Modes Reworking the game modes

[Haggbad Celine]

How can an embargo be enforced if opposing players play in different modes?

Lockdown. UA. Shooting haulers.

How would the modes be balanced, without introducing exploit opportunities for players to collude to gain rewards for unopposed encounters?

Can't tell, as that totally depends on how the modes are balanced and which incentives there are for encounters.

Indeed - and the game modes reward players the same for each action.

Which given by their nature creates advantages...

Not sure what you mean here.

An example in the current state of the game: If you want to wing up, you can't complain being not able to do so when playing solo.
Possible example for a future state of the game: If you want to complete a competitive squadron mission, you can only do it in open.

.... and player / player direct conflict has been clearly optional in the game, either in the design or the released game, for well over five years.

Direct conflict is inevitable, even within the current state of the game, so I assume you mean direct combat.
I suggested potential solutions for keeping the optionality of direct combat with diplomacy, embargos and undermining.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Lockdown. UA. Shooting haulers.

Two (or all of these) are PvE acts.

Can't tell, as that totally depends on how the modes are balanced and which incentives there are for encounters.

It can be guaranteed that if players can collude, some will.

Which given by their nature creates advantages...

If the only advantage is "not being attacked by other players" then that's a core design decision.

An example in the current state of the game: If you want to wing up, you can't complain being not able to do so when playing solo.
Possible example for a future state of the game: If you want to complete a competitive squadron mission, you can only do it in open.

True about Wings - except Frontier decided to implement them in all applicable modes, i.e. both multi-player modes.

There's no reason to suspect that Squadron Missions, given the recent pan-modal implementation of Wing Missions, will be unreasonable limited to a single game mode.

Direct conflict is inevitable, even within the current state of the game, so I assume you mean direct combat.
I suggested potential solutions for keeping the optionality of direct combat with diplomacy, embargos and undermining.

By "direct" I mean in the same instance.

Those solutions don't rely on any changes being made to the game modes.

 

[Jockey79]

I don’t agree with your solution, but I very much agree with your assessment of the problem.

From what I can tell, the only "problem" (if you can call it that) is that there is no reason (besides a fun distraction) to PvP in Elite: Dangerous.
And the way they have built the game, it doesn't support forced PvP.

The C&P system is also a joke now, as money penalties mean nothing to people who abuse game bugs to make billions.

Why would anyone want to risk hard earned ships / cargo / engineered modules etc.. in a situation where the only person who wins is the attacker?
As soon as player "police" turn up, poof, they've gone. If they get caught, why do they care - a billion credits is a lot of re-buys to the point a Corvette is disposable.

So the victim can end up back in a Sidewinder, the attacker risks nothing and if they are caught doesn't actually get punished because their cheated credits means they don't care.
If Frontier want people in Open to "encourage" PvP, to add "depth" & "meaning" - then why should the attacker be the only one without consequences?

Player to player deaths shouldn't trigger re-buys costs. Simple.
If the "victim" just spawns back where they left last (with cargo) - then there is a reason to try and get past other players - for fun.
But as it stands, why bother when it only ever ends badly for the victim not the attacker?

 

[UmbraRex]

Player to player deaths shouldn't trigger re-buys costs. Simple.
If the "victim" just spawns back where they left last (with cargo) - then there is a reason to try and get past other players - for fun.
But as it stands, why bother when it only ever ends badly for the victim not the attacker?

This is the solution most often used in open world optional PvP situations as far as I know.

That FDev didn't take this approach puzzles me to no end.

 

[Haggbad Celine]

Two (or all of these) are PvE acts.

They are just game mechanics and you can utilize them to cripple the progress of Squadrons, who currently identify with their faction and are localized within a star system with a starport.

It can be guaranteed that if players can collude, some will.

Better make sure to do a good job on that then, huh?
A reason why I am an advocate of certain open only features is that they can be balanced by player interactions.
I.e.: Skimmer gold rush, imagine that in an open only scenario.

If the only advantage is "not being attacked by other players" then that's a core design decision.

That's why I am asking to level the playing field for those who do not opt-out.
Otherwise there is no reason to attack players except the noble duel or the filthy gank.

True about Wings - except Frontier decided to implement them in all applicable modes, i.e. both multi-player modes.

There's no reason to suspect that Squadron Missions, given the recent pan-modal implementation of Wing Missions, will be unreasonable limited to a single game mode.

It's just an example, but if Squadrons is to be more than just another friends panel, players will have objectives they can only achieve as a squadron.
Like let's say, get a carrier.
I am arguing why it's unreasonable to make this available to all game modes.

By "direct" I mean in the same instance.

Those solutions don't rely on any changes being made to the game modes.

They do, because you can't have one solution be superior to another, just because you can switch the mode you're playing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They are just game mechanics and you can utilize them to cripple the progress of Squadrons, who currently identify with their faction and are localized within a star system with a starport.

Mechanics that can be countered using other PvE mechanics.

Better make sure to do a good job on that then, huh?
A reason why I am an advocate of certain open only features is that they can be balanced by player interactions.
I.e.: Skimmer gold rush, imagine that in an open only scenario.

Indeed I can imagine it - the PKers would really enjoy it - until the players that don't prefer PvP got bored with being shot at and shunned the event to continue playing in their normal mode of choice.

Some players might enjoy that kind of play - I doubt that all of the apparent majority of players that don't get involved in PvP (that Frontier are well aware exists) would.

An Open only event like that would just seem to be a honey-trap to boost the target count for players of a particular play-style preference.

That's why I am asking to level the playing field for those who do not opt-out.
Otherwise there is no reason to attack players except the noble duel or the filthy gank.

Frontier have chosen not to directly incentivise playing in any game mode.

If reasons for PvP are lacking, suggest *additions* to the game, not restrictions to others' gameplay, if you seek cross-play-style support.

Giving reasons for players to attack other players won't necessarily make the targets enjoy being attacked, no matter how justified the attackers feel they are in attacking.

Regarding the challenge posed by each of the game modes, I'm not going to re-re-post Sandro's statement on the matter - enough to say that Frontier are interested in looking at but they don't want Open to be an Armageddon PvP scenario.

It's just an example, but if Squadrons is to be more than just another friends panel, players will have objectives they can only achieve as a squadron.
Like let's say, get a carrier.
I am arguing why it's unreasonable to make this available to all game modes.

I don't share your opinion that implementing Squadrons / Carriers in all game modes is unreasonable.

Given Frontier's approach to the implementation of features that some players would consider to be Open Only candidates, i.e. CGs, PowerPlay, Player Factions, etc., I will be very surprised if Squadrons / Carriers are limited to a single game mode.

They do, because you can't have one solution be superior to another, just because you can switch the mode you're playing.

Actually, you can, if the requirement would be to remove the choice aspect of engaging in direct PvP in a bid to equalise the modes. This game does not require players to engage in PvP - it's entirely optional - and, as playing in each mode is optional, players are free to choose to play in whichever mode suits them at any time (regardless of which mode other players would want them to play in).

 

[Haggbad Celine]

Mechanics that can be countered using other PvE mechanics.

PvE mechanics utilized to cripple player's progress are no different than direct combat.
There is potential scenarios of future griefers who don't engage in direct combat.

Indeed I can imagine it - the PKers would really enjoy it - until the players that don't prefer PvP got bored with being shot at and shunned the event to continue playing in their normal mode of choice.

Some players might enjoy that kind of play - I doubt that all of the apparent majority of players that don't get involved in PvP (that Frontier are well aware exists) would.

An Open only event like that would just seem to be a honey-trap to boost the target count for players of a particular play-style preference.

Huge payout and huge risk come in handy together.
There is no requirement to engage in the gold rush, so it's entirelly optional.
But lots of innocent skimmers could have been saved.

Frontier have chosen not to directly incentivise playing in any game mode.

If reasons for PvP are lacking, suggest *additions* to the game, not restrictions to others' gameplay, if you seek cross-play-style support.

Giving reasons for players to attack other players won't necessarily make the targets enjoy being attacked, no matter how justified the attackers feel they are in attacking.

Regarding the challenge posed by each of the game modes, I'm not going to re-re-post Sandro's statement on the matter - enough to say that Frontier are interested in looking at but they don't want Open to be an Armageddon PvP scenario.

I am suggesting additions, but those are exlusive to open.

Most certainly if you won't be attacked you get the option of not making yourself a target.
This is the inverse of not having reasons for attacks, where everyone is a justified target.

I don't share your opinion that implementing Squadrons / Carriers in all game modes is unreasonable.

Given Frontier's approach to the implementation of features that some players would consider to be Open Only candidates, i.e. CGs, PowerPlay, Player Factions, etc., I will be very surprised if Squadrons / Carriers are limited to a single game mode.

Mkay, then let me try and rephrase.
The reason why it would be bad is because of conflict and you can't evade conflict in this game.
Currently conflicts are rather trivial.
You know what a Carrier also is?
A huge interesting target and people will attack it, either direct or indirect, thus other people will get salty.
Now take away the option of effective defense (bc you're not even able to identify the attacker) and you won't need to open any new saltmines in the next thousand years.
And with effective I mean actually stopping an attack.

Actually, you can, if the requirement would be to remove the choice aspect of engaging in direct PvP in a bid to equalise the modes. This game does not require players to engage in PvP - it's entirely optional - and, as playing in each mode is optional, players are free to choose to play in whichever mode suits them at any time (regardless of which mode other players would want them to play in).

Point being, if you want to opt-out, your carrier will need to be locked into a PG, otherwise it's open to attack.

 

[AbsinthSvK]

Why are you guys so hung up on labeling this a PvE or PvP game?

It's a PvP game, a PvE game, a combat game, an exploration game, a trade game, a smuggling game. All of yous are right, you all won this discussion.

Well done you!

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvE mechanics utilized to cripple player's progress are no different than direct combat.
There is potential scenarios of future griefers who don't engage in direct combat.

Indirect PvP is quite different from direct PvP - the fundamental difference being that one is not instanced with one's opponents (who may not even be on the same platform) - and, given that the galaxy state is shared between all three platforms, there are players that can choose to oppose who can never be instanced with, regardless of game mode.

Huge payout and huge risk come in handy together.
There is no requirement to engage in the gold rush, so it's entirelly optional.
But lots of innocent skimmers could have been saved.

A contention of "huge" risk is worthy of some discussion - given that some ship builds ensure that a player faces very little risk, even from other players.

I am suggesting additions, but those are exlusive to open.

Most certainly if you won't be attacked you get the option of not making yourself a target.
This is the inverse of not having reasons for attacks, where everyone is a justified target.

If everyone is a justified target then there'll likely be more players playing in Solo and Private Groups - which would seem to be contrary to Frontier's rather clear aim of encouraging players into Open.

True additions, rather than simply appropriating existing, paid for, pan-modal content (or upcoming content reasonably expected to be pan-modal), would be a great addition. Limiting existing content to Open, not so much. Arguably, as Beyond is free to players who own Horizons, it's already "paid for" too.

Mkay, then let me try and rephrase.
The reason why it would be bad is because of conflict and you can't evade conflict in this game.
Currently conflicts are rather trivial.
You know what a Carrier also is?
A huge interesting target and people will attack it, either direct or indirect, thus other people will get salty.
Now take away the option of effective defense (bc you're not even able to identify the attacker) and you won't need to open any new saltmines in the next thousand years.
And with effective I mean actually stopping an attack.

What conflict types have been assumed to be attached to the, as yet unknown, Squadron / Carrier implementation?

Conflict, that is possible across platforms and modes, is by definition indirect - that's the type that Frontier have made impossible to opt out of in their game. With direct PvP being optional, it follows that direct PvP conflicts are optional for those who may wish (or not) to participate in them.

Whether player attack on a Carrier has much of an effect is, as yet, unknown.

Those that demand that conflict be made meaningful through limiting it to Open have provided enough saline reserves over the last five years to last the game out.

Point being, if you want to opt-out, your carrier will need to be locked into a PG, otherwise it's open to attack.

No assets are locked to a single game mode.

 

[Jockey79]

I forgot to say, it's nice to see you back in the thick of it Robert.
Thought you'd given up on this topic as a lost cause a while ago.

The arguments haven't changed much have they, lol.

 

[Mouse]

Yep. Somehow it doesn't seem to register that you can't just go an take content away from players after they have paid for it.

And not only significant less opposition, I have seen you propose some ideas about PvP, I myself have, even created 2 threads with that in mind, so there even seems to be a broad support for PvP content in a way that doesn't detract from the game for other players.

Agreed, and I've suggested PVP things before as well but told I knew nothing and my suggestions ignored

Which is why I consider this whole “concern” for Powerplay and the Background Sim to be less than genuine. Rather than ask for actual, opt in system that can reward fun PvP, their solution is to take away the PvE parts of the game, in an effort to force PvE players into Open.

It has never been genuine and that is the problem..

 

[Rhino Hammer]

I forgot to say, it's nice to see you back in the thick of it Robert.
Thought you'd given up on this topic as a lost cause a while ago.

The arguments haven't changed much have they, lol.

I've been reading this thread over the last few days trying to objectively read each post. I need some help with some of the logic.

1. This game is sold today with the concept that every player's actions affect the BGS/PP regardless of mode. That is explicitly stated in the game's marketing. I'm failing to find how that is confusing.

2. PP was, from inception, crafted to allow players in all modes to participate equally. Even today, the marketing for the game says "every player" when it refers to PP interactions. Again, I'm failing to find the confusion.

3. Are there a lot of gamers that are buying this game without reading about how the game works? What can Frontier do to alleviate the confusion that this game embraces...nay...encourages every player to "play how you want"?

4. Straighten me out on this too. If PvE elements were removed from the game entirely, would the BGS or PP progress? If PvP elements were removed from the game entirely, would the BGS or PP progress?

5. in PP, can a player counter another player, regardless of game mode?

6. Why is there outcry about game modes, but not about platforms? I have an XB1 CMDR and a PC CMDR. Is that considered exploiting the BGS since there is no parity of player populations across platforms?

7. If solo/PG mode BGS/PP manipulation is a one-sided player interaction, isn't the same true for nonconsensual direct PvP in Open? Are they not an equal and opposite outcome to forced gameplay?

 

[Haggbad Celine]

Indirect PvP is quite different from direct PvP - the fundamental difference being that one is not instanced with one's opponents (who may not even be on the same platform) - and, given that the galaxy state is shared between all three platforms, there are players that can choose to oppose who can never be instanced with, regardless of game mode.

That's my point, it also favor a certain playstyle.
The typical opposition will be held out via indirect measures.
Rendering your operations useless is griefing none the less.
I am pretty sure players enjoy it the same way as seeing the rebuy screen.

A contention of "huge" risk is worthy of some discussion - given that some ship builds ensure that a player faces very little risk, even from other players.

Would you mind sharing that build with me?

If everyone is a justified target then there'll likely be more players playing in Solo and Private Groups - which would seem to be contrary to Frontier's rather clear aim of encouraging players into Open.

True additions, rather than simply appropriating existing, paid for, pan-modal content (or upcoming content reasonably expected to be pan-modal), would be a great addition. Limiting existing content to Open, not so much. Arguably, as Beyond is free to players who own Horizons, it's already "paid for" too.

Justified is not the same as reasonable.
It's not justified to attack a hauler, yet it's reasonable as he was unwilling to drop his cargo.
Without good reasons for attacks the most prominent example of attacks are griefers, which already is close to the example I used.

So I wasn't proposing for everyone to become a justified target.
I was claiming that without good reasons to attack anyone is a reasonable target to those looking for PvP.

What conflict types have been assumed to be attached to the, as yet unknown, Squadron / Carrier implementation?

Conflict, that is possible across platforms and modes, is by definition indirect - that's the type that Frontier have made impossible to opt out of in their game. With direct PvP being optional, it follows that direct PvP conflicts are optional for those who may wish (or not) to participate in them.

Whether player attack on a Carrier has much of an effect is, as yet, unknown.

Those that demand that conflict be made meaningful through limiting it to Open have provided enough saline reserves over the last five years to last the game out.

I can imagine plenty.
One example would be that a xenophile squadron doesn't like the xenophobe efforts of another.
Those aren't trivial anymore, as they are impactful on how the storyline develops.

True you can't opt out of indirect PvP and you can't stop an indirect attack.

Conflicts aren't made meaningful by limiting them to open. I haven't said or demanded that.
A conflict is by itself already meaningful as it's an image of contrary interests.
Interests inherit meaning, therefore the result of two contrary interests is also meaningful.

I said it requires to be open because you need an option to stop the attack, through either diplomacy, combat or whatever.

True whatever Squadrons will bring is unknown, but there is a saying that clever people avoid problems instead of fixing them.

No assets are locked to a single game mode.

But does that make it fair to attack an undefended target?

 

[Roybe]

NO jockey, what I am saying is actions speak louder than words. Especially when they then turn around and say live on their stream and things that are done outside of the game. "There are some things we cant speak about, we hear you guys on the forums".

Then you look at what they do talk about, and what they dont.

I told you guys that 8 months ago when the Hotel California thread existed. And explained the bit about toxicity at the same time where I said change is indeed inevitable. And you told me death and taxes were the only thing thats inevitable. Remember that conversation?

But nothing has changed....it's still the same problems...

The only real change, I can see, was the introduction of Notoriety.....which affects both PVP and PVE.

Which is what I said it would do. As a serial authority murderer, back in the day, this only made sense. (It still does not stop a dedicated player/player group from tanking another player group...it just slows them down a half day or so)

The changes and desires of the PVP crowd aren't going to be addressed. People will still avoid them...and the BGS will still be worked wherever people want to work them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's my point, it also favor a certain playstyle.
The typical opposition will be held out via indirect measures.
Rendering your operations useless is griefing none the less.
I am pretty sure players enjoy it the same way as seeing the rebuy screen.

The difference being that the game is not sold as requiring direct PvP - whereas it's clear from the advertising that indirect PvP is entirely possible.

Would you mind sharing that build with me?

Pretty much any Engineered combat ship against a trader....

Justified is not the same as reasonable.
It's not justified to attack a hauler, yet it's reasonable as he was unwilling to drop his cargo.
Without good reasons for attacks the most prominent example of attacks are griefers, which already is close to the example I used.

So I wasn't proposing for everyone to become a justified target.
I was claiming that without good reasons to attack anyone is a reasonable target to those looking for PvP.

Excusing griefing "because they don't have a reason to attack players" is rather thin. Looking at Frontier's approach to PvP, there's pretty much no reward for attacking players, i.e. no cargo dropped, no exploration data dropped, no materials / data dropped - as to do so would be to encourage players to trat other players as loot piñatas.

I can imagine plenty.
One example would be that a xenophile squadron doesn't like the xenophobe efforts of another.
Those aren't trivial anymore, as they are impactful on how the storyline develops.

True you can't opt out of indirect PvP and you can't stop an indirect attack.

Conflicts aren't made meaningful by limiting them to open. I haven't said or demanded that.
A conflict is by itself already meaningful as it's an image of contrary interests.
Interests inherit meaning, therefore the result of two contrary interests is also meaningful.

I said it requires to be open because you need an option to stop the attack, through either diplomacy, combat or whatever.

True whatever Squadrons will bring is unknown, but there is a saying that clever people avoid problems instead of fixing them.

That's my point - plenty of scenarios can be imagined - when we know nothing of what Frontier plans for Squadrons / Carriers.

But does that make it fair to attack an undefended target?

If a player group aren't prepared to look after what they consider to be theirs then they can hardly expect to maintain it....

 

[ALGOMATIC]

The difference being that the game is not sold as requiring direct PvP - whereas it's clear from the advertising that indirect PvP is entirely possible.



Pretty much any Engineered combat ship against a trader....



Excusing griefing "because they don't have a reason to attack players" is rather thin. Looking at Frontier's approach to PvP, there's pretty much no reward for attacking players, i.e. no cargo dropped, no exploration data dropped, no materials / data dropped - as to do so would be to encourage players to trat other players as loot piñatas.



That's my point - plenty of scenarios can be imagined - when we know nothing of what Frontier plans for Squadrons / Carriers.



If a player group aren't prepared to look after what they consider to be theirs then they can hardly expect to maintain it....

It opens opportunities for trolling though. Put a PF on lockdown day in day out, do it from SOLO and all they can do is counter the troll with bounty hunting.
The troll is the one leading the attack, he has nothing to loose, no consequences, no risk, the only thing is he will be chased by ATR which are another joke.

The PF will be busy countering his actions day and day out, completely depended on his decisions. Will he troll today or not, based on his mood I guess. This is extremely one sided attack, tell me how is it a fair game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It opens opportunities for trolling though. Put a PF on lockdown day in day out, do it from SOLO and all they can do is counter the troll with bounty hunting.
The troll is the one leading the attack, he has nothing to loose, no consequences, no risk, the only thing is he will be changed by ATR which are another joke.

The PF will be busy countering his actions day and day out, completely depended on his decisions. Will he troll today or not, based on his mood I guess. This is extremely one sided attack, tell me how is it a fair game.

So would forcing players to play in Open to engage in content currently available in all three game modes. It'd be a pretty persistent troll to engage in that sort of gameplay day in, day out.

.... and the defending Faction know that they can't be kicked out of their home system - so have all the time they need....

PvP between a combat ship with a PvP experienced pilot and a trading ship with a pilot disinterested in combat is pretty one sided too - yet that'd be the outcome of restricting content to Open (for a while, anyway - until the latter chooses to stop engaging in that content or stop playing the game entirely).

While the attack can be one-sided - the defence is not helpless as there are PvE counters to those actions.

 

[Mohrgan]

It opens opportunities for trolling though. Put a PF on lockdown day in day out, do it from SOLO and all they can do is counter the troll with bounty hunting.
The troll is the one leading the attack, he has nothing to loose, no consequences, no risk, the only thing is he will be chased by ATR which are another joke.

The PF will be busy countering his actions day and day out, completely depended on his decisions. Will he troll today or not, based on his mood I guess. This is extremely one sided attack, tell me how is it a fair game.

For a single troll to put a system into lockdown he will have to face the legal issues involved. Bounties, bounty hunters, and ATR all represented by NPCs, all represented in the three modes. Solo, Private Group, and open. The ATR cannot be shuffled off as a joke, because the volume of clean ships needed to put a system in lockdown is considerable. The ATR is a real risk. Not wanting to consider it a risk doesn't remove the risk.

How many PF members do you reckon it would take to overcome one attacker whichever mode you consider? Why wouldn't one PF player Bounty Hunting, counter the one Commander on a murder spree. You make way too much about a lone Solo gunman sniping a PF.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

For a single troll to put a system into lockdown he will have to face the legal issues involved. Bounties, bounty hunters, and ATR all represented by NPCs, all represented in the three modes. Solo, Private Group, and open. The ATR cannot be shuffled off as a joke, because the volume of clean ships needed to put a system in lockdown is considerable. The ATR is a real risk. Not wanting to consider it a risk doesn't remove the risk.

How many PF members do you reckon it would take to overcome one attacker whichever mode you consider? Why wouldn't one PF player Bounty Hunting, counter the one Commander on a murder spree. You make way too much about a lone Solo gunman sniping a PF.

The ATR doesnt show up right away, a conda or a vette could easily destroy anything smaller than an NPC FAS in less time that it takes for the ATR to arrive, cops and bounty hunting NPCs are useless against an engineered ship.

As for numbers of clean dead ship you need fot lockdown? Depends on the population size of the system.

 

[Haggbad Celine]

The difference being that the game is not sold as requiring direct PvP - whereas it's clear from the advertising that indirect PvP is entirely possible.

My point doesn't state direct PvP as a requirement, but as a reasonable option.
That's not in conflict with what is advertised.

Excusing griefing "because they don't have a reason to attack players" is rather thin. Looking at Frontier's approach to PvP, there's pretty much no reward for attacking players, i.e. no cargo dropped, no exploration data dropped, no materials / data dropped - as to do so would be to encourage players to trat other players as loot piñatas.

It's not an excuse. It's an explanation: Don't give players a reason to choose targets and everyone has put a crosshair onto them.
Give players a reason to choose attacking a combat fitted ship over a harmless trader and you have a solution for 90% of the griefers.

That's my point - plenty of scenarios can be imagined - when we know nothing of what Frontier plans for Squadrons / Carriers.

As I said clever people avoid problems instead of fixing them.

If a player group aren't prepared to look after what they consider to be theirs then they can hardly expect to maintain it....

And on the same side you can't expect players to stop an attack they have no idea where it's coming from, especially without options to stop it.