Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant

[Robert Maynard]

Yeah well it goes without saying. Its bad. And the community reflects it. How about we see what they do. Because I can promise you right now. Its not working.

That rather depends on ones opinion - for those that eschew PvP or even multi-player it is an enlightened approach to a multi-player game in that it permits every player to both experience and affect a shared galaxy state.

From what one Dev has indicated, the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - so the design does seem to cater to the majority.

It works for those that don't want to engage in PvP to influence the galaxy - not so much for those that want to engage in blockades to defend themselves from other players (which was never going to work, given the three game modes and single shared galaxy state - this was pointed out very early on, long before release).

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

That rather depends on ones opinion - for those that eschew PvP or even multi-player it is an enlightened approach to a multi-player game in that it permits every player to both experience and affect a shared galaxy state.

From what one Dev has indicated, the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - so the design does seem to cater to the majority.

It works for those that don't want to engage in PvP to influence the galaxy - not so much for those that want to engage in blockades to defend themselves from other players (which was never going to work, given the three game modes and single shared galaxy state - this was pointed out very early on, long before release).

Lots of people ive spoke with, dont want to have to grind as much to to be able to pvp. People that used to pvp liked the level playing field it used to be before engineers. And would rather not put up with it. Ive spoke with tons of people through my streams, player groups and factions. If ive seen it so has frontier.

And like I told you before. Development changes as the games evolve. And will continue to do so. What was good ideas in the beginning worked fine. But when other stuff gets added it becomes obsolete. The same premise happened with WoW and League of Legends. All sorts of games during their developmental timeline.

Things will change. Like it or not.

 

[Nyra Amarin]

There is no opt out of BGS attack from other players - in any mode (or platform).

The opt out from direct PvP is in place - as it was always designed to be.

Then why we have thargoids now? Why we have passengers missions, or the new salvaging and salvament zones?
Why did criminality change especifically against players???

Why if the game was always designed without all of this????

I can understand that BGS control from players was something unexpected to Frontier. But why did this emerged? Because right now, the only reasons for playing in group with other players are BGS control and PP.
Players are claiming to Frontier for fixing the multiplayer part of Elite since loooong time ago.
Having a solo mode from where you can affect the only "multiplayer" part created by players are not good for all those thousand and thousand of people who are focused on it.

I repeat: right now, the only multiplayer part of the game has being created by players and Frontier just adjust their plans a little bit to it.
That's why we need to point at this topic (solo and open modes) and let the FDevs know how their players feel about it. Because, yes: maybe it wasn't designed for this but this is how their players are playing their game.

So... I'm agree with That90skid: Things have changed and will change. Like it or not.

From what one Dev has indicated, the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - so the design does seem to cater to the majority.

And you can avoid it in open mode too as I do. You just don't want to because solo mode is there so you can keep your conscience in calm. Because out of sight, out of mind, right?

I can imagine a lot of PvP players from solo mode (because territorial wars agaisnt other factions of players and PP are PvP too, keep that in mind) saying to themselfs "they are just npc so I don't care" or "the game has being designed in this way. It's not my fault".

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then why we have thargoids now? Why we have passengers missions, or the new salvaging and salvament zones?
Why did criminality change especifically against players???

Why if the game was always designed without all of this????

.... because Frontier are adding to the game - for all players.

I can understand that BGS control from players was something unexpected to Frontier. But why did this emerged? Because right now, the only reasons for playing in group with other players are BGS control and PP.

It emerged because players worked out how to effect change on the galaxy.

Players are claiming to Frontier for fixing the multiplayer part of Elite.

.... by removing content from players in Solo and Private Groups (remembering that XB1 and PS4 players without premium access can only play in Solo).

To have a solo modo from where you can affect all the only multiplayer part created by players are not good for all those thousand and thousand of people who are focused on it.

The PvP players, maybe - not the PvE players - and affecting the BGS / PowerPlay / CGs / Factions is a PvE activity.

I repeat: right now, the only multiplayer part of the game has being created by players and Frontier just adjust their plans a little bit to it.
That's why we need to point at this topic (solo and open modes) and let the FDevs know how their players feel about it.

Some of the players - not all of the players - and probably not the majority of players. Other players will resist such proposed changes.

Multi-player does not require PvP, after all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Lots of people ive spoke with, dont want to have to grind as much to to be able to pvp. People that used to pvp liked the level playing field it used to be before engineers. And would rather not put up with it. Ive spoke with tons of people through my streams, player groups and factions. If ive seen it so has frontier.

That's Engineer related, not mode / shared BGS related - and changes to Engineering are coming, as Sandro mentioned at FX'17 (and in the informal discussion I had with him after his presentation).

And like I told you before. Development changes as the games evolve. And will continue to do so. What was good ideas in the beginning worked fine. But when other stuff gets added it becomes obsolete. The same premise happened with WoW and League of Legends. All sorts of games during their developmental timeline.

Things will change. Like it or not.

I've liked the changes so far - there's no reason to suspect that I won't like those to come. Frontier seems quite firm in its stance on player freedom of choice regarding the PvP opt-out.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

That's Engineer related, not mode / shared BGS related - and changes to Engineering are coming, as Sandro mentioned at FX'17 (and in the informal discussion I had with him after his presentation).



I've liked the changes so far - there's no reason to suspect that I won't like those to come. Frontier seems quite firm in its stance on player freedom of choice regarding the PvP opt-out.

Yep You can opt out of PVP. Private and solo. You cant opt out of a BGS attack with player factions. How many times does this need to be said? And you can spill all your redderick about how the game is now. I know what the game is like now. And it was fine before player factions were introduced. Now its not.

So stop talking in circles. Wait until the changes come. And then we can see what happens. But I promise you they will touch on this.

Especially with the guilds stuff coming into play. You think hotel california was bad then? Wait until that happens.

Also, like I said, Ive spoke with lots and lots of people. And they quit because of the way this interaction is going. And if they are telling me this. They are also telling frontier this.

I dont need to say anymore. The community speaks for themselves and they are showing it. They arent happy.

Open your eyes. Think outside the box for 2 seconds.

Im leaving now, argue amongst yourselves. But ill tell you this. There will be changes. I guarantee it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And you can avoid it in open mode too as I do. You just don't want to because solo mode is there so you can keep your conscience in calm. Because out of sight, out of mind, right?

I can imagine a lot of PvP players from solo mode (because territorial wars agaisnt other factions of players and PP are PvP too, keep that in mind) saying to themselfs "they are just npc so I don't care" or "the game has being designed in this way. It's not my fault".

Indeed one can avoid PvP in Open - just don't go anywhere that might attract those that might wish to initiate an attack against ones ship.

What does conscience have to do with any of this? We're talking about a game - played for enjoyment - if it stops being enjoyable then it stops being played.

There is no "fault" - Frontier designed a game that does not require PvP - and some players exercise their freedom of choice and choose to play without direct PvP using features that Frontier have consciously implemented in the game.

Frontier did not design a game where PvP is required. Optional, certainly. Required, not in the slightest. Everyone who plays the game bought that game. That some players would like to see it changed is obvious. It is equally obvious that other players don't want to see such a fundamental change made to the game.

 

[Manticore]

Please don't make grand sweeping generalisations like that, especially when they can be countered so easily by asking you where you got that information from.
You only know what your immediate friends / clan says and thinks about the mode system and game features. Nothing more.

Exactly. And what's worse is, when they are wrong because they cannot factually support their broad sweeping statements, they compound the problem by posting a billion replies in the one thread.

Laughable really.

They may be able to speak for themselves but they have no right to invoke any form of "community" to back them up.

 

[BigF]

Back when I first started to play the game not long after it finished the initial beta and long before planetary landings etc. I was in my cobra and winged up at a beacon with another player iirc he was in an anaconda. Back then I was happy that another player even wanted to associate himself with a lowly relative noob. We worked together for getting on for an hour, chatted and I was thinking a nice guy, hope I can play with him again. The as is always the way the nav point dried up, we were just flying arround and suddenly he just turned and lit rip. Shields down in less than a second and my hull was gone in not much more than that.
Rebuy screen, while on the scale of things an relatively standard Cobra is not expensive, but for a noob it was a bitter pill.

I felt annoyed and and messaged the player who I will not name as I have seen him on the forum here and that's not what I'm bothered about. He never replied, I was really unsure if I'd missed something and was curious as to why etc.

I played in in open for at least a year after with next to no bother from PVP. Got interdicted and once the other player just scanned me and saw I had nothing worth the bother and just appologised and sent me on my way.

then I met up with some of the SSC and the rebuy screen a few times in one gaming session. That was an expensive day. I still played in open and spoke to the guys about the PVP action so got their side.

I now play In Mobius and its various modes not because I'm scared but because sometimes I just want to play with out having to second guess if the ship behind me is there because he's going the same way as me or lining up to interdict me etc.

When I'm in open its because I except that I may get bettered by another player if it comes to it. Ironically I see more players in Mobius than Open.

The fact that I have a choice is great, I wouldn't want that to change.

i do think that player backed factions should have details available in game to show exactly how many players are actively working with or against them in say the last 30 days, that way I could make a choice to help hinder or just ignore the particular faction, mostly I just ignore them anyhow.

 

[sovapid]

Just read the OP and I completely agree.

Have not read any other posts in the thread because I don't want to give myself an aneurysm.

 

[sovapid]

It would therefore seem proportionate to give players in Open a 0.0001% additional cash bonus to cover the increased risks.

Well, since Open is only .0001% riskier than Solo/PG, we could probably just get rid of Solo/PG, right?

No one would mind if the risk is just .0001%.

 

[Nyra Amarin]

The PvP players, maybe - not the PvE players - and affecting the BGS / PowerPlay / CGs / Factions is a PvE activity.

Ok... now tell me: Chess is, a pvp or a pve game?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ok... now tell me: Chess is, a pvp or a pve game?

Both - it depends on whether one's opponent is a computer - which comes down to player choice. Like E: D, there is no requirement to play directly against a human opponent in chess. Unlike E: D, there are defined win and draw conditions in chess, after which the game ends. Chess is also a turn based game - each player must wait for the other player to make a move before making their own next move. Also, chess can be played remotely from ones opponent - by post for example, there is a simple rule-set and everyone starts each game with the same assets.

Are track and field athletic events PvP?

 

[DevCMDR]

Ok... now tell me: Chess is, a pvp or a pve game?

That's a terrible comparison, a game where the literal only objective is to beat the other player, against a game where objectives are entirely subjective.

If I attempt to win at chess, I'm not stopping the other person from enjoying the game, rather, I'm enabling their enjoyment of the game.

If I attempt to interdict and kill someone who is casually exploring, that's probably not going to be something they enjoy.



That's like me sitting at my desk, and you bursting in, forcing me to play chess at gunpoint.

 

[John Tenzer]

Ok... now tell me: Chess is, a pvp or a pve game?

Was that a Strawman Argument or Whataboutism pro enforcing direct PvP?!

:S

 

[Rampant]

This is rather a Straw Man given that it avoids direct comparison of the size of the competing groups, ignores things like time zones, and, as pointed out above, platforms. In effect, you are using a false premise to rationalize your desire for human targets.



Another Straw Man argument because it ignores the fact that PGs can have interaction. It also implies that only the groups such as the Code can provide "emergent gameplay". Finally, given the known nature of most people that use the phrase, it is another rationalization of the desire for human targets.

Given the human penchant for euphemism, this entire proposal simplifies down to a desire to encourage more people into Open so that the player and his associates can have more non-NPC targets of whatever nature.

Absolutely hit the nail square on the head. Perfect.


Really, I thought we had gotten over that speed-bump of an argument about Open players not being able to "defend" against BGS play not in Open. really, really I thought it was debunked and accepted as de-bunked.

If it hasn't already bee said -

In order to "defend" against BGS play, you must play the BGS yourself. Combat operations against BGS players is not a defence against BGS play. End of lesson.

We have already had "Platforms" and "Time-zones" cited as crucial reasons why combat operations will make no difference. May I add "Instancing" to the pile of reasons as well? (You know - Instancing - the *core* nature of the peer-to-peer network system.)


Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Tiwaz]

Absolutely hit the nail square on the head. Perfect.


Really, I thought we had gotten over that speed-bump of an argument about Open players not being able to "defend" against BGS play not in Open. really, really I thought it was debunked and accepted as de-bunked.

If it hasn't already bee said -

In order to "defend" against BGS play, you must play the BGS yourself. Combat operations against BGS players is not a defence against BGS play. End of lesson.

We have already had "Platforms" and "Time-zones" cited as crucial reasons why combat operations will make no difference. May I add "Instancing" to the pile of reasons as well? (You know - Instancing - the *core* nature of the peer-to-peer network system.)


Yours Aye

Mark H

All have been mentioned. But for some reason people refuse to accept that there can be something beyond "Evil solo/PG-players" who affect BGS, PP etc without them being there to see and shoot them.

 

[sovapid]

Absolutely hit the nail square on the head. Perfect.


Really, I thought we had gotten over that speed-bump of an argument about Open players not being able to "defend" against BGS play not in Open. really, really I thought it was debunked and accepted as de-bunked.

If it hasn't already bee said -

In order to "defend" against BGS play, you must play the BGS yourself. Combat operations against BGS players is not a defence against BGS play. End of lesson.

We have already had "Platforms" and "Time-zones" cited as crucial reasons why combat operations will make no difference. May I add "Instancing" to the pile of reasons as well? (You know - Instancing - the *core* nature of the peer-to-peer network system.)


Yours Aye

Mark H

If this is true, you should support all BGS action taking place in open then? Because if it is true it should make any BGS "war" easier for you.

You, the smart BGS player, will continue to do what you do now.

Me, the dumb BGS player, will waste time trying combat operations instead of playing the BGS directly.

Sounds like a win/win to me. The BGS war becomes easier for you and I get to enjoy my time in failed combat operations.

 

[Nyra Amarin]

That's a terrible comparison, a game where the literal only objective is to beat the other player, against a game where objectives are entirely subjective..

In the right moment you are playing against other players is Player vs Player or PvP.

It doesn't matter if you do it by shooting him in a PC game, a tennis match, moving pieces on a table or moving influence of a faction supported by a group of players.

THAT is what a lot of players never understood.

Combat is one more PvP tool if you fight against other player, but it is not if you for example use your weapons against thargoids or if you are killing wanted NPC.
Calling PvP players to only those who shoot others is a big mistake.

Understanding this is really important because most arguments in favor of playing BGS or PP from solo mode because there are "griefers" out there are that you are not affecting negatively anyone and that it is not PvP. That's what make those people think that they have a "higher morality".

Well.. you have been wrong all this time. You are frustrating players in the same way a griefer frustates you when he kills you.
So please, stop playing PvP from solo and private modes or, at least, stop calling that beaviour the "good one".

 

[Robert Maynard]

In the right moment you are playing against other players is Player vs Player or PvP.

It doesn't matter if you do it by shooting him in a PC game, a tennis match, moving pieces on a table or moving influence of a faction supported by a group of players.

THAT is what a lot of players never understood.

Combat is one more PvP tool if you fight against other player, but it is not if you for example use your weapons against thargoids or if you are killing wanted NPC.
Calling PvP players to only those who shoot others is a big mistake.

Understanding this is really important because most arguments in favor of playing BGS or PP from solo mode because there are "griefers" out there are that you are not affecting negatively anyone and that it is not PvP. That is what make that people think that they have a "better morality".

Well.. you have been wrong all this time. You are frustrating players in the same way a griefer frustates you when he kills you.
So please, stop playing PvP from solo and private modes or, at least, stop calling that beaviour the "good one".

It is clear that the BGS / Factions / PowerPlay and even CGs are based on indirect PvP - it forms the basis of the desired player experience from the published design information, i.e. all players experience and affect the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode (or, now) platform.

It is equally obvious that direct PvP (i.e. in the same instance, shooting / being shot at by another player) is an entirely optional part of this game.

This is not a game that forces all players to play in an Open game mode where they can be attacked by other players - unlike some existing and planned space games.

.... and playing the BGS / Factions / PowerPlay from any of the three game modes is "by design" - as Frontier consciously implemented these features for all three game modes.

That some players that prefer PvP are frustrated is understandable - however their preferred play-style cannot force others to play the same way. Yes, the play-style of their opponents forces them to engage in PvE to counter efforts from players unseen - that's the way that the game is designed. Any play-style that requires other players as part of it is vulnerable to those other players choosing not to make themselves available to be engaged. The direct PvP opt-out is front and centre with regard to player choices.