Modes Soft modes - an alternative to mode differentiation

[Han_Zen]

The debate in this sub is hard and the fronts are locked. I would therefor like to propose an alternative to the traditional suggestions.

As we all know, the modes are not different servers. They are 'simple' match making filters. This make them poor as flags for game mechanic changes(PvE flag/PvE mode) or reward differentiation(Open bonus).

The filter do however have the advantage of being easy to modify. We already modify match making filter, when we join a wing. This happens in the game, after we have chosen mode.

The idea of 'Soft modes' is to give players that chose to take active part in a conflict, more influence.

It works as follows:
When a player targets a system that is in a state of conflict they will get the choice to select a side, in the same way we do in a conflict zone. If you don't select a side, your game remains as it is now.
If you select either side you will enter a 'conflict mode', as long as you are in this system. This will change your instancing filter. Your mode choice, friends list and block list are temporarily deactivated. Instancing will prioritize other player in 'conflict mode' and Wing. Nothing else.

As long as you are in the conflict system and in conflict mode, the entire system will function as a CZ. Enemy players and NPCs will be red on the radar and carry a combat bond.
Combat bonds, trade transactions and missions will have a higer(double?) influence value, while in conflict mode.


The same system can be applied in Power Play. It would then be active in the entire galaxy. The Power Play 'active mode' would apply to all PP systems.
To avoid abuse, it should not be possible to change the setting, while carrying PP cargo or data.


Soft modes for conflicts. Is it brilliant, horrible or pointless?

What do you think?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sounds like a play-style bonus, applied to Open (unfiltered), for existing gameplay that is currently advertised as being available to players in Solo (and, by extension, Private Groups), for players who choose to engage in an entirely optional play-style.

Even when Sandro briefly mused about a bonus (to the Power only, not the player) for engaging in PowerPlay in Open, he made it clear that it would not apply to the BGS.

 

[Han_Zen]

Sounds like a play-style bonus, applied to Open (unfiltered), for existing gameplay that is currently advertised as being available to players in Solo (and, by extension, Private Groups), for players who choose to engage in an entirely optional play-style.

Even when Sandro briefly mused about a bonus (to the Power only, not the player) for engaging in PowerPlay in Open, he made it clear that it would not apply to the BGS.

The bonus would be available in all modes. You will have the option to forfeit you instancing filter for a singel system, for higher influence in a conflict.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The bonus would be available in all modes. You will have the option to forfeit you instancing filter for a singel system, for higher influence in a conflict.

If the instancing filter disregards mode choice then players in Solo would be playing in what would effectively be Open - therefore the bonus would only be available for players who want to play in Open. Still looks like a bonus for direct PvP.

The proposal would also not work on consoles - as only players with premium platform access can play in the two multi-player game modes.

 

[Han_Zen]

If the instancing filter disregards mode choice then players in Solo would be playing in what would effectively be Open - therefore the bonus would only be available for players who want to play in Open. Still looks like a bonus for direct PvP.

The proposal would also not work on consoles - as only players with premium platform access can play in the two multi-player game modes.

It's a bonus for those that want to participate in a system wide arena. Like CQC, Wings and Squadrons it will not be available to those without multiplayer access.

It's a voluntary game play choice that comes with risks and rewards, like the choice you make when you enter a CZ. Specific rules exists in the 'bubble' you enter, when you make that choice.

Every form of multiplayer game play that gets introduced, requires that you make your self visible to other players. If the game play is multiplayer conflict, it's natural that it has a PvP element.

It would be available from all modes and completely optional. If you don't like it, you don't do it. Everything you get in 'conflict mode', is available when playing as neutral. The bonus is just a compensation for operating in a more hostile environment.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's a bonus for those that want to participate in a system wide arena. Like CQC, Wings and Squadrons it will not be available to those without multiplayer access.

It's a voluntary game play choice that comes with risks and rewards, like the choice you make when you enter a CZ. Specific rules exists in the 'bubble' you enter, when you make that choice.

Every form of multiplayer game play that gets introduced, requires that you make your self visible to other players. If the game play is multiplayer conflict, it's natural that it has a PvP element.

It would be available from all modes and completely optional. If you don't like it, you don't do it. Everything you get in 'conflict mode', is available when playing as neutral. The bonus is just a compensation for operating in a more hostile environment.

PowerPlay did not require players to make themselves visible to other players - and that's been in the game for about three years. PowerPlay has an optional PvP element - and no bonus for choosing it.

Affecting any part of the BGS, PowerPlay, CGs, etc. is not content that requires to be engaged in in a multi-player game mode - it may be considered to be PvP however it's basically indirect with no requirement to engage in direct PvP to participate.

In this game, multi-player does not require PvP - Private Groups make that rather obvious.

 

[Han_Zen]

PowerPlay did not require players to make themselves visible to other players - and that's been in the game for about three years. PowerPlay has an optional PvP element - and no bonus for choosing it.

Affecting any part of the BGS, PowerPlay, CGs, etc. is not content that requires to be engaged in in a multi-player game mode - it may be considered to be PvP however it's basically indirect with no requirement to engage in direct PvP to participate.

In this game, multi-player does not require PvP - Private Groups make that rather obvious.

Soft mode conflicts would not any of this. It would just add a new type of interaction with other players.

Currently a trader that wants to fly in open, is disadvantaged by the game. All modes contains ships that may be hostile to that trader. In Solo and PvE rules PG, the technical specifications of the hostile ships will not reach the same level as in open. They are caped at a lower level than hostile ships in open.

The trader has to compensate by giving up cargo space and jump range, to maintain the same level of safety. This is a pure technical disadvantage that the trader can not compensate for.
Giving the players a temporary alternative to compensate for technical imbalances, can hardly be described as 'requiring PvP'.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Soft mode conflicts would not any of this. It would just add a new type of interaction with other players.

Currently a trader that wants to fly in open, is disadvantaged by the game. All modes contains ships that may be hostile to that trader. In Solo and PvE rules PG, the technical specifications of the hostile ships will not reach the same level as in open. They are caped at a lower level than hostile ships in open.

The trader has to compensate by giving up cargo space and jump range, to maintain the same level of safety. This is a pure technical disadvantage that the trader can not compensate for.
Giving the players a temporary alternative to compensate for technical imbalances, can hardly be described as 'requiring PvP'.

Which makes it sound more like a simple request that Open be given a blanket bonus - which is something that Sandro said that he was not in favour of (with regard to the BGS).

.... although, as it probably only really affects non-combat ships, it should, if implemented, probably not apply to combat outfitted ships.

 

[Han_Zen]

Which makes it sound more like a simple request that Open be given a blanket bonus - which is something that Sandro said that he was not in favour of (with regard to the BGS).

Whether it's a bonus or a compensation for the technical imbalance that exist between player ships and NPC ships, depends on the size.

This is only interesting for the transaction part part of it though. It could of course be argued that data carrying missions should not have an increased influence as it's not a significant disadvantage to secure your ship against the highest level ships, when running them.

If players had the same caps on outfitting as NPCs have, transaction bonuses would not be warranted. The optional game play aspect of a system wide conflict zone, could still be interesting.