Modes Reworking the game modes

[Ziggy Stardust]

The usual demands from players seeking to make PvP more meaningful in the game involve removing or restricting access to existing game content (that every single player bought and paid the same for) from Solo and Private Groups - content that is described in the official advertising for the game as being available to players in Solo.

That's why there is opposition to those demands.

If, as at least one current proposal thread is trying to do, a proposal is made to *add* a PvP component to the game (that does not remove any existing features or access to them from Solo and Private Groups) then I'd expect that there'd be significantly less opposition.

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

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

 

[Robert Maynard]

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

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

That last part is a problem for some seeking change - if the other players (that may be completely uninterested in direct PvP) can't be affected by it then it's not worth supporting.

 

[Roybe]

I believe what ALGO is getting at is the same point I made with the BGS video. It applies to powerplay too. Lets forget about the BGS for a second.

I think we can all admit POWERPLAY was meant to be the PVP program as Sandro has flat out said it.

The issue here is, PVP is indeed optional in Elite. They created an outlet but left PVP optional. When that happens, and there is some serious competition. Ultimately the losing side will eventually use the modes for the relaxed build once they have lost some fights. It does happen and there are many posts about people complaining about it to back that up.

Now if we look at the BGS with player factions. Even though they are structured different. They are ultimately the same but its a lot more in depth than what powerplay is. What happened here is that over the years the PVP community shrunk because you didnt need to PVP. Its not that people dont want to. Its that you dont NEED to. Thats why its small. Because you do have the option. And thats simply not fair for something like powerplay thats built around the PVP aspect of the game.

So because of that the community is small. Their own outlets were created through GCI and San Tu. Where we policed our own community with combat logging videos to report, Restrictions on Premium through GCI, and certain broken modules. It was made to be a handshake sport within Elite. Instead of fighting over territory like every other game out there, like they tried to do.

But they tried something different. And what happened is toxicity grew. PVP became toxic in general because there was no definition to it because of the modes, because it was optional. And if you kill someone working an area somewhere and they know they will be opposed. They just swap modes, like that guys video I post where he says he will get griefed and ganked.

So there it is, Black and White.

Thats how the game is, Thats why there is toxicity, thats why PVPers come here to complain about it. Thats why 5 years of Hotel California continues to churn.

It is indeed a problem for people that want legitimate PVP in this game. Some of you dont care and poke the bear when they come in.

I know you guys understand it. So please be considerate of the people that do just want to fight each other instead of just being labelled a griefer. In order to do that you have to give it context. And in order to give it context. PVP being optional in certain elements of the game needs to go away.

If you change certain aspects, most of the PVPers will gravitate to it. Instead of gravitating to streamsniping and other things.(Althought that door is already open) Because for some people PVP means grinding salt, People grind salt because there is no context. And because there is no context its easy to grind that salt.

Give it context and an understanding, we will see less "grieifing and ganking" and more actual gameplay.

Meh anyways, im probably talking to a 4 sided brick wall with some of you around here. Because you either flat out refuse, troll, or actually understand the issue. But because you dont care about it. You keep the carousal broken dreams turning.

Quite sad ya'll do that really.

What you say is true. And quite well stated. The problem I have is that the PVP people come up with their brilliant plan...and won't listen to why it cannot work. I take the stand that PVP will never be anything more, modes will not change...because, well, it hasn't up to this point...and the devs have clearly stated that these never will change.

I don't personally care about the PVP toxicity issue...because I know that, just like previous PVP players..the most toxic will, eventually settle down and either leave or play the game however it makes them feel happy about playing. Of course the game has strong negative feedback loop to toxic play, or perceived toxic play, in Open...which means the merry-go-round of 'fixing modes' continues...

I would also point out that with a private group aimed at PVP, there certainly could be all the 'context' that PVP players desire...as you say. But, honestly, PVP players do not want 'context'...they want people other than themselves to shoot at...within a 'context'. Which boils down to trying to get PVE people to not mind being PVP targets. Regardless of the modes, this will never happen. Oil and water might make a good context for a salad dressing...but this never really works in a game.

As far as whether I care about people fighting each other...it's no skin off my nose, one way or the other...since they do not affect the game at all...unless they are toxic...which means they continue to limit their own gameplay experience due to above feedback loop, and get the game they deserve.

{I am not even going to try to discuss the 'context' provided by CQC}

 

[Jockey79]

....But I listen to what they dont say the most.

So you make up stuff and pretend they said it.

Got it.

I'll stick with what they actually said, which is I can choose to PvP while I PP.
I choose not to PvP, because they said I can.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

So you make up stuff and pretend they said it.

Got it.

I'll stick with what they actually said, which is I can choose to PvP while I PP.
I choose not to PvP, because they said I can.

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

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

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

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not everyone is of a single opinion on the forums - the fact that Frontier acknowledge players expressing views on the forums does not indicate which particular views Frontier are considering.

 

[Jockey79]

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

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

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

You want to talk about "actions", okay then.

Engineers - only die hard PvP'ers were doing it, so Frontier made it simple so other people would also do it.
Power Play - they won't let player kills be worth the same as NPCs, so player kills are worthless.
Wings and Multi-Crew both added for PGs to use as well as Open.

They keep saying and doing things to support the mode system and player choice.
They do not want to force PvP.

Even Stevie Wonder can see that.

Edit;

And they added CQC for PvP'ers..... to push you out of open

 

[Robert Maynard]

.... even the brand new Wing Missions, in 3.0, are available in Solo....

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Not everyone is of a single opinion on the forums - the fact that Frontier acknowledge players expressing views on the forums does not indicate which particular views Frontier are considering.

That is true, I for one notice they dont talk about mission pay outs much. Id really like to see those dang things tuned. Doing BGS work is fun in that regard. Because you get to get involved in different types of missions. And you get the abiltiy now to choose to take the infleunce, and it stacks to +++++ now.

There is a lot of content people are missing out on because of the way money is generated in the game. Especially with all them hotspots for credits. (new to mid players)

It doesnt matter if its +++++ or Credits people are going to take what pays well.

So I hope that is one of them. I hope they are also thinking about restructuring the credit system so I feel ELITE. And I just want to enjoy the content like I enjoyed the BGS work. The whole thing should be flipped really. When one grind ends another should start. But it would feel healthier and more people would be able to start one goal and move to the next. Its all about how the gameplay is weaved in. Right now it all just feels very plateau-ish.

What I am saying as a new player, they set goals, most of them. I WANT THE BIG SHIPS. We see it all the time. The grind is so heavy there if you dont go to the credit meta's(that arent supposed to exist? Or do they...?).

When that happens they spent SOOOO Much time doing that. They dont get to experience everything else. That goal takes a long time to compete. And allowing credits to scale with your rank a bit more. Would fix this issue. And allow people to LEARN and experience how deep this game actually is.

Mission difficulty > Scaleable Payout, If done with wings, it could feel like a dungeon for PVE content. Healing beams would probably need to be used. Group Mechanics could come into play here.

MAKE ME FEEL ELITE

 

[Jockey79]

.... even the brand new Wing Missions, in 3.0, are available in Solo....

I've been in my mates PG, but doing these on my own to see how fast I can do them.

Been having some great fun with them.

 

[Darkfyre99]

The usual demands from players seeking to make PvP more meaningful in the game involve removing or restricting access to existing game content (that every single player bought and paid the same for) from Solo and Private Groups - content that is described in the official advertising for the game as being available to players in Solo.

That's why there is opposition to those demands.

If, as at least one current proposal thread is trying to do, a proposal is made to *add* a PvP component to the game (that does not remove any existing features or access to them from Solo and Private Groups) then I'd expect that there'd be significantly less opposition.

^^^ This.

I am more than willing to accept rewards for completing my objectives in the face of actual player opposition, with the emphasis on actual. Simply logging into Open isn’t actual opposition, and IME 90% of the so-called “pirates” I’ve encountered don’t know what to do when their target goes off script.

The main problem is that for this to work, we need a system that can accurately judge the degree of opposition, while all making collusion unrewarding. That requires development resources, and I’d rather they use those resources to further develop those aspects of the game most of the player base enjoys.

I’m more than willing to accept that the fun I have in Open is reward enough in the meantime.

 

[Haggbad Celine]

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

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

I wouldn't suggest taking content away as well.
I made my post with perspective about potential progress.

In general I would like to see that taking the easy way by achieving stuff in a more restricted mode doesn't give you an edge.
Bear in mind this is not all about direct PvP.

Within the context of player interactions, there is yet room for conflict between different squadrons, currently they feel presented by their player factions, but mostly are playing the game within their squadron's PG.
So there is little to no for friction between them.
But such conflicts open up opportunities for very engaging and interesting gameplay.
Those aren't reliant on combat alone, as conflict can also be settled via embargo, diplomatics or undermining.

But those approaches need to be balanced before anything like that can be achieved.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Within the context of player interactions, there is yet room for conflict between different squadrons, currently they feel presented by their player factions, but mostly are playing the game within their squadron's PG.
So there is little to no for friction between them.
But such conflicts open up opportunities for very engaging and interesting gameplay.
Those aren't reliant on combat alone, as conflict can also be settled via embargo, diplomatics or undermining.

There's no (acceptable to all) reason why players should not continue to play in their preferred game mode, even after Squadrons are introduced.

But those approaches need to be balanced before anything like that can be achieved.

Little, if anything, regarding the game is balanced. That some consider that the modes require to be is missing the point that, should any player feel disadvantaged by their choice of game mode then they know what to do the next time they start the game - unless they choose to play in a single game mode for some reason, which results in possible positive and negative consequences of their choice.

First and foremost, Frontier decided that players would not be forced to play together (although it is recognised that Frontier would like it if players did actually choose to play together). Everything else in the game revolves around this simple design choice.

 

[Haggbad Celine]

There's no (acceptable to all) reason why players should not continue to play in their preferred game mode, even after Squadrons are introduced.

That paragraph didn't mention anything about players choosing their prefered game mode, so I do not get how your comment is related.

Little, if anything, regarding the game is balanced. That some consider that the modes require to be is missing the point that, should any player feel disadvantaged by their choice of game mode then they know what to do the next time they start the game - unless they choose to play in a single game mode for some reason, which results in possible positive and negative consequences of their choice.

First and foremost, Frontier decided that players would not be forced to play together (although it is recognised that Frontier would like it if players did actually choose to play together). Everything else in the game revolves around this simple design choice.

So because nothing is balanced, we shouldn't balance anything? Sorry Maynard, but that is just a poor excuse.
The point being you shouldn't feel disadvantaged by your choice of game mode!

Of course you shouldn't force players, but if you want to achieve certain things that are only capable in cooperation then you are forced to.
Same goes for adversity and balance is the most important factor.

You may not be a friend of conflict, but it creates a lot of depth and meaning in a void and big universe.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That paragraph didn't mention anything about players choosing their prefered game mode, so I do not get how your comment is related.

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

So because nothing is balanced, we shouldn't balance anything? Sorry Maynard, but that is just a poor excuse.

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

The point being you shouldn't feel disadvantaged by your choice of game mode!

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

Of course you shouldn't be force players, but if you want to achieve certain things that are only capable in cooperation then you are forced to.

Not sure what you mean here.

Same goes for adversity and balance is the most important factor.

You may not be a friend of conflict, but it creates a lot of depth and meaning in a void and big universe.

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

 

[Darkfyre99]

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

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

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

 

[Robert Maynard]

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

For some, unwilling targets make the best targets.

 

[Jockey79]

For some, unwilling targets make the best targets.

And as long as Frontier stick to the current plan, we'll always have people to talk to on the forums.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I believe what ALGO is getting at is the same point I made with the BGS video. It applies to powerplay too. Lets forget about the BGS for a second.

I think we can all admit POWERPLAY was meant to be the PVP program as Sandro has flat out said it.

The issue here is, PVP is indeed optional in Elite. They created an outlet but left PVP optional. When that happens, and there is some serious competition. Ultimately the losing side will eventually use the modes for the relaxed build once they have lost some fights. It does happen and there are many posts about people complaining about it to back that up.

Now if we look at the BGS with player factions. Even though they are structured different. They are ultimately the same but its a lot more in depth than what powerplay is. What happened here is that over the years the PVP community shrunk because you didnt need to PVP. Its not that people dont want to. Its that you dont NEED to. Thats why its small. Because you do have the option. And thats simply not fair for something like powerplay thats built around the PVP aspect of the game.

So because of that the community is small. Their own outlets were created through GCI and San Tu. Where we policed our own community with combat logging videos to report, Restrictions on Premium through GCI, and certain broken modules. It was made to be a handshake sport within Elite. Instead of fighting over territory like every other game out there, like they tried to do.

But they tried something different. And what happened is toxicity grew. PVP became toxic in general because there was no definition to it because of the modes, because it was optional. And if you kill someone working an area somewhere and they know they will be opposed. They just swap modes, like that guys video I post where he says he will get griefed and ganked.

So there it is, Black and White.

Thats how the game is, Thats why there is toxicity, thats why PVPers come here to complain about it. Thats why 5 years of Hotel California continues to churn.

It is indeed a problem for people that want legitimate PVP in this game. Some of you dont care and poke the bear when they come in.

I know you guys understand it. So please be considerate of the people that do just want to fight each other instead of just being labelled a griefer. In order to do that you have to give it context. And in order to give it context. PVP being optional in certain elements of the game needs to go away.

If you change certain aspects, most of the PVPers will gravitate to it. Instead of gravitating to streamsniping and other things.(Although that door is already open) Because for some people PVP means grinding salt, People grind salt because there is no context. And because there is no context its easy to grind that salt.

Give it context and an understanding, we will see less "grieifing and ganking" and more actual gameplay.

Meh anyways, im probably talking to a 4 sided brick wall with some of you around here. Because you either flat out refuse, troll, or actually understand the issue. But because you dont care about it. You keep the carousal of broken dreams turning.

Quite sad ya'll do that really.

I’m giving you a +1 for clearly defining the problem.

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

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I’m giving you a +1 for clearly defining the problem.

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

I appreciate that.