Thanks for your feedback and summarization of Dev quotes, really appreciate it!
The statements are more than 3 years old, and ideas like squadrons probably weren't even outlined at that point in time.
I certainly have to disagree with all game modes being equal ways of playing the game.
Facing extra risks makes a huge difference.
The mentioned aspect of players attacking minor factions via private and solo is a reality and heavily favors the private and solo players.
There is no balance of solo players balancing out other solo players as Braben mentioned as they are not specifically solo players, but only task-specific solo players.
So indeed they are using the private modes to create an imbalance.
The statement equally valid choice however has a different meaning and implications.
I wouldn't want to discriminte a player who chooses to play this game as a single player game or just with their friends.
The point of Ziggy actually further my point of argumentation.
If players have the choice not to jump through hoops of other by going solo/private.
Why should I have to jump through hoops and deliver Meta-Alloys to my home station, because some players in private/solo decided to attack my squadron and deliver UA's there?
The point of Ziggy actually further my point of argumentation.
If players have the choice not to jump through hoops of other by going solo/private.
Why should I have to jump through hoops and deliver Meta-Alloys to my home station, because some players in private/solo decided to attack my squadron and deliver UA's there?
Not outlined to us (indeed, they still have not been other than the name and the indication that they will involve Carrier ships in some way). That does not mean that they were not already in Frontier's undisclosed internal roadmap for the game.
I think you are perhaps conflating two separate issues: the amount of challenge present in each game mode, and player versus player interactions. I think these are so fundamentally different that comparisons might not be particularly useful.
The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at.
However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.
Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively *and* adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play.
So in the context of a karma system, people playing in Private Group or Solo mode are not relevant. Why should folk in Open be interested in what goes on there? This is about making player versus player interactions more equitable *in Open*, getting more folk in there, surely?
The mentioned aspect of players attacking minor factions via private and solo is a reality and heavily favors the private and solo players.
There is no balance of solo players balancing out other solo players as Braben mentioned as they are not specifically solo players, but only task-specific solo players.
So indeed they are using the private modes to create an imbalance.
Player factions were introduced for all players, injected into a system and being subject to the whims of the BGS (i.e. other players) - there remains no requirement for any player to engage in direct PvP to affect a Faction.
The statement equally valid choice however has a different meaning and implications.
I wouldn't want to discriminte a player who chooses to play this game as a single player game or just with their friends.
All players bought the game with the three game modes and single shared galaxy state as published features - it's not the game's fault that it does not offer players who prefer direct PvP means to dominate the game through their preferred play-style.
The point of Ziggy actually further my point of argumentation.
If players have the choice not to jump through hoops of other by going solo/private.
Why should I have to jump through hoops and deliver Meta-Alloys to my home station, because some players in private/solo decided to attack my squadron and deliver UA's there?
Not outlined to us (indeed, they still have not been other than the name and the indication that they will involve Carrier ships in some way). That does not mean that they were not already in Frontier's undisclosed internal roadmap for the game.
The last statement demonstrates my concern, that FDev might be unaware the issue I am presenting.
Players in open are interested in what the folks in group and solo are doing as they are being affected by their actions.
I don't mind the random influence of strict group or solo players, but selected attacks designed to disable players home bases via indirect PvP from players playing mostly open but going private for that only is a concern.
A different risk/reward ratio of open play versus private play would just incentivize players to play more in open, but would not solve this.
Having different BGS might work, but seems to be an unattractive solution to FDev.
Player factions were introduced for all players, injected into a system and being subject to the whims of the BGS (i.e. other players) - there remains no requirement for any player to engage in direct PvP to affect a Faction.
The point being, indirect PvP is a requirement.
I would enjoy PvP being a viable option, as for the moment there are no reasons to do any meaningful PvP.
Indirect PvP demonstrates a valid reason to engage into direct PvP.
Similar to the real world, where hefty sanctions can trigger a war.
If a player chooses not to do any PvP, he should not have the option to selectivly harm other players via indirect measures, as he chose not do to PvP.
All players bought the game with the three game modes and single shared galaxy state as published features - it's not the game's fault that it does not offer players who prefer direct PvP means to dominate the game through their preferred play-style.
I am not looking for anyone or anything to blame for anything.
I am no demanding for prey to dominate.
I do not want to force this game to become a PvP Armageddon.
I just want to blow up this T-9 that forces me to ship Meta-Alloys around.
The last statement demonstrates my concern, that FDev might be unaware the issue I am presenting.
Players in open are interested in what the folks in group and solo are doing as they are being affected by their actions.
I don't mind the random influence of strict group or solo players, but selected attacks designed to disable players home bases via indirect PvP from players playing mostly open but going private for that only is a concern.
Given the tens of thousands of posts on Open / Solo / Private Groups vs the single shared galaxy state I'm pretty certain that Frontier are more than aware that some players are not happy that other players can affect their gameplay without presenting themselves to be shot at.
Frontier very consciously designed their game to accommodate players who don't enjoy direct PvP as well as those that do, i.e. there are three game modes, two of which offer the possibility of meeting other players and one of those only members of the particular Private Group.
A different risk/reward ratio of open play versus private play would just incentivize players to play more in open, but would not solve this.
Having different BGS might work, but seems to be an unattractive solution to FDev.
Additional reward for playing in Open would, very probably, result in players manipulating their connection to the game to ensure that they met few, if any, other players - and that's without them resorting to using the block feature to reduce the possibility of instancing with other players.
The point being, indirect PvP is a requirement.
I would enjoy PvP being a viable option, as for the moment there are no reasons to do any meaningful PvP.
Indirect PvP demonstrates a valid reason to engage into direct PvP.
Indirect PvP can even be accidental - for example, if there's a "gold rush" situation regarding a particular mission type it can cause havoc for Factions in the source / destination systems.
Similar to the real world, where hefty sanctions can trigger a war.
If a player chooses not to do any PvP, he should not have the option to selectivly harm other players via indirect measures, as he chose not do to PvP.
I am not looking for anyone or anything to blame for anything.
I am no demanding for prey to dominate.
I do not want to force this game to become a PvP Armageddon.
I just want to blow up this T-9 that forces me to ship Meta-Alloys around.
I'm no fan of UA / TP bombing - however its continued existence is not a reason, in my opinion, to split the BGS (or remove the effects of Solo / Private Group players from the BGS, etc.) - every player, regardless of chosen game mode bought a game where they can both experience and affect the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode or platform. Indeed, the current advertising for the game specifically mentions the fact that Solo players affect the economy and politics of the galaxy.
It's worth noting that, due to PC/Mac and the consoles sharing the single galaxy state, there's no guarantee that you'd even see the "attacker" - as they may be playing on a different platform even if they do play in Open.
.... or at a different time of day.
.... or on a different continent whereby your mutual P2P connection isn't good enough to permit you to be instanced with the attacker.
The point of Ziggy actually further my point of argumentation.
If players have the choice not to jump through hoops of other by going solo/private.
Why should I have to jump through hoops and deliver Meta-Alloys to my home station, because some players in private/solo decided to attack my squadron and deliver UA's there?
I would like to add that this part is actually a choice, not a requirement.
You don't have to jump through hoops and no one is forcing you to deliver Meta-Alloys. You can even ignore your player faction and go do missions in a completely different system.. or go and visit Colonia.
No one will be forcing PvP on you and wanting to destroy your ship whether you choose to deliver them or not. No one will try to prevent you from playing the game how you want it.
The same way you shouldn't want to prevent that player in the T9 playing his game and asking for methods that enable you to force PvP on him and destroy his ship whether he likes it or not.
So I'm just trying to emphasize the difference between making a choice and having something forced on you that shouldn't be.
Example: I want a Federal Corvette.. just because I like how it looks
I know it's available in the game.. I know it costs a lot of money.. I know it requires a lot of Federation rank progress.
Yet, no one is forcing me to get one.. or trying to prevent it.. I could just be off making loops in my Sidey for all anyone cares. They're not going to hunt me down and constantly try to kill me, ruining my game-play, just so I can't get one.
So if I can't be bothered to put in the effort needed to keep up with credits / rank to buy and maintain one, I'm not going to ask for the developers to remove the ship or make it more expensive so others can't get it either.
Now this will seem way too twisted of an example at first (apologies for not being able to find one that resembles the situation a bit more on such short notice).. but let's un-twist it
If you want your player faction to thrive, just because you want it to.. you have resources available to you (like the delivering of MAs) to make that happen.
No one is forcing you to do it, it is your choice. Ignoring it will not get your ship destroyed or affect you in any way (the same way me buying a corvette won't affect other corvette owners, not counting the occasional 'He got one too!.. dang.. I'm less exclusive now ' reaction).
The players in solo aren't attacking you personally, they're playing the BGS as intended.. the faction is not 'yours', you're simply trying to support it.. which is your decision. What's yours are your ships and your credits and your name That's it.. so it can't even be called 'indirect PvP' imo.. How could anything that is done in solo mode could ever be called PvP?.. there's only 1 P...
So the way I see it, you got the option of doing your meta-alloys (maybe even in solo mode? ) if you really care about that faction, or you can simply leave them alone if you decide it's too much of a hassle.. If you still think it's an attack towards you and that it's 'your' faction.. try doing some crime around them.. they'll be the first ones to hunt you down.
So yea.. wanting to get all 'physical' isn't the proper reaction to everything imo.
Given the tens of thousands of posts on Open / Solo / Private Groups vs the single shared galaxy state I'm pretty certain that Frontier are more than aware that some players are not happy that other players can affect their gameplay without presenting themselves to be shot at.
Frontier very consciously designed their game to accommodate players who don't enjoy direct PvP as well as those that do, i.e. there are three game modes, two of which offer the possibility of meeting other players and one of those only members of the particular Private Group.
I hope I was able to shed some further light onto this quite controversial issue and support FDev with creating a more pleasant experience for all players.
I do recognize that features as CQC were implemented to satisfy PvP focused players, but it doesn't hit the nail on the head.
Indirect PvP can even be accidental - for example, if there's a "gold rush" situation regarding a particular mission type it can cause havoc for Factions in the source / destination systems.
No-one can choose not to engage in indirect PvP. Every player can choose not to engage in direct PvP.
Accidental or by choice, doesn't matter.
What does matter is that one way of solving the conflict is preferred over the other.
The gold rush scenario is a perfect example of how the absence of player intervention imbalances certain aspects of the game.
Bounty hunters would have intervened into the skimmer massacre limiting it's impact and reward, if not most players would have done it from solo/private!
This certainly is one of the reasons I am bringing this topic up.
True, it's not the case in this game otherwise there weren't complains of it being unfair.
It's contradicting design choices and FDev will have to make a choice at some point.
You can believe me or not, but the mentioned disbalance was present since release and the gap is increasing further and further.
I am predicting squadrons having the potential to escalate this.
Mark my words
- however its continued existence is not a reason, in my opinion, to split the BGS (or remove the effects of Solo / Private Group players from the BGS, etc.) - every player, regardless of chosen game mode bought a game where they can both experience and affect the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode or platform. Indeed, the current advertising for the game specifically mentions the fact that Solo players affect the economy and politics of the galaxy.
It's worth noting that, due to PC/Mac and the consoles sharing the single galaxy state, there's no guarantee that you'd even see the "attacker" - as they may be playing on a different platform even if they do play in Open.
.... or at a different time of day.
.... or on a different continent whereby your mutual P2P connection isn't good enough to permit you to be instanced with the attacker.
I prefer to think in solutions, not problems, that's why I made some suggestions without any deeper knowledge of fundamental game design choices and network solutions.
A split musn't be the solution, PvP musn't be the solution either, but I advise to take a closer look.
It's a choice, but another player is able to force a choice onto me.
Either leave the system I built up behind for as long as he wants to bombard it or deliver Meta-Alloys as long as he bombards it.
It's not limited to Meta-Alloys, there is other options by abusing the BGS to annoy players, like creating lockdowns, wars etc.
I am not complaining about being forced to act.
I am mentioning the lack of tools to counteract.
To me this is no different that combat.
A certain group of players is able to destroy/hinder my goals in the game, similar to destroying my ship.
Just in this case it's a minor faction I have built up.
The same way you shouldn't want to prevent that player in the T9 playing his game and asking for methods that enable you to force PvP on him and destroy his ship whether he likes it or not.
If we share the same BGS and have conflicting goals, we need to have the tools to solve our conflict, don't we?
The tools to solve the conflict should be balanced to each other.
Sure it's easier to deliver Meta-Alloys than UA's, but that's just a simple defenders advantage, therefore the conflict not solved and the best case scenario for the defender is just a stalemate.
You know, I can't stop anyone from an ongoing UA bombardment and settle the conflict in my favor.
The attacker on the other hand can keep going until I leave the system therefore winning the conflict in his favor.
Example: I want a Federal Corvette.. just because I like how it looks
I know it's available in the game.. I know it costs a lot of money.. I know it requires a lot of Federation rank progress.
Yet, no one is forcing me to get one.. or trying to prevent it.. I could just be off making loops in my Sidey for all anyone cares. They're not going to hunt me down and constantly try to kill me, ruining my game-play, just so I can't get one.
So if I can't be bothered to put in the effort needed to keep up with credits / rank to buy and maintain one, I'm not going to ask for the developers to remove the ship or make it more expensive so others can't get it either.
The emphasize my point:
What if I could prevent you from buying a Corvette, without you being able to do anything about it?
Because that is the current state of shared BGS.
The players in solo aren't attacking you personally, they're playing the BGS as intended.. the faction is not 'yours', you're simply trying to support it.. which is your decision. What's yours are your ships and your credits and your name That's it.. so it can't even be called 'indirect PvP' imo.. How could anything that is done in solo mode could ever be called PvP?.. there's only 1 P...
So the way I see it, you got the option of doing your meta-alloys (maybe even in solo mode? ) if you really care about that faction, or you can simply leave them alone if you decide it's too much of a hassle.. If you still think it's an attack towards you and that it's 'your' faction.. try doing some crime around them.. they'll be the first ones to hunt you down.
So yea.. wanting to get all 'physical' isn't the proper reaction to everything imo.
There are player factions in this game that hold the name of wings. Sure they are not their property, but their success is a common goal of some wings.
I am stating the fact that if another wing sets themselves the goal of ruining a player faction, they are favored.
I hope I was able to shed some further light onto this quite controversial issue and support FDev with creating a more pleasant experience for all players.
No consequences, a small selection of ships (i.e. not the player's in-game fleet) and being "out-of-game" may have reduced the attraction of CQC for existing E: D players.
Accidental or by choice, doesn't matter.
What does matter is that one way of solving the conflict is preferred over the other.
The gold rush scenario is a perfect example of how the absence of player intervention imbalances certain aspects of the game.
Bounty hunters would have intervened into the skimmer massacre limiting it's impact and reward, if not most players would have done it from solo/private!
This certainly is one of the reasons I am bringing this topic up.
If being able to directly oppose other players (i.e. direct PvP) is the only solution then it's unlikely to be an attractive one to the apparent majority of the player-base.
True, it's not the case in this game otherwise there weren't complains of it being unfair.
It's contradicting design choices and FDev will have to make a choice at some point.
You can believe me or not, but the mentioned disbalance was present since release and the gap is increasing further and further.
I am predicting squadrons having the potential to escalate this.
Mark my words
Frontier consciously chose to share the galaxy state between all game modes (and, later, platforms), just as they consciously chose to offer players the choice of three game modes. They have not changed their stance in that regard in over five years (and they were aware, from the outset, that some players rather vociferously disagreed with their choices).
Players have been predicting a change of stance by Frontier on this issue for over five years (or "the game would die"). It hasn't happened yet....
I prefer to think in solutions, not problems, that's why I made some suggestions without any deeper knowledge of fundamental game design choices and network solutions.
A split musn't be the solution, PvP musn't be the solution either, but I advise to take a closer look.
There are player factions in this game that hold the name of wings. Sure they are not their property, but their success is a common goal of some wings.
I am stating the fact that if another wing sets themselves the goal of ruining a player faction, they are favored.
I understand, but what we've been trying to say is that trying to get FD to merge the 3 modes or force people into Open isn't the solution to this.. and neither is physically trying to hunt down that one ship to kill it.
(Robert mentioned a handful of reasons already why it wouldn't be a viable option - If I understood correctly, to summarize them: Even if that T9 player was FORCED to play in Open there is little to no chance that you would actually meet him in-game even if you're patrolling 24/7, due to the nature of how the game works. Open is not just 'open'.. there are multiple instances created based on distance / lag / number of people in a zone / etc. He could be flying right "next" to you in Open right now and you wouldn't see him )
So what you're proposing is "trying to hit a fly with a bazooka".. It would cause more harm than good.
Even if there's the odd chance that you'd end up in the same instance and you would kill him.. what would that accomplish? put him on pause for a few hours? or one of his wing-mates would simply take his turn.
Trying to fight political attacks with 'fists' has never worked.. so you need to find a 'political' solution for it rather than a violent one. For example you could ask FD to implement 'spies'.. so that if you're part of a player faction that is under siege, you'd have a log of who exactly is undermining your faction.. that way you could strike back the same way at their player faction (in case they have one.. if it's deliberate they'll most likely have one). You know.. something creative like that which is specific to this issue only and doesn't have major side-effects. (doesn't involve dumping all the players who don't care about factions or PvP into Open. )
PvP is kind of underwhelming at the moment, as I said it currently lacks meaning to attack ships.
IMHO this gap resulted in griefers as they were looking for combat but didn't really find interesting opportunities to do so.
So yeah, why not improve the impact of direct PvP?
No consequences, a small selection of ships (i.e. not the player's in-game fleet) and being "out-of-game" may have reduced the attraction of CQC for existing E: D players.
Exactly, being unimpactful in the game makes CQC unattractive.
It was an attempt to provide PvP players with an opportunity to engage in direct PvP, but doesn't hit the nail on the head, as PvP players are looking for meaningful engagements.
Coming back to the example of the griefer, the griefing kill has meaning even tough it's not a very noble one making someone salty.
If being able to directly oppose other players (i.e. direct PvP) is the only solution then it's unlikely to be an attractive one to the apparent majority of the player-base.
I am not claming it to be the only solution, but it's a part of the game that seems underdeveloped to me and could use some love
Certainly player interactions are a way of how the BGS can be balanced and looks as a very promising and an engaging one to me.
Frontier consciously chose to share the galaxy state between all game modes (and, later, platforms), just as they consciously chose to offer players the choice of three game modes. They have not changed their stance in that regard in over five years (and they were aware, from the outset, that some players rather vociferously disagreed with their choices).
Players have been predicting a change of stance by Frontier on this issue for over five years (or "the game would die"). It hasn't happened yet....
Sure it's always the case with every game.
You know what example comes to my mind? Rainbow Six Siege and For Honor.
Ubisoft defended their design decision of not having dedicated servers for a significant time, yet they got their players viewpoint and implemented them in both games.
To me the design choice of having a shared BGS of different game modes looks like a conflicting choice of ideas. Sure I might be wrong, time will tell.
It is possible to pursue differentiating goals to some extent, but it will become incredibly hard to solve all resulting issues.
I do respect the choice made, but I wouldn't be me if I didn't voice my concerns.
I wouldn't take all the critique as unjustified or a personal attack regarding design choices.
There is a fine difference.
The players who do not choose to play in open, but get bombed from open players potentially have the option to stop the attack by logging into open!
You said the p2p system doesn't allow it for all cases, so it doesn't really work... Did FDev consider dedicated servers yet?
I have to disagree.
Take my example of climate change.
There is no consensus, some say it's a problem others say it's not.
But does that alone make it less of a problem?
Furthermore even though it is not unanimously agreed to be a problem, there are solutions already in place by those who see danger in it.
I understand, but what we've been trying to say is that trying to get FD to merge the 3 modes or force people into Open isn't the solution to this.. and neither is physically trying to hunt down that one ship to kill it.
(Robert mentioned a handful of reasons already why it wouldn't be a viable option - If I understood correctly, to summarize them: Even if that T9 player was FORCED to play in Open there is little to no chance that you would actually meet him in-game even if you're patrolling 24/7, due to the nature of how the game works. Open is not just 'open'.. there are multiple instances created based on distance / lag / number of people in a zone / etc. He could be flying right "next" to you in Open right now and you wouldn't see him )
So what you're proposing is "trying to hit a fly with a bazooka".. It would cause more harm than good.
Even if there's the odd chance that you'd end up in the same instance and you would kill him.. what would that accomplish? put him on pause for a few hours? or one of his wing-mates would simply take his turn.
You should take a look at how busy our home starport is
I am not talking about one player versing another, I was just using it as simplified example.
It becomes a major issue as soon as there are groups/squadrons involved.
I do realize that some do not perceive this as an issue at all and even if they did merging the modes wouldn't really solve anything (mostly because of network design [dedicated servers, pls? ])
Trying to fight political attacks with 'fists' has never worked.. so you need to find a 'political' solution for it rather than a violent one. For example you could ask FD to implement 'spies'.. so that if you're part of a player faction that is under siege, you'd have a log of who exactly is undermining your faction.. that way you could strike back the same way at their player faction (in case they have one.. if it's deliberate they'll most likely have one). You know.. something creative like that which is specific to this issue only and doesn't have major side-effects. (doesn't involve dumping all the players who don't care about factions or PvP into Open. )
Yep, but for the moment there is not even a political/diplomatical solution.
Fighting political fights with fists never worked?
I didn't know the US were being diplomatic with the UK when claming their independance
Sorry for being rude, but combat is the solution when diplomatics fail.
I am german, the german word for decide is "entscheiden", directly it translates to pulling the sword.
You seem to be a non PvP player to me, so consider following gameplay aspect:
Would you rebuy in honor after defeat in a huge space battle with both squadrons bringing their best to decide if a minor fraction can raise to a controlling faction in a system or the power you support can control a starport?
It's glory my friend!
I like the way you phrased that. Not only does this sound like corporate PR, it also makes it sound almost as if the people who choose to play alone or only with close friends would somehow, possibly quite deliberately, "disrupt" the "emergent gameplay" of PvP pirates (and of course PvE piracy is always ignored as if this were not the primary means of piracy anyway).
No need to touch the mode system, Frontier are okay with it;
Before we get in to Frontier promoting and defending the mode system and mode switching for Elite: Dangerous (plus other related information), a quick look at the history of; and tech used to bring you this game (explains why some things are not possible).
Thanks to Roybe for for the link to the video.
The Wall of Information;
From the Kickstarter; *And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*
The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."
About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.
There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have: (Part 1)(Part 2)(Part 3)(Part 4)
As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."
The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."
Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."
Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "
All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)
Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."
Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)
Wikipedia; A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.
Oxford English Dictionary (Online); An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .
The Steam Store page;
Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"
Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.
On that last point, Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.
I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”
Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.
I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.
From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.
What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.
19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.
"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."
Ed speaks and then David adds:
"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."
And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.
My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.
Now, one final Caveat. *As it stands currently*, we have time allotted in season two to work on Powerplay. These suggestions are just a part of that work - there is other stuff as well. However, I can't commit to the Unbreakable Vow, because it's very possible that in the fluid world of development, things might change!
I just wanted to set these ideas free and see how well they settle, so, comments welcome!
* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.
* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.
* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.
* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.
The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.
On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .
In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.
When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.
Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.
Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.
Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.
Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.
The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.
Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.
Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.
At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.
The reality here is there are a HUGE number of players that play the game for their own reasons and they may or may not align with yours. For others reading this post, I apologize for the sheer length of it, but I'm really tired of having these same old debates with people and I'm covering a wide range of questions/answers that normally get covered in multi-page thread-noughts in advance. I've wrapped my own thoughts in a spoiler tag to minimize the "wall".
The Technical Here's a bit of reality. FD created ED with P2P core networking, the BGS is tied into that, and ALL THREE MODES are tied into this as well. "Removing Solo/PG" to throw everyone into Open isn't going to happen because there's no central server system, and as of now, you can "block" using P2P. So to accomplish what you're asking, they would need to completely redo the entire base networking system to prevent people from blocking others on that level. Do you really think they're going to do that for just a (arguably "small") portion of their player base?
The Financial Let's just posit a small theory, shall we? All of these tired arguments usually allege that there's a "huge" portion of players that wish for this change, and that if it doesn't happen there's going to be some sort of (DOOOOM!!!) "mass exodus" of players who will leave the game, and "FD will be losing potential income", yada yada. Now, bearing in mind all the people who have already bought this game, the amount of money that's been spent so far, and a change to base gameplay functionality (if it were to happen) what do you think the financial repercussions would be? Just affection ONE of any of the three modes would result in a MASS request of refunds... so let's talk actual numbers, shall we?
Mobius PvE was created to help facilitate players who did not want PvP but still wanted to play together online (Co-Op gameplay)
This Private Group has far exceeded the 40,000 player limit and additional "Private Groups" had to be created to facilitate the additional numbers...
Think about that for a minute, then multiply just that number by the base cost of this game, not including any LEP's, Backers, Horizons purchases or additional Store (paintjobs, etc.) content purchased.
Are you getting the picture yet?
Now keeping numbers in mind- let's stick to the financial aspects here. The PvE content included in this game is available to ALL three modes, regardless of PvE or PvP playstyle. If you removed any one of the three modes, that would still be the case, correct? Let's now think about doing the same with PvP content, which is ONLY available to Open mode. How much more money do you think FD spends in addition to what's already existing in the game to ADD more PvP content and accessibility to it? Think of people coding, maintaining the equipment that helps to facilitate networking, logistics, etc.
So, keeping in mind all the aforementioned numbers here's a question:
Do you think it would be more financially viable for them to strip all the PvE content and make it completely PvP, or do the reverse and make it only PvE?
Here's a couple more questions:
How many times have you seen the PvE Community opening threads and spewing posts about removing content from Open and making it exclusively accessible to Solo?
How many times have you seen the PvE Community throwing tantrums and stomping their feet in the Forums or on Reddit about "Leaving the game" if more PvE exclusive content doesn't get added to the game?
Are you getting the "bigger picture" yet?
(Granted, you'll see the occasional post from a PvE player who is "bored" or whatever, but that's to be expected in any game. You'll see those on any forum, because a developer can't make everyone happy, all the time.)
PvP Players If you want Open to be "better" and want to draw more players into Open, I'd suggest you start banding together, organize some groups and "take out the trash", so it becomes a much cleaner place to enjoy the game. I'd love to see it become what it should have been originally- a huge expansive universe full of life, full of a wide range of players and game play, all doing different things and co-existing together. Pirates, Traders, Explorers, RP-er's, Miners, etc. People enjoying the game they love amongst others, with some being able to cooperatively play in PvP and some being able to cooperatively play in PvE, and some just doing their own thing on their own, without being bothered.
It's not going to be like that when you've got GSP's running around acting like psychopaths and there's (relatively) no consequence for them doing so. You want it to change? Then CHANGE it. You shouldn't need incentive, if your true motivation is "PvP combat", you've got all the incentive (and targets) you need. They're out there waiting for you. And if you keep laying into them, they'll eventually get tired of acting like they have been and quit or change their attitudes and start learning to co-exist.
"Wolf against wolf", not "wolf against sheep".
P.S. for those who care to read it (included in Spoiler tag to reduce the wall of text)
I only speak for myself- and have only done so. No one made me the "voice of Solo/PG's or PvE" here.
I really didn't want to start a "crusade" of PvE vs PvP or any of that. At first, I tried to reason with them... and that didn't work. They won't listen to reason. So now we have to defend our game-play styles because all they're doing with the negativity is driving away new customers because a few people didn't get what they wanted. And because they've got just as much of a right as "customers" to come into the forums and voice their opinions, there's no recourse but to continue to keep laying down reality. I/we don't get "paid" or "compensated" in ANY way, form or fashion for doing this, either. (neither does Jockey79, or any of the other more vocal players of the PvE community) I/we do it because I love the game and don't want to see it destroyed because of a minority few.
I see some in the PvP community spreading falsities, throwing tantrums, and trying their absolute damndest to get FD to change core functionality that affects ALL modes that would affect all players (PvE included) in order to facilitate their "Free For All Killfest" COD-in-space style gameplay. When throwing tantrums didn't work they started to spread toxicity into Reddit, the Official forums, Discord, and anywhere else they feel they'd garner support and be "heard".
Essentially the whole argument is "Remove Solo/PG's and give us our fish for our barrel or we'll burn down the game!!"
(That's it folks, that's the WHOLE strategy)
If you really want to see this game succeed, you should be very concerned. Make your own opinions known, because THEY certainly are.
Yep, but for the moment there is not even a political/diplomatical solution.
Fighting political fights with fists never worked?
I didn't know the US were being diplomatic with the UK when claming their independance
Exactly, that's why you should think of a solution like that imo, instead of proposing this one I understand your problem, but like Robert mentioned before, it's only a problem for a very small minority.
In fact, it's such a small minority, that FD would probably consider removing player factions all together before ever touching the modes, if it came to that and a decision had to be made.
Those stopped being political fights once past a certain point.. but in the game it doesn't, your faction will still be part of the same BGS and do what they're programmed to do regardless if you massacre each-other with another wing or not
Sorry for being rude, but combat is the solution when diplomatics fail.
I am german, the german word for decide is "entscheiden", directly it translates to pulling the sword.
You seem to be a non PvP player to me, so consider following gameplay aspect:
Would you rebuy in honor after defeat in a huge space battle with both squadrons bringing their best to decide if a minor fraction can raise to a controlling faction in a system or the power you support can control a starport?
It's glory my friend!
You're not being rude, I understand that you're trying to fight for something that you think is important We're just saying, maybe messing with the modes isn't the most productive way, especially after reading all those developer-quotes
Also, I'm not a PvP player in this game (though I lead a unit of ~75 people for HOTS - which is a pvp game), I mentioned it in a post above that I don't quite see the reason for PvP here (aside from the Arena). The only potential reason I see for PvP in this game is to deliberately try and ruin someone's day, which is not my style of interacting with a community - never was
PvP is kind of underwhelming at the moment, as I said it currently lacks meaning to attack ships.
IMHO this gap resulted in griefers as they were looking for combat but didn't really find interesting opportunities to do so.
So yeah, why not improve the impact of direct PvP?
PvP is also optional - and if it had more of an impact then it would be prone to collusion between players, i.e. gaining rewards designed for opposed interactions when the players choose not to contest them, just as Collusion Piracy in PowerPlay.
Exactly, being unimpactful in the game makes CQC unattractive.
It was an attempt to provide PvP players with an opportunity to engage in direct PvP, but doesn't hit the nail on the head, as PvP players are looking for meaningful engagements.
Coming back to the example of the griefer, the griefing kill has meaning even tough it's not a very noble one making someone salty.
I am not claming it to be the only solution, but it's a part of the game that seems underdeveloped to me and could use some love
Certainly player interactions are a way of how the BGS can be balanced and looks as a very promising and an engaging one to me.
Promising and engaging to someone who would seem to enjoy PvP - however Frontier would seem to be well aware that the majority of E: D players do not get involved in PvP.
Sure it's always the case with every game.
You know what example comes to my mind? Rainbow Six Siege and For Honor.
Ubisoft defended their design decision of not having dedicated servers for a significant time, yet they got their players viewpoint and implemented them in both games.
To me the design choice of having a shared BGS of different game modes looks like a conflicting choice of ideas. Sure I might be wrong, time will tell.
It is possible to pursue differentiating goals to some extent, but it will become incredibly hard to solve all resulting issues.
I do respect the choice made, but I wouldn't be me if I didn't voice my concerns.
I wouldn't take all the critique as unjustified or a personal attack regarding design choices.
Ultima Online also springs to mind - as it would seem that the Developers of that game chose to add a PvE (with optional PvP) realm about two and a half years after initial release when the game was haemorrhaging players due to the PvP nature of the original realm - and that game is still going (the realm split happened in 2000).
There is a fine difference.
The players who do not choose to play in open, but get bombed from open players potentially have the option to stop the attack by logging into open!
You said the p2p system doesn't allow it for all cases, so it doesn't really work... Did FDev consider dedicated servers yet?
A very fine (nearly non-existent) difference - as Solo / Private Group players choose to play in those modes, just like Open players choose to play in Open.
I have to disagree.
Take my example of climate change.
There is no consensus, some say it's a problem others say it's not.
But does that alone make it less of a problem?
Furthermore even though it is not unanimously agreed to be a problem, there are solutions already in place by those who see danger in it.
We're talking about Frontier's decision to allow all players to affect the economic and political state of the galaxy in a video game, not climate change on our planet.
The PvP / PvE debate has rumbled on for years, since long before this game was Kickstarted. Frontier are well aware that PvP and PvE players rarely get on well - and designed their game to accommodate both.
I like the way you phrased that. Not only does this sound like corporate PR, it also makes it sound almost as if the people who choose to play alone or only with close friends would somehow, possibly quite deliberately, "disrupt" the "emergent gameplay" of PvP pirates (and of course PvE piracy is always ignored as if this were not the primary means of piracy anyway).
Thanks for the summarization of statements regarding the topic.
Some of those we already did discuss in this topic, some reflect my thoughts.
Sure open only may not be the solution, bonuses on open play may not be as well.
But even Sandro notices there is a disadvantage when playing in open.
So the claim that all game modes are equal simply is not true, that's quite easy to notice.
The point I made was a minor faction being attacked from an organized group of private players, which basically works for them as solo as there is no threat.
Sandro makes that point in regards to powerplay and also mentions the potential impact on other Cmdrs.
Braben mentions the game should not force a "right" way to be played upon the players kind of contradicts those issues.
You have certain advantage completing such goals not in open, so the right way to achieve such goals stands clear.
Networking being a limitation towards balancing this, is in my opinion a poor excuse.
I am not asking to rewrite the game from scratch, I was making a pun asking for dedicated servers.
It's not an issue of technical and fincancial limits, it's an issue of balancing different playstyles.
The statement that most players do not engage in PvP is also a result of it being meaningless.
There is no incentive in doing so.
If you had the choice to engage in CZ that is filled up with Cmdrs, but get better combat bounds for that, I am pretty confident that more people would engage in PvP.
Especially if the endresult of that CZ lines up with your long-term goals in the game.
The last statements Sylveria made were especially interesting to me.
Excatly players have different approaches to the game. My point being one side is not taken fully into account here.
These requests are not ridiculous, but are simply being dismissed as an argumentation for psychopaths wanting to have a playground for their "Free For All Killfest".
That is insulting for players who are looking for meaningful engagements, a feature the game currently lacks.
Enabling PvP playstyles being perceived as "rightous griefing" couldn't be further from what all these posts are about.
Let me ask you a question:
What option do I have to engage in impactful and fair PvP right now?
We're just saying, maybe messing with the modes isn't the most productive way, especially after reading all those developer-quotes
Also, I'm not a PvP player in this game (though I lead a unit of ~75 people for HOTS - which is a pvp game), I mentioned it in a post above that I don't quite see the reason for PvP here (aside from the Arena). The only potential reason I see for PvP in this game is to deliberately try and ruin someone's day, which is not my style of interacting with a community - never was
PvP is also optional - and if it had more of an impact then it would be prone to collusion between players, i.e. gaining rewards designed for opposed interactions when the players choose not to contest them, just as Collusion Piracy in PowerPlay.
Promising and engaging to someone who would seem to enjoy PvP - however Frontier would seem to be well aware that the majority of E: D players do not get involved in PvP.
Ultima Online also springs to mind - as it would seem that the Developers of that game chose to add a PvE (with optional PvP) realm about two and a half years after initial release when the game was haemorrhaging players due to the PvP nature of the original realm - and that game is still going (the realm split happened in 2000).
I was never asking to make ED a PVP realm, I was asking for it being on par with other options.
I cited my Ubisoft example as a statement that it is a clever move to reconsider design choices when a significant amount of players doesn't stop asking for something.
Surely the Ubisoft example wasn't too good the demonstrate the case, because no one fears a "Free for all Killfest" when implementing dedicated servers.
We're talking about Frontier's decision to allow all players to affect the economic and political state of the galaxy in a video game, not climate change on our planet.
The PvP / PvE debate has rumbled on for years, since long before this game was Kickstarted. Frontier are well aware that PvP and PvE players rarely get on well - and designed their game to accommodate both.
Actually that isn't quite true from what I can tell. There is much honor and glory in PVP and many who enjoy the playstyle, it is those who insist that everyone needs to PVP even if they want to. To force them to do so by sneaking into PVE groups, by attacking ships they know have no chance of even harming their own. They don't PVP... they use the excuse of PVP for their own entertainment of making the game miserable for others. Against these... Solo and PG's are a godsend. And sadly for some... make others not want to deal with any PVP pirate. So it isn't the modes themselves that are an issue.. but again those who cannot play well with others.
The game is based on the PVP between groups (on different platforms, with different levels of personal interaction with others, etc.) through the movement of PVE trophies.
This type of gameplay is distasteful to a lot of people. It is advised that those people should not purchase this game.
Let me ask you a question:
What option do I have to engage in impactful and fair PvP right now?
Yep, that's what I am saying.
What other options does the game give me by design next to killing innocents trying out open the first time?
What isn't optional in this game?
FDev had to rework how engineers work to incentivize players how chose not to interact in that part of the game.
I am not looking forward to reward that kind of behaviour either.
I am looking for alternatives.
Sure I do myself engage not a lot in PvP, because how should I if I do not want to go on a "Free for all Killfest"?
I was never asking to make ED a PVP realm, I was asking for it being on par with other options.
I cited my Ubisoft example as a statement that it is a clever move to reconsider design choices when a significant amount of players doesn't stop asking for something.
Surely the Ubisoft example wasn't too good the demonstrate the case, because no one fears a "Free for all Killfest" when implementing dedicated servers.
Why do you think FDev implemented a new C&P system?
Let me rephrase, if it is not perceived as an issue. Why has it been rumbled on for years?
The perception of PvP in a nutshell. Thanks.
No honor, no glory.
You could take my initial, slightly sarcastic joke of a suggestion about turning off friendly damage and creating special combat zones and develop it into something meaningful (edit: just for clarity... without actually turning off player damage haha)
You could also take the second one regarding 'political' mechanics to identify the enemy faction and develop a system that would accomplish the possibility of fighting back against these types of attacks, not just defending, but fighting back, but through the same tactics and not simply blowing up ships.
Then you'd have a complete PvP system implemented, that wouldn't bother anyone, in fact lots of PvE-only people would be interested and possibly wanted to try it, without the need to merge the game modes..
So let's take it step by step, I'm going to help you with the first one:
Propose a new type of combat-zone drop in point to be added into a few high population systems, close to the main station:
- These drop-in points could be accessed from any game-mode be it solo, pg, open..
- It would do a quick match-making / possibly with a queue-counter and take you into an instance based on your ship / loadout / ping and put you in the CZ instance on a team of 4 players versus other 4 players who dropped in (a full wing vs wing)
- It could have certain objectives, depending on the mood of the BGS / devs (be it automatic or manual) much like community-goals, but PvP based:
*- ranging from a simple 10 minute death-match with 30 second respawn timers (some NPC ships could be added to this to make it less one-sided after the first player dies)
*- destroying the enemy capital-ship / defending yours....
*- liberating (stealing) cargo from an NPC type-10 defended by one team (pirates vs defenders)
*- Winning a mini-war with lots of NPCs arriving in waves for both sides (each wave would be delayed by certain triggers, such as player deaths.. etc) and would be increasingly harder so you have to delay till your wave of similar strength arrives
*- Lots of other scenarios, possibilities are endless..
- Death inside these CZs wouldn't cost a re-buy, you would respawn when you have to depending on the objective with a full re-stock and repair.
- Credit amounts similar to RES sites / combat zones could be earned for ship destructions / bonus for winning / etc.. so PvP-only players can make a modest living from this
- FSDs would be disabled: no jumping out!.. Combat-logging inside would result in presenting you the rebuy screen at the last station you were before entering this CZ instance
- And so on... add your own ideas
So that would be part one... giving PvP players 'something meaningful to do' in the main game that wouldn't involve murdering unwilling participants.. and a small PvP-based income so they can maybe try other aspects of the game after they get bored ) This would also allow non-PvP players to 'safely' experience PvP combat and maybe take a liking in it.. increasing that 'minority' percentage we talked about. It would certainly solve a bunch of debates, that's for sure..
The second part would be slightly (only slightly) modding player factions / powerplay (but that's already in plan) to paint a clearer picture to the player group behind it as to what's actually happening.. who's attacking them.. how.. how often.. when.. etc.
And means of retaliating to the opposing faction with the same BGS mechanics and not just simple bloody combat
Obviously this can be further elaborated, but I'm simply giving you the idea Who knows.. you might be the hero who finally bridges the gap between PvP and PvE players and we'll be one big happy community ))
