Modes Reworking the game modes

[Darkfyre99]

Well, FDev didn't design the mode system.
Selective multiplayer has been about for some time.

Warframe has Solo, Friends, Public.
STO missions have Solo, Friends, Public.
Minecraft has Single Player, Invite Only and Public.

And didn't Diablo have the choice of using the same character for Single Player and Multiplayer?

Which is why I don't get how some folks are not used to this yet, the mode system has been around for a long time.

It seems fairly new to me, and it certainly feels like it’s more the exception than the rule.

Haven’t played either Warframe or STO, and Minecraft (which I rarely played in multi-player) doesn’t allow you to move your stuff between servers, AFAIK. Elite is the first game with open world PvP I’ve played where A) I don’t have to choose between binary PvP options, and B) I can move my stuff between “servers.” It’s those two factors that make Frontier’s mode system both fresh AND brilliant.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You STILL FAIL TO MISS THE POINT.

[haha]

 

[Mohrgan]

[haha]

Striking eloquence there, Mr. Stardust.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

It seems fairly new to me, and it certainly feels like it’s more the exception than the rule.

Haven’t played either Warframe or STO, and Minecraft (which I rarely played in multi-player) doesn’t allow you to move your stuff between servers, AFAIK. Elite is the first game with open world PvP I’ve played where A) I don’t have to choose between binary PvP options, and B) I can move my stuff between “servers.” It’s those two factors that make Frontier’s mode system both fresh AND brilliant.

And completely kills any sense of direct competition between players. The lame western new age mentality of trophys for participation aka "everyone is a winner".

Can you imagine advertising the game like "pull more loads then your opposition! grind for numbers and win by technicalty!" LMAO wonder why they didnt put this in their marketing slogans, maybe because its as exciting as watching paint dry.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And completely kills any sense of direct competition between players. The lame western new age mentality of trophys for participation aka "everyone is a winner".

Can you imagine advertising the game like "pull more loads then your opposition! grind for numbers and win by technicalty!" LMAO wonder why they didnt put this in their marketing slogans, maybe because its as exciting as watching paint dry.

They didn't say that in their marketing.

They currently say this though:

WINGS
FLY ALONE, OR WITH FRIENDS AS PART OF A WING
Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous' vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.

Whether you experience the open multi-player galaxy on your own or in a Wing where you can stay connected to a group of your buddies as you share in jointly-earned spoils, the connected galaxy delivers a constant source of new opportunities and people to play with and against.

In Solo play you can choose never meet another human player, yet the results of your actions still contribute to economy, politics and conflicts of the connected galaxy, and you experience the echoes of their activity.

 

[Jockey79]

And completely kills any sense of direct competition between players. The lame western new age mentality of trophys for participation aka "everyone is a winner".

Can you imagine advertising the game like "pull more loads then your opposition! grind for numbers and win by technicalty!" LMAO wonder why they didnt put this in their marketing slogans, maybe because its as exciting as watching paint dry.

But everything they put in their ads can be done with NPCs as targets.

At no point does any ad for Elite: Dangerous state other players are forced to be your content.
You just assumed that because it's a multiplayer game.

 

[Mouse]

I just have to link to this in reply, because you just insist on reveling in your ignornance, don't you?

Let's set aside all the time zone issues, location issues, and instancing issues that make system blockades an exercise in futility. Let's pretend by some miracle, you and I are going head to head with me trying to attack your faction via the BGS, and you defending.

Scenario One: I'm a better blockade runner, than you are a blockader. I manage to evade you most of the time, and complete my missions. I've managed to complete most of my tasks, and you've failed to accomplish anything. I win.

Scenario Two: We're roughly even when it comes to skill level. I manage to evade you half the time, and you manage to stop me half the time. I've accomplished half my tasks, and you've still failed to accomplish anything. I still win.

Scenario Three: You're a better blockader than I am a runner. You manage to stop me most of the time. I've accomplished almost nothing, and you've still failed to accomplish anything. Once again, I've won. I've won because every single time you've murdered my ship, you've cost your faction influence, and moved it closer to lockdown.

+1000 lbs of Cubeo Razorback bacon for the Queen of Wands link.

I think Frontier made a bad choice. What they need is PvP, unfortunately, to keep Elite alive.

Why do people keep making this assumption? In SWG people screamed that since they were an imperial player if they saw a rebel player kill an imperial NPC they should be able to kill that person and it wasn't fair..(pretty close to the same argument here). People swore that if SOE didn't change the covert/overt system and make all faction game play all overt PVP they would kill the game. Well it never did, what killed the game was SOE trying to turn it into a WOW clone. Yet in that game like so many others PVPers clamored that PVP was the only thing that made the game enjoyable. That PVP was the base of the game since it was Rebels vs Imperial (many times ignoring neutrals). All of it untrue but that didn't stop them yammering on the official forums... just like here.

And completely kills any sense of direct competition between players. The lame western new age mentality of trophys for participation aka "everyone is a winner".

Can you imagine advertising the game like "pull more loads then your opposition! grind for numbers and win by technicalty!" LMAO wonder why they didnt put this in their marketing slogans, maybe because its as exciting as watching paint dry.

No where in Elite is the mentality of "everyone is a winner" evident. Everyone competes, just because most are not shooting each other doesn't mean direct competition doesn't happen. And you want to talk about as exciting as watching paint dry... maybe you should ask all those you gank.. cause there is not excitement there.

 

[Jockey79]

They didn't say that in their marketing.

They currently say this though:

Here you go, turned it into a picture for you... and stole it for the wall as well

 

[Robert Maynard]

Here you go, turned it into a picture for you... and stole it for the wall as well

https://imgur.com/0kmpH03https://i.imgur.com/0kmpH03.png

For as long as everyone buying the game does so with that last paragraph in the official game description, it makes it harder to remove the effects of players in Solo (and Private Groups) from the economy, politics and conflicts that are shared between all three game modes (and three platforms).

 

[ALGOMATIC]

But everything they put in their ads can be done with NPCs as targets.

At no point does any ad for Elite: Dangerous state other players are forced to be your content.
You just assumed that because it's a multiplayer game.

It does say hunt other cmdrs. Defenitly didnt say "grind to win in private groups" and ofcourse they wouldn't since its not appealing to anyone and I doubt it was intended.

 

[Mohrgan]

It does say hunt other cmdrs. Defenitly didnt say "grind to win in private groups" and ofcourse they wouldn't since its not appealing to anyone and I doubt it was intended.

So, because it doesn't use the phrasing you characterize the game play as, there is no mention of Solo, or groups of friends? It's ridiculous to stand on a concept like that. It breaks down every argument you can make because of absurdity. Everyone is made aware of the ability to play the game in open, Solo or PG. The implication of that can't be missed. Trying to belittle the options, doesn't/won't make them go away.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Actually, you are missing most of the points. You are choosing not to listen or even discuss by looking at this from the point of view as someone who has no interest like your own. Your ideas, completely destroy key components of the game that players have targeted as an active interest to play the game. Look at Mobius, a pure pve group for the purposes of not participating in your obsessed pvp. Most of which, are not going about trying to have any effect against the BGS. It has alone, over 40,000 players.

Second - Right now, anyone could simply, legally, run missions to chooce an influence effect against a given party by supporting an opposing organization. Meaning, you would have to attack every single player ever that ever came through just to attempt to slow it down. Meaning, you would be wasting your time.

Third - If they (Fdev) actually listened to your poorly lined out idea and made the whole game Open play. Then they are legally required by law to refund all money spent on the game due to deviating drastically from how it was marketed for anyone that wants it. Those game modes go back to the Kick starter. They were there, when the game went live. They are still there now, years later. You are beating the ground where a horse died in a galaxy far far away. You are literally demanding 2 thirds of the game modes be destroyed just so you can pvp more.

Fourth - Look at all the bugs, and problems they have right now just trying to change the crime and punishment system.

Fifth - Even if we were all in open like your dream for as disillusioned as it is. You are limited by the amount per instance of players can be with in a given system. Last we knew, was some where around 32. Only communicating with each other through peer to peer networking. So again, you still won't be able to do anything to them all.

Lastly, you state that you want to 'define' pvp. It does not do anything at all to 'define' pvp. It goes a long ways to destroy other game modes to support your desire to target and attack more players. You are trying to raise your ambitions hidden through lofty goals. But ultimately, it is just to disguise your blood lust. You are just a predator.

You are missing the main point.
If you are getting killed via PVP you are loosing credits which makes your side still win but personally you are going backwards.
Now you need to ask yourself whether is it worth to sacrifice your own assets for the favour of your PF/PP side.

If you are swimming in billions you probably wont care but whoever is not they will see how their personal progress goes to waiste.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It does say hunt other cmdrs.

It does indeed - those that choose to play in Open.

Defenitly didnt say "grind to win in private groups" and ofcourse they wouldn't since its not appealing to anyone and I doubt it was intended.

Indeed, it doesn't say that. However it specifically says that the actions of players in Solo also affect the economy, politics and conflicts.

 

[Dietger]

Star Trek Online was slated to "doom" by PvP'ers and wouldn't last 2 years if it didn't release with open world PvP - 8 years ago, still going.
Seen some great whinging about Warframe and if they don't push PvP then it will die within months - 5 years ago.
If World of Warcraft don't shut down the PvE servers and focus on PvP then it won't last - 14 years ago.

It's amazing just how important some folks think they are.
And I'm yet to see a mixed game fail due to lack of PvP.

Elite is no different. It will be here long after the PvP naysayers move off to complain about another game.

Fair enough.

And yet Frontier advertises PvP when ever players are concerned. So, what on one side is their finest hour, is on the other hand a merry go around.

Deliberately. Frontier matches, the few against the flock.

Modes doesn't mater. Not in principal. When one is (matched) up to all.

 

[Jockey79]

Fair enough.

And yet Frontier advertises PvP when ever players are concerned. So, what on one side is their finest hour, is on the other hand a merry go around.

Deliberately. Frontier matches, the few against the flock.

Modes doesn't mater. Not in principal. When one is (matched) up to all.

Frontier advertise "consensual PvP" - so both parties have to be willing.
And there are people who fly haulers / explorers / miners in open, because they like the idea of a human CMDR pulling them over.

But it is all down to personal choice. I am currently in my friends PG hammering away at my rep.
Why not my PG, or Mobius, or even open - because I want to be left alone for now, and there is only 2 of us in his PG and he is at work.
But we will team up later, so I wont have to change modes to join him to do some A-B-A trading.

 

[Mouse]

It does say hunt other cmdrs. Defenitly didnt say "grind to win in private groups" and ofcourse they wouldn't since its not appealing to anyone and I doubt it was intended.

It does say hunt other cmdrs. Yet please point out to me in your infinite wisdom where it says hunt any other cmdr in the game. It doesn't yet you keep implying it does while at the same time ignoring what was implied by the ability to play Solo. Or insinuating a "grind to win in private groups"...

 

[Dietger]

Frontier advertise "consensual PvP" - so both parties have to be willing.

Jockey thanks for responding.

I think your mistaken here. Or deliberately miss the point. P*v*P* never ever was CONsensual.
By its very nature P*v*p* is competition. Competition always turns one side down, which by its very nature ****** people off, people not into competition, that is. PvEer hate it when they lose.

PvPer always win.

cheers

 

[Jockey79]

Jockey thanks for responding.

I think your mistaken here. Or deliberately miss the point. P*v*P* never ever was CONsensual.
By its very nature P*v*p* is competition. Competition always turns one side down, which by its very nature ****** people off, people not into competition, that is. PvEer hate it when they lose.

PvPer always win.

cheers

People have to consent to take part, before any competition takes place.
It's not The Hunger Games where people get chosen and forced to compete.
So it's you missing the point.

That's the whole point of the selective mode system, choosing open is consenting to the chance of PvP.
PG's and Solo is where those not interested in PvP (do not consent) go to play.

I mean, even Power Play - the most competitive part of Elite, Sandro called "consensual PvP". I can link the video - again.

So yes, the point is - PvP is by consent in Elite.
People have to choose to take part.

 

[UmbraRex]

Jockey thanks for responding.

I think your mistaken here. Or deliberately miss the point. P*v*P* never ever was CONsensual.
By its very nature P*v*p* is competition. Competition always turns one side down, which by its very nature ****** people off, people not into competition, that is. PvEer hate it when they lose.

PvPer always win.

cheers

Consensual PvP is both people agreeing to the fight.

The idea that 'if you are in open you consent to PvP' is, I think, the core point of disagreement between people who think this should be CoD in space ships and those who have no desire to engage in combat.

 

[Jockey79]

I forgot to add above, even in open mode someone can remove their consent for PvP with a specific person and "block" them.