'm fully willing to get behind or advocate ideas to promote more PvP play... what I don't agree with is the method of restricting content to one or another of the modes in order to achieve it- nor favoring one above another.

I've actually done PvP in MANY games prior to ED. I just didn't buy ED specifically to do PvP. I bought it based the original game, which all I expected was decent graphic upgrades and a current flight model system for HOTAS. And that's what I got.

Not to say (which I've never said) I'll "never" participate (I've often thought about it) but I strictly disagree with EVE Online's "throw everyone together in FFA" concept of PvP.

If Open mode isn't "attractive" enough, then we need to figure out why- and resolve that, not remove/restrict content for other modes or providing "explicit bonuses" to Open in order to do it.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

What's a GSP? I keep seeing that term, but don't know what it means.

 

[Sylveria]

What's a GSP? I keep seeing that term, but don't know what it means.

"Gank Single Player"

 

[Goose4291]

What happened?

One or two of the reddit powers started to migrate their plans away from open based to predominantly Solo/PG to min/max their returns while reducing risk. It was a short term gain that lead to other groups firstly being angry at the exploitation of game modes, then adopting it themselves and in turn becoming the target of the original perpetrators ire, who couldnt see the irony.

After that, group interaction/diplomacy stuff dropped off, leaving it in the mess its in now.

Some people argue PP isnt dead due to the fortification CC still being transported every week. But if you look closely, its mostly not being done with any sort of endgame intent, as most of it is in the closest system to the faction capitals and done by 'module shoppers' in their fourth week of pledge.

Its a shame because the 5th columnist issues aside (caused again by frontiers weird approach to inclusivity) powerplay even in its base form had serious potential and we were just starting to see it grow, before it so sadly came to an end.

A better in depth explanation would come from some of the former 'big' pp organisers like Withnail and John Casey, with the exception of those that liked the exploits for whom 'working as intended' became their mantra, much like it was with Robigo mission failing, mission stacking and the 1t and 1 kill BGS transaction issues to name but a few.

 

[Jockey79]

Some people argue PP isnt dead due to the fortification CC still being transported every week. But if you look closely, its mostly not being done with any sort of endgame intent, as most of it is in the closest system to the faction capitals and done by 'module shoppers' in their fourth week of pledge.

See there is one issue right there, PP shouldn't be about shopping for ship parts.

The modules should be taken out of PP and have the mechanics adding as a pledge bonus.
So while you are pledged to a power you get the mechanic adding to your ships and when you leave a power, you lose the bonus effects.
You also then gain a reason to defend your power, because if you get pushed to 10th and there is a thread of being taken off the scoreboard, your bonus will go with the person - so now you have to fight to keep your pledge bonus.

 

[Sylveria]

See there is one issue right there, PP shouldn't be about shopping for ship parts.

The modules should be taken out of PP and have the mechanics adding as a pledge bonus.
So while you are pledged to a power you get the mechanic adding to your ships and when you leave a power, you lose the bonus effects.
You also then gain a reason to defend your power, because if you get pushed to 10th and there is a thread of being taken off the scoreboard, your bonus will go with the person - so now you have to fight to keep your pledge bonus.

Agree 100%. This would prevent the flip-flopping- the modules are only "active" as long as you remain pledged to that power...

 

[Jockey79]

What's a GSP? I keep seeing that term, but don't know what it means.

Sorry, I did see you ask first time but was a bit over focused on replying to others.

Yea it's a term that came to life a few weeks ago, a few of us thought it was unfair to keep using PvP'er to descibe people who are not asking for changes to the game to help improve the game, but are just demanding more fish for their barrel. Real PvP'ers have no issue with the mode system and even started their own PvP hub (see link in my sig) to hlep find and arrange PvP fights.

And I for one, felt guilty saying PvP'ers are looking for easy targets when in fact PvP'ers are not looking for easy targets at all.

Those pushing to force people in to open are the ones who think a wing of combat engineered FDLs versus a newbie Sidewinder or an unarmed Type 6 "is a fair fight".
They like to Gank Single Players (GSP), so why lump those folks in with decent honourable PVP'ers - it's not nice nor is it fair to the PvP'ers who work hard to test out configs/hardware and want decent game play.

 

[Robert Maynard]

See there is one issue right there, PP shouldn't be about shopping for ship parts.

The modules should be taken out of PP and have the mechanics adding as a pledge bonus.

Indeed - the lack of Power locking of PowerPlay specific modules basically turned it into a forty week shopping spree with no loyalty required to any one Power.

At this stage, however, I'd expect that locking the modules to being pledged to the Power that offers them would not be very popular (and might push the active PowerPlay player-base even lower - so much so that it would be even less likely to be prioritised for further development).

 

[Jockey79]

Indeed - the lack of Power locking of PowerPlay specific modules basically turned it into a forty week shopping spree with no loyalty required to any one Power.

At this stage, however, I'd expect that locking the modules to being pledged to the Power that offers them would not be very popular (and might push the active PowerPlay player-base even lower - so much so that it would be even less likely to be prioritised for further development).

Only way we'd find out is if we can get the idea to ring in Sandros head like some did with open only bonuses.
If he were to "muse it out loud" (I believe that was his term) somewhere and gauge the reaction - it may have a better reception than locked bonuses or locked content has had so far.

 

[Sylveria]

Indeed - the lack of Power locking of PowerPlay specific modules basically turned it into a forty week shopping spree with no loyalty required to any one Power.

At this stage, however, I'd expect that locking the modules to being pledged to the Power that offers them would not be very popular (and might push the active PowerPlay player-base even lower - so much so that it would be even less likely to be prioritised for further development).

Sure, it might create more problems, but eventually it would resolve (IMO) more than it creates. As to implementation, give them a simple dialog popup that asks them which power they'd like to remain pledged to, which will remove all other existing modules (or render them useless) and current issue solved.

Then we have no more excuses regarding people flip-flopping as to PP's impact on the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sure, it might create more problems, but eventually it would resolve (IMO) more than it creates. As to implementation, give them a simple dialog popup that asks them which power they'd like to remain pledged to, which will remove all other existing modules (or render them useless) and current issue solved.

Then we have no more excuses regarding people flip-flopping as to PP's impact on the game.

One issue that it might create could be that some Powers might prove to be more popular due to the advantage offered by their particular module.

 

[Sylveria]

One issue that it might create could be that some Powers might prove to be more popular due to the advantage offered by their particular module.

In which case, FD has an indicator as to how to balance the others, no? If other modules have clear advantage, it's even more evident as to why they need balance.

 

[Jockey79]

One issue that it might create could be that some Powers might prove to be more popular due to the advantage offered by their particular module.

Well that will be for FD to sort them out, so people really have to stop and think;

Do I want that prismatic shield, or those rail guns? - this type of question should be an "every day problem" when doing power play.
Not "What bit do I have left to collect?". I mean come on, this isn't Pokemon, we shouldn't be collecting them all

 

[Sylveria]

Well that will be for FD to sort them out, so people really have to stop and think;

Do I want that prismatic shield, or those rail guns? - this type of question should be an "every day problem" when doing power play.
Not "What bit do I have left to collect?". I mean come on, this isn't Pokemon, we should be collecting them all

Yep, would definitely make builds more interesting... and people having to choose would make the "risk vs reward" even greater