Modes Reworking the game modes

[ALGOMATIC]

The argument against enhanced benefits for operating in open is that this is just a means of enticing players into open. It's like that guy in the van with a stained mattress in the back hanging around schools waving a bag of sweets at kids.

I can assure you that I have played in open a lot - before "Engineers" I mainly played in open except when the rubber-banding was too bad. I am not a combat type but I never was destroyed by a player (well OK one ram-gank at a CG which was refunded as I was on DC so shouldn't have been penalised) - then "Engineers" comes along and I find myself two-shotted by uber-engineered players.

I like to keep insurance claims=0 so all it takes is one occurrence in many hundreds (or thousands) of jumps for my demise by an over-engineered battle-wagon and I am left starting over again - just so some chump can have a notch on their joystick. No thanks. So no Open in CG, Engineers or Rares station systems for me.

Live with it - go shoot each other.

Wait a sec. Noone is pushing you to OPEN if the rewards there are increased. The rewards in SOLO stay the same, you wont feel the difference. So why not? Its not affecting the SOLO player at all.

 

[Sylveria]

Wait a sec. Noone is pushing you to OPEN if the rewards there are increased. The rewards in SOLO stay the same, you wont feel the difference. So why not? Its not affecting the SOLO player at all.

And why not introduce rewards that are equally applied across all modes? Why does Open "need" a bonus? You see, Open already has a bonus- you're able to play with others in an unrestricted environment. Period.

Unless of course, you're just cherry-picking questions to respond to because you don't want to face the reality that you've got all tbe "bonus" you need.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

It will affect the solo player, He will progress slower than the other mode, which is just as safe according to you.

Progress where? He is in SOLO, he is not competing with anyone directly, he will have less credits than anyone in OPEN? So what? he doesnt play with them or against them.

And why not introduce rewards that are equally applied across all modes? Why does Open "need" a bonus? You see, Open already has a bonus- you're able to play with others in an unrestricted environment. Period.

Not enough, we need people not to jump into solo when they are loosing a PVP war.

 

[Sylveria]

Progress where? He is in SOLO, he is not competing with anyone directly, he will have less credits than anyone in OPEN? So what? he doesnt play with them or against them.

Not enough, we need people not to jump into solo when they are loosing a PVP war.

And if people are engaging directly in PvP- then I can completely agree with this.

If they're engaging indirectly via the BGS (for which no one has a "choice") then I cannot. FD established the BGS as a basis of being affected by ALL the modes, not just Open.

PvE (Solo) players aren't engaging in direct PvP- they're simply playing the game as it was intended.

 

[AbsinthSvK]

It will affect the solo player, He will progress slower than the other mode, which is just as safe according to you.

pure jealousy,

oh look mum, this players play other mode and progress faster! But Son you can play that mode too. No mum, i stay in solo and never met player but imagine when i met this player he will has more money!

and when is not this scenario, you exploiting game mode changing system and comparing earning across modes.

And why not introduce rewards that are equally applied across all modes? Why does Open "need" a bonus? You see, Open already has a bonus- you're able to play with others in an unrestricted environment. Period.

lol. No. Because increasing open reward cant even touch solo play. Increasing reward bring more people in open, all open players would be happy because galaxy is not empty and solo players SHOULD be happy because changes DONT TOUCH THEM. Its WIN WIN situation. People against it are only selfish *insert bad word*. And put all open players in ganker box is not good too.

 

[Jockey79]

Progress where? He is in SOLO, he is not competing with anyone directly, he will have less credits than anyone in OPEN? So what? he doesnt play with them or against them.

Lots of people mode hop though, even 90s owns up to earning in Mobius.

So people would be at a disadvantage in Solo, and consider they already are - you want to add another?

 

[Sylveria]

FD simply needs to introduce a "PvP timer" that blocks players who engage in direct PvP from switching modes. Perhaps with a RL timer so it's much more difficult to manipulate it. You shoot someone else- you're engaging in direct PvP, you've consented to it- there's no excuse via combat logging, mode switching, etc.

Or they can simply implement "opt in" PvP for those who engage in PowerPlay, etc. in Open so we can free cooperative PvE players from the bonds of PG's as it were.

Otherwise, it's "business as usual". Nothing will change until Frontier solves this problem... no amount of bickering or banter back and forth in the forums will solve it.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

FD simply needs to introduce a "PvP timer" that blocks players who engage in direct PvP from switching modes. Perhaps with a RL timer so it's much more difficult to manipulate it. You shoot someone else- you're engaging in direct PvP, you've consented to it- there's no excuse via combat logging, mode switching, etc.

Or they can simply implement "opt in" PvP for those who engage in PowerPlay, etc. in Open so we can free cooperative PvE players from the bonds of PG's as it were.

Otherwise, it's "business as usual". Nothing will change until Frontier solves this problem... no amount of bickering or banter back and forth in the forums will solve it.

Yep, I agree with you here. But the door swings both ways.

They should lock player factions to an Open only Permit. As they already have permits within the game. This way if you want to influence another players faction. You're flagged the same as you mention above. And all other BGS stuff would remain the same for the PVE players.

There problem solved.

 

[Sylveria]

Yep, I agree with you here. But the door swings both ways.

They should lock player factions to an Open only Permit. As they already have permits within the game. This way if you want to influence another players faction. You're flagged the same as you mention above. And all other BGS stuff would remain the same for the PVE players.

There problem solved.

Problem is player factions can't be done that way because of the design of the BGS. BGS =/= Power Play. BGS can't be "opted in or out" it's a system that everyone participates in passively and the only way to "separate" it would be to give Open it's own "server" that's separate from mode filtering.

It's cost-prohibitive for FD to do so. I mean, good luck if you really want to go down that road... but Power Play flagging would be a MUCH easier solution to implement.

 

[Robert Maynard]

FD simply needs to introduce a "PvP timer" that blocks players who engage in direct PvP from switching modes.

For those that initiate it, certainly. Not for those unwilling participants that are targeted though. Especially as Sandro has previously indicated that mode-switching is one action that players can take if their perception is that they're being "griefed":

Griefing:

So, we've said we don't mind bad guys. In fact, we go further; we have bad guy gameplay options (piracy, smuggling etc.) By default, this includes psychopathic behaviour - randomly attacking other player "because you can".

We're currently looking at two different angles of defence: an in-game law system and private groups.

The in-game law system should be pretty robust. It allows plausible but strong responses from NPC factions to criminal activities (using authority ships, structures and factional bounties), as well as player-driven bounties (via the Pilot's Federation) and player bounty hunting mechanisms (e.g. broadcasting "sightings" of know villains to help player bounty hunters track them).

All of this should mean that that if you're being naughty you are generating additional challenges for yourself which will undoubtedly make the game harder in some ways (this applies equally whether you are attacking players or NPCs).

It won't guarantee safety, even though it guarantees additional challenges to the bad guys. Which I think is about right; we don't want to make being the bad guy impossible.

The second factor is our grouping mechanisms.

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

• We have players that want a range of different experiences
• All of those experiences are valid
• Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive

So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group. In this case, the player will be forced to escape conventionally first (via hyperspace, docking or something similar).

In this instance, the aggressor still gets some benefit - they "defeated" their prey, and we can hopefully build on this in terms of rewarding them in various ways: via reputation, which can lead to missions and events, via player bragging rights (perhaps only players that remain in the "all group" can feature in various global news feed articles) and potentially via limited physical rewards.

If players are going to live in private groups, well, that suggests that if we had a single environment they would be playing offline or not at all, so they aren't part of the equation.

Players that dip into the "all group" after farming "private groups"; there are a few things to say about this.

• They are unlikely to have as good player-vs-player skills as those who live in the "all" group day in day out.
• NPCs can and will offer appropriate risks (in fact, it would not be a lie to suggest that we *could* make NPC ships significantly nastier than any human ships in the majority of situations. Not that we will, mind. But we could), so to get a tooled up advantage such players will have been facing a appropriate threat level (basically private groups should not be considered "easy mode").
• Everyone has access to their own private group(s)

It's not perfect, but it's my best shot at the moment.

Anyway, taking these two strands into account, again, the result will again be hopefully a "very light touch".

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Problem is player factions can't be done that way because of the design of the BGS. BGS =/= Power Play. BGS can't be "opted in or out" it's a system that everyone participates in passively and the only way to "separate" it would be to give Open it's own "server" that's separate from mode filtering.

It's cost-prohibitive for FD to do so. I mean, good luck if you really want to go down that road... but Power Play flagging would be a MUCH easier solution to implement.

Flagged when you kill a powerplay ship to open, Powerplay was meant for PVP Flagged when you haul media. I mean sandro says it live on stream.

WoW had a great flagging program. If you were involved in going after a player faction, you attacked the enemy you were flagged.

We dont need an open only server. Just %'s reduced per mode in the areas where PLAYER factions reside.

This was TRUE PVEers will never be effected. And the people that PVEVP would have the chance to atleast defend their systems giving meaning to PVP.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

For those that initiate it, certainly. Not for those unwilling participants that are targeted though. Especially as Sandro has previously indicated that mode-switching is one action that players can take if their perception is that they're being "griefed":

Hm there is one major issue I have with what he says there. Literally Griefing needs to be renamed to something else. Especially if its encouraged gameplay as he states.

Griefing, and PVPing are waaaay two different things here. Even when it comes to traders.

I will say griefing is some ramming, and using broken weapons, and killing people in the starting area in a fully engineered ship.

Griefing IS NOT, killing someone because they are BGSing against you, Griefing is not killing someone at a CG.

Griefing in any game should not be encouraged. I think Sandro could have chosen his words a bit better there.

Furthermore, were looking at personal progression here. And not objectives based gameplay. Those two are completely different. And I still to this day use solo and private for my personal progression.

 

[Sylveria]

For those that initiate it, certainly. Not for those unwilling participants that are targeted though. Especially as Sandro has previously indicated that mode-switching is one action that players can take if their perception is that they're being "griefed":

Completely agree with this, too. That way PvE players can't be "tagged" for PvP just because they're fired upon. If it were implemented properly then it would alleviate the need for people needing to mode-switch to avoid "grief".

As I've said though, WE can't solve this problem- it's going to be something FD needs to do (or not). No amount of forum discussion is going to remedy this, and people can speak until they turn into smurfs and it's not going to change anything.

FD may have simply elected to ignore the issue- but it's not going away. Like it or not, they're going to have to reckon with this beast.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Problem is player factions can't be done that way because of the design of the BGS. BGS =/= Power Play. BGS can't be "opted in or out" it's a system that everyone participates in passively and the only way to "separate" it would be to give Open it's own "server" that's separate from mode filtering.

It's cost-prohibitive for FD to do so. I mean, good luck if you really want to go down that road... but Power Play flagging would be a MUCH easier solution to implement.

.... especially given that, just as the apparent majority of players don't vet involved in PvP, it seems likely that the majority of Factions inserted at the request of player groups are for PvE player groups.

Plus the fact that Michael had this to say regarding Factions and the modes:

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

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.

Michael

Regarding PowerPlay, while Sandro has said that it offers opportunities for consensual PvP, nevertheless it was implemented in all three game modes, for all players, approaching three years ago. So it's not only for players that prefer direct PvP.

Regarding splitting Open off from the existing BGS - one possibility, that would be (in my opinion) less likely to cause problems relating to existing content being partitioned off for one mode only, would be to add a smaller galactic bubble, complete with Factions and Powers, CGs, et al - i.e. feature identical to the game as it is now - however this bubble would be Open Only (possibly asset locked too as some players get annoyed about players progressing in Solo / Private Groups only to then play in Open) and would leave the existing three game modes sharing the full size galaxy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Completely agree with this, too. That way PvE players can't be "tagged" for PvP just because they're fired upon. If it were implemented properly then it would alleviate the need for people needing to mode-switch to avoid "grief".

As I've said though, WE can't solve this problem- it's going to be something FD needs to do (or not). No amount of forum discussion is going to remedy this, and people can speak until they turn into smurfs and it's not going to change anything.

FD may have simply elected to ignore the issue- but it's not going away. Like it or not, they're going to have to reckon with this beast.

The fundamental issue is that the perceived issue is only an issue for a subset of the player-base - a subset of the player-base that bought a game where direct PvP is entirely optional and indirect PvP is not (just like everyone did).

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The fundamental issue is that the perceived issue is only an issue for a subset of the player-base - a subset of the player-base that bought a game where direct PvP is entirely optional and indirect PvP is not (just like everyone did).

You keep saying its a subset. But hotel california has enough people to burn through 5 years of people coming and going. Its very far than a subset of people. AND THATS JUST THIS FORUM my man. There are so many other outlets where people speak up about this stuff.

Hardly a subset. If you're taking the size of the PVP community and what sandro said on stream to compare that wont work. Lots of people have come and gone because of this issue.

And the PVP community was small at the time, because of the way engineers worked.

Give it time, Engineers are on a level playing field now. You're going to see a lot more people shooting each other up once they reach a certain point in the game. And lots of vets are already coming back with 3.0.

Im involved, I see it. Im around it.

The game I bought was advertised as a PVP style of game. Not a PVE style of game. It had PVE aspects, but I bought the game for powerplay. I bought the game because they advertised a FPS spaceship game. I wouldnt be here otherwise.

I thought they had enough smarts when I bought the game to balance PVP. And they didnt and so did the countless others that drove through hotel california. LOOOOONG before I got here.

Its not staying the same maynard. My past experiences working with game devs and common sense tells me otherwise. They will remedy this whole situation somehow.

 

[Robert Maynard]

.... back to what I posted earlier about reading the advertising carefully and not just cherry-picking desired elements from it....

When a Frontier Dev states that Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP, I take that at face value - that indicates that not only are those that engage in PvP a subset of the player-base (i.e. not 100%), they're a minority of the play-base (i.e. less than 50%) - and the fact that Frontier are well aware that they don't constitute a majority might indicate that it's not a close run.

 

[AbsinthSvK]

Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP, I take that at face value

i can assure you, many people will convert to PvP side when they see some progress and fixed things. And dont even count new players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

i can assure you, many people will convert to PvP side when they see some progress and fixed things. And dont even count new players.

With respect, that's pure speculation.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

.... back to what I posted earlier about reading the advertising carefully and not just cherry-picking desired elements from it....

When a Frontier Dev states that Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP, I take that at face value - that indicates that not only are those that engage in PvP a subset of the player-base (i.e. not 100%), they're a minority of the play-base (i.e. less than 50%) - and the fact that Frontier are well aware that they don't constitute a majority might indicate that it's not a close run.

Didnt I just explain why those number mean jack squat? They dont mean anything.