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

[sovapid]

That some players that prefer PvP are frustrated is understandable - however their preferred play-style does not force others to play the same way.

I've had these issues before I ever started PVP'ing in Elite. Maybe I have a more of a PVP mind set in general, but I think it is more about wanting a multiplayer online game that makes sense. Talk about immersion breaking mechanics, this has got to be one of the top ones for me. And was the reason I decided not to get involved in Power Play at the beginning of the year.


When it first "clicked" for me how all of this worked I was dumbfounded. And I still am, to be honest.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've had these issues before I ever started PVP'ing in Elite. Maybe I have a more of a PVP mind set in general, but I think it is more about wanting a multiplayer online game that makes sense. Talk about immersion breaking mechanics, this has got to be one of the top ones for me. And was the reason I decided not to get involved in Power Play at the beginning of the year.


When it first "clicked" for me how all of this worked I was dumbfounded. And I still am, to be honest.

I can certainly understand the issue for players that prefer PvP.

However, Frontier have stated that the BGS, etc. will not be split between game modes and that they consider all game modes to be equal and valid (and they acknowledge that not all players agree).

It all comes down to them designing their game from the outset to offer the whole game to everyone with or without direct PvP. This extends to features added after launch (Wings / Multi-Crew in Solo notwithstanding - until we get NPC crew / Wingmen that is).

 

[Rampant]

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.

No.

I support all BGS play in all modes as the individual player sees fit. The end.

Yours

Mark H

 

[sovapid]

I can certainly understand the issue for players that prefer PvP.

However, Frontier have stated that the BGS, etc. will not be split between game modes and that they consider all game modes to be equal and valid (and they acknowledge that not all players agree).

It all comes down to them designing their game from the outset to offer the whole game to everyone with or without direct PvP. This extends to features added after launch (Wings / Multi-Crew in Solo notwithstanding - until we get NPC crew / Wingmen that is).

Yeah, there are things we are never (well, I guess never say never, but you know what I mean) going to agree on. However, I do agree that splitting the galaxy, at least for BGS, into separate universes where solo is different than open would make an even bigger mess. It just isnt feasible.

I log into open and my player faction is in control of a station and then log into solo and some other faction is in control? Too much of a mess. As far as consoles go, I rather see real cross play. Curse you Sony and Microsoft (although I think it is mainly Sony at this point causing issues).

I would like them to address that all modes are not actually "equal". If they were all equal we wouldn't need different modes like in every other online game I've ever played. I think the OP is a very good way to go.

And dont forget about squadrons and squadron missions. Even though they arent here yet.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I would like them to address that all modes are not actually "equal". If they were all equal we wouldn't need different modes like in every other online game I've ever played. I think the OP is a very good way to go.

They are equal, in that each player action has the same effect. The difference, and it's a big one, is that direct PvP is possible in the two multi-player modes (and the membership of Private Groups can be controlled to significantly reduce the likelihood of direct PvP). Other games often have PvE servers (alongside PvP servers) - Frontier chose not to go down that route - they chose to offer Solo (which is pretty much guaranteed to exist for as long as the game does due to the cancellation of Offline Solo mode before launch and the furore that that sparked - and also the fact that both XB1 and PS4 players without premium platform access can only play in Solo) and Private Groups as a means to let players control who they play among instead.

Factions / PowerPlay / etc. are not PvP only features - which is obvious from their implementation - hence the resistance to restricting anything being affected in Open only. Removing content from players that eschew PvP (which would appear, from what one Dev has indicated to be the majority of players) would be unacceptable to a lot of people. In addition, Frontier would need to explain to console players without premium platform access why their game content was being filleted.

The freedom to choose whether to (potentially) engage in direct PvP is first and foremost - selecting a mode is what we all have to do when starting the game.

 

[jasonbarron]

No, they're not equal. Solo & PG have a distinct advantage. The argument otherwise is absurd.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No, they're not equal. Solo & PG have a distinct advantage. The argument otherwise is absurd.

Each player's actions in each mode have the same effect on the BGS / PowerPlay / Factions / etc. - regardless of game mode - by design.

That players who choose a mode where direct PvP is more likely and actually lose out in a PvP encounter may complete fewer actions to affect the BGS(etc.) is a consequence of their choice. That said, very nearly 100% of Open is, like Solo, devoid of other players - albeit that there are hotspots where players gather to interact with other players in the multi-player modes.

The game lets players make many choices - playing among other players being one of them - and those choices have consequences.

 

[sovapid]

Yes, if I sell 10 tons of gold in a station, it has the same effect in solo/pg/open. But it is the ability to sell the same 10 tons of gold that is not equal.


We can do a test. For the Rescue Operation in the Pleiades CG, lets both do it. Say 2 hours of game time.

To keep it cheap, we can both do it in unengineered, shieldless type 6's.

You do it in solo/pg and I'll do it in open.

Do you think the effect we have on the CG will be equal?


EDIT: although I do have a broken leg right now, so if you accept, I may need to get a stand in to keep it fair.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes, if I sell 10 tons of gold in a station, it has the same effect in solo/pg/open. But it is the ability to sell the same 10 tons of gold that is not equal.


We can do a test. For the Rescue Operation in the Pleiades CG, lets both do it. Say 2 hours of game time.

To keep it cheap, we can both do it in unengineered, shieldless type 6's.

You do it in solo/pg and I'll do it in open.

Do you think the effect we have on the CG will be equal?


EDIT: although I do have a broken leg right now, so if you accept, I may need to get a stand in to keep it fair.

I've flown a Type 6 in Open - she wasn't shieldless - and I lost her anyway.

I made a major edit to the post preceding yours - basically I agree - a player in Open may complete fewer actions that affect the BGS(etc.) - which is a consequence of choosing to play in that mode, i.e. choosing to possibly encounter PvP.

Hope your leg heals well and quickly.

 

[Jockey79]

Do you think the effect we have on the CG will be equal?

Depends, planning on blocking everyone you see who may be hostile?

Because I can play open and never be shot at once. So how is it different to PG / Solo?

 

[sovapid]

Depends, planning on blocking everyone you see who may be hostile?

Because I can play open and never be shot at once. So how is it different to PG / Solo?

Well, the block list is another abomination for an online game in my opinion.

However, it does bring up a good point on the challenge I posted above. Because my friends list is like a whos who of "griefers".

Even before I started doing real pvp (where i had a combat ship and fought back) I wanted the challenge of running into the "best".

So I would have an even better chance of being instanced with all the murderhobos.

 

[Jockey79]

Well, the block list is another abomination for an online game in my opinion.

However, it does bring up a good point on the challenge I posted above. Because my friends list is like a whos who of "griefers".

Even before I started doing real pvp (where i had a combat ship and fought back) I wanted the challenge of running into the "best".

So I would have an even better chance of being instanced with all the murderhobos.

All online games have the ability to control whom you interact with and how, this is nothing new.

As for your friends list, that is your personal choice and nothing to do with the game. So that is irrelevant.
You can clear that list (or directly block them in the main menu) and not be instanced with murder hobos anymore.

Your personal choices have skewered your experience. Yet you're blaming the game for not having an easy time at a CG.

 

[sovapid]

All online games have the ability to control whom you interact with and how, this is nothing new.

All? I can't think of one.

PUBG
Battlefield 1 & 4
The Division

are what I played before/at the same time as Elite.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

All? I can't think of one.

PUBG
Battlefield 1 & 4
The Division

are what I played before/at the same time as Elite.

Exactly this is like playing League of legends or Guildwars 2. And if someone doesn't want to be attacked by other players they can use other modes. They can still PVE to capture objectives because they used the block feature.

There is PVE in both of those game, but you also have people you are working against. Just like in Elite. But here, you get to opt of out one option. While you dont in the other.

And its stupid. Why they continue to argue something that is holding the game back. Is beyond me. Its their feedback over the years is why the game is a "mile wide and an inch deep". And partly the reason Elite hovers between 15- 250 viewers at a time. Unless burst content is released.

But in an alternate universe where they promoted powerplay and the use of their advertising "or hunt other commanders" The game would skyrocket to the top. Creating lots of content, more people buying the game and so forth. But for some reason jockey and maynard would rather keep the game stale and stop any progression for meaningful pvp.

So dont even bother with them anymore. Its pointless. They continue to shut down any thread no matter the subsection. Start using twitter and other forms of multimedia to help express any concerns you have with the game.

Because of their little circle of friends that follow around from thread to thread. You cant have any meaningful conversation because they actively try to shut it down. And any opposition they end up shutting the thread down.

Like I said in the past. There is a reason Hotel california topic goes on for 5 years. And these people fight against it. There is a reason reddit blows up about all this stuff because they can speak their mind. Meanwhile on these forums everything gets shut down when any form of common sense is used for our side of the argument.

ITs too bad too. Because this type of behavior is costing frontier. People are leaving this game because of it. They try to keep these forums all puppy dogs and rainbows. But the real feedback exists on reddit. And I hope Frontier starts paying attention to that. Because its not worth it here brother.

I mean they edit posts so their circle of friends dont get in trouble while I get reported. https://imgur.com/a/2Ol7b

 

[Robert Maynard]

Like I said in the past. There is a reason Hotel california topic goes on for 5 years.

.... and that reason is Frontier's continued adherence to their design - a design that allows any player to opt out of direct PvP as and when they choose, while still experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy state.

Is there an expectation that Frontier will remove content from the majority of the player-base to suit the play-style choice of a minority?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

.... and that reason is Frontier's continued adherence to their design - a design that allows any player to opt out of direct PvP as and when they choose, while still experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy state.

Will you stop with the . I know whats going on. People are asking for change. I am well aware how the game works now. We all do.

Were all minority, because the powerplay features and the BGS is not being used to its fullest extent. Especially with the introduction to player guilds that are coming as well.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I know whats going on. People are asking for change. I am well aware how the game works now. We all do.

Some people are asking for change. Some don't want that change to be made. Frontier will be able to deduce what proportion of the player-base each "side" constitutes.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Some people are asking for change. Some don't want that change to be made.

LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR CHANGE. A WHOLE LOT OF THEM.

YOU dont want change. and you will show up to any thread asking for it. Just like I said above. You are part of the problem.

 

[Robert Maynard]

LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR CHANGE. A WHOLE LOT OF THEM.

How many, as a proportion of the player-base?

YOU dont want change. and you will show up to any thread asking for it. Just like I said above. You are part of the problem.

I oppose proposals to make PvP a requirement of existing elements of this game, yes - always have. I oppose proposals to make Solo and Private Groups second class game modes, yes. In that respect I agree - I am a problem for those that seek to fundamentally change the core design of the game with respect to access to game content for all players (without having to play in a mode where PvP is entirely likely).

While I am vocal, I'm not the only one that opposes these changes.

.... and, given that Frontier would seem to be well aware that the majority of the player-base does not get involved in PvP, I'd hazard a guess that I may be on the side of the majority.

It's not a game that requires PvP - for some players that's a problem. For other's it's a welcome feature.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

How many, as a proportion of the player-base?



I oppose proposals to make PvP a requirement of existing elements of this game, yes - always have. I oppose proposals to make Solo and Private Groups second class game modes, yes. In that respect I agree - I am a problem for those that seek to fundamentally change the core design of the game with respect to access to game content for all players.

While I am vocal, I'm not the only one that opposes these changes.

.... and, given that Frontier would seem to be well aware that the majority of the player-base does not get involved in PvP, I'd hazard a guess that I may be on the side of the majority.

Yeah on these forums. Because you shut everyone out. Go to reddit and its the complete opposite. More people use reddit than these forums. And thats a fact jack.