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

[Mephane]

Do you see how just because you support one side of the argument doesn't automatically make you a part of the worst group in that argument? Same goes for those on my side of the argument. Open your mind, not everyone is out to get you.

That's true. Not all people who wish for some kind of bonus for playing in Open want it to encourage more potential targets/victims into Open. Some just want a bonus because they very smugly feel they are more deserving of any rewards the game has to offer, often due to some assumed moral high ground. Speaking of which...

Meanwhile, you completely ignored my question as to how making Open and Solo 2 separate servers has any chance to forcing you to face your crippling fear of seeing other players.
How does separating the 2 modes force you into Open???

I rest my case.

 

[Cuddlestuff]

I agree with more benefits for open, more risk more reward and it has no effect on private and solo. It’s a thrill thing not just a target thing, and some players like me would like to come across a player doing trade and fly escort and I have dabled in trade in open for kicks.... and guess what didn’t lose anything.... the thrill was short lived as I finished cuz that little more risk got me nothing

 

[Para Handy]

A sound rebuttal. You've clearly outlined why your position is valid and mine is not. /s

By your logic, the only possible reason for your refusal to even consider this change must mean you are one of the people exploiting the imbalance Solo currently sustains. Again, /s
Do you see how just because you support one side of the argument doesn't automatically make you a part of the worst group in that argument? Same goes for those on my side of the argument. Open your mind, not everyone is out to get you.

Meanwhile, you completely ignored my question as to how making Open and Solo 2 separate servers has any chance to forcing you to face your crippling fear of seeing other players.
How does separating the 2 modes force you into Open???

1. Asserting sarcasm does not mean it exists.

2. No - I just refuse to go back into open again in the bubble since engineers meant I got ganked by a three-shot hyper-engineered murderer.

3. I ignored it because it is even worse nonsense - F D has consistently said we all do and will continue to share the same galaxy.

4. Talking of ignoring points, have you thought up an excuse about how to account for XBone and PS4 players and also the various time-zones we exist in? No - didn't think so.

'Bye again ....

 

[Zee Axiom]

That's true. Not all people who wish for some kind of bonus for playing in Open want it to encourage more potential targets/victims into Open. Some just want a bonus because they very smugly feel they are more deserving of any rewards the game has to offer, often due to some assumed moral high ground.

If you were paying attention you'd know I'm not in support of giving Open players some arbitrary bonus just for playing in Open. I think it's a bad idea and there are better solutions. Like the one I presented.

 

[Fracktal]

Why would Frontier separate the different play mode when it can be defeated just by blocking any P2P traffic through your router or firewall?

What a waste of development and resources it would be....

 

[Zee Axiom]

1. Asserting sarcasm does not mean it exists.

2. No - I just refuse to go back into open again in the bubble since engineers meant I got ganked by a three-shot hyper-engineered murderer.

3. I ignored it because it is even worse nonsense - F D has consistently said we all do and will continue to share the same galaxy.

4. Talking of ignoring points, have you thought up an excuse about how to account for XBone and PS4 players and also the various time-zones we exist in? No - didn't think so.

'Bye again ....

So you got ganked once and now you wanna live in the boring safety of Solo. That's fine. That's your choice. Has nothing to do with my point, proposal, or question.

Your response as to how separating the 2 modes forces you or anyone into playing Open, is that FD said they aren't going to separate the 2 modes? That doesn't answer the question at all.

What do XBone, PS4, and time zones have to do with splitting the game into 2 separate servers?

You obviously have no valid response to my point, or are just choosing not to present any and evading my questions for the sake of arguing.
Until you present some valid counterpoint, I'm done wasting time arguing with you. I've made my point, splitting the 2 modes into 2 servers solves a lot of problems imho. I'll respond when you present something worthwhile to the contrary.

Peace.

 

[Para Handy]

........... I'm done wasting time arguing with you. ............

1. OK

2. Yes it does answer your point because it invalidates it.

3. Whining Complaining about Open BGS and PP being disadvantaged by players in Solo and PG ignores the fact that you can't interact with a whole host of other players no matter what mode you are in (consoles and time zones). Therefore the whole premise (smokescreen) is fatally flawed. (It was not mentioned in response to the risible 2 server nonsense.)

4.
a. The fact is that my response to you is entirely valid and you just choose to ignore it's veracity.

b. That suits me as your Axiom is axiomatically flawed and as far as I can tell from your contributions here there is nothing humble about you.


/thread

 

[Robert Maynard]

Separating Open players and Solo/PG players is 100% fine, and giving each person the means to play the game they want, is 100% fine.

What is NOT 100% fine, is having these 2 separate worlds influence and affect the outcome of 1 combined world (CGs, BGS, PP). OP is clearly looking for more people to shoot at, and a lot of the solo players called him out on this. What some of the solo players ignored though, is the valid concerns about how each set of players interact with the same world but not with each other; and how this causes obvious imbalances and unfairness. (CGs, BGS, PP).

Simple solution:
Open play is its own unique universe, and solo/pg is its own unique universe.
Separate the modes into 2 separate servers. The players that want to compete against other players without ever seeing them can continue to do so, and are still semi-connected to everyone else that wants to play the same way. But now they can't affect the people that don't have a CHOICE (and that WANT one) about confronting competing players.

Nearly every other major MMO does this in some form or fashion, (PvP server, PvE server, RP server, etc.) The people that REALLY don't want to interact with other players can continue to do so and go about their merry way. But the players that use this currently broken system (and make no mistake, this system is broken) to exploit and avoid consequence, would think long and hard about which server they really want to commit too, and I think you'd find quite a few would opt to live in Open knowing they would otherwise never be able to directly interact with those they compete against.

Michael Brookes had this to say on that topic:

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, I go away for a few days and this thread fills up with salt (standard response to pro open/PvP thread on here I guess).. [haha]

The suggestion is to reward taking the risk of flying open... not to force any playstyles on anyone (if you like solo or private groups and hate open, by all means stay there...nobody would have a gun to your head).

Not to force playstyles on anyone?

What about this bit - that would restrict affecting Factions to Open only?:

Token Requirement for BGS Manipulation Against Player Factions

Spoiler

With squadrons on the way, I think the problem of solo & private group players stomping rival factions to dust via the BGS needs to be addressed.. The open token could be used to make attacking rival player factions an exclusively open activity (as it should be - solo & private groups should be for the use of players who aren't interested in conflict with other players).

How it could work is that the BGS would require the open token for player actions to affect a system where a player faction is present (both positively & negatively). This would bring the MMO side of the game alive, because player factions could no longer quietly destroy a rivals influence from a private group - they would have to risk attack in open to do it. There would finally be a concept of defending your home system from BGS attack without having to counter-grind (which if you're a PvP group is not really desirable or viable if your group is much smaller than the attacker). PvP would be given a purpose, because it would be an excellent way for smaller groups to defend themselves from larger groups (small skillful PvP groups could resist large PvE groups very effectively).

The defending group would also get visibiity of who is attacking them (increasing inter-faction drama/intrigue), because at the moment this is very hard to figure out.

Any type of player can request that a Faction is inserted and any player can affect Factions from any mode - by design. On the topic of affecting Factions from Solo and Private Group, Michael Brookes had this to say:

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

Players who would be positively affected:

• Everyone playing in open (profits)
• Player factions & Powerplayers defending their controlled system(s) from BGS/powerplay attack (especially smaller groups vs larger) - Combat PvP would have a purpose
• PvP Pirates, bounty hunters, Protection wings & Rescue wings (more players to interact with)

Players who may be negatively affected:

• Those who exploit solo & private groups to attack other player factions/powers without risk
• Popular private groups may lose some numbers (probably the real reason for the hostile responses here)
• Players who hate open but can't resist higher profits (personal choice though)

BTW It's nice to see people calling me a griefer for presenting suggestions to improve the game... No wonder these forums have such a great reputation in the wider community.

That's one opinion as to the outcome of such a contentious change. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

 

[Nyra Amarin]

With the only way to communicate with other players being "be in the same instance" in most cases, I'm pretty sure many purely-PvE BGS and Powerplay players would still like (all else equal) to be able to meet and talk to other players operating in their adopted systems.

One of my BGS colleagues ran into a player last night in a system we're trying to take over, and because they were both in Open on the same platform, was able to ask them to prefer particular sides in a war. To which they agreed, because they get paid the same either way. That's one player who won't accidentally be interfering with our BGS work, and not a single shot was fired or even threatened. Similarly, someone is definitely opposing us in that system, but we have no way to tell whether it's an individual or two hunting credits who could be encouraged to earn them another way, another BGS or PP group we could come to some diplomatic arrangement with, or someone we just have to fight (directly or far more likely indirectly).

Make the traffic report say which players were in the system. Have offline inter-player email that you can leave for other players either generally (if they're on your friends list) or at a station you've recently visited (otherwise). At the moment Solo players can fight Open players in the BGS (and vice versa), but they can't easily communicate with each other to avoid fighting.

This. This is what most solo players do not understand.
It is not all about "combat players" but "multiplayer players" too.
Not everyone wants to fight even playing in the open mode.

When I was in Colonia I missed a lot the communication in game, even when we had our discord for CCN and CEI, because we needed to contact all players coming to Colonia so we could asked them for doing things kindly and inform them about how things were going there.

It would be more funny, inmersive and fair if Frontier force a little interaction between us in game when we choose to play the multiplayer part of Elite.
I know that "force" is a bad word, but it is neccesary. In the moment you affect others, you should look at others face and talk avoiding to be those annoying ghosts for the rest of the community.

Right now BGS and PP players are forced to play much more hours that it would be needed if we could interact in game and when players complain about it they are inmediately labbeled with the "griefer" word without knowing anything else about them.
That's very far from reality.

 

[varonica]

It would be more funny, inmersive and fair if Frontier force a little interaction between us in game when we choose to play the multiplayer part of Elite.
I know that "force" is a bad word, but it is neccesary. In the moment you affect others, you should look at others face and talk avoiding to be those annoying ghosts for the rest of the community.

The moment you used the word "force" you lost the argument. If you "force" me to do something I don't want to do as part of my gaming experience it is no longer my gaming experience, all I may as well be toyou is another NPC in your game world, compelled to follow rules that make your gaming experience more "enjoyable" for you but miserable for me, at which point I just quit. You simply don't get it that interaction with players doesn't require that players behave in the way you want them to behave. The thing about multiplayer games that make them so enjoyable is people are all individuals doing their own thing, not necessarily doing what you demand they do!

Next thing you know we won't just have combat logging it will be interaction logging, where people are being demonised for not wanting to talk to you and threatened with banning, because that's where "force" leads. If you "force" someone to do something and they logout because they don't want to do it then it becomes an exploit.

It won't be more funny, immersive and fair, here I am doing my own thing in open and suddenly I am forced to interact with someone not on my friends list......interaction log...cheat cheat cheat cheat!

I might kindly suggest never using the word "force" again when discussing player interaction <- that's the non-profanity filtered version, I'll let you imagine what the other version is like!

 

[GODofDUTY83]

I've seen the BGS argument often. My faction got shafted by players in private.
There are 3 different systems in operation, pc ps4 xbox 1. How do you know its just those folks in solo or private that are affecting your faction ? The BGS is there to be manipulated anyhow or do you somehow think your time and effort should result in some kind of faction manopoly that can never be challenged ?
Personally I want to see more solo focused content pushed out, lots more, heaps more, keep it coming.

 

[Lateralus]

Not to force playstyles on anyone?

What about this bit - that would restrict affecting Factions to Open only?:

Well yes, if you want to attack another player faction then you shouldn't be able to do it from solo or private... it's a silly concept for a very cowardly tactic, that results in a very hollow, frustrating and dull experience for all (grind vs counter-grind... ooo the excitement).

Influencing NPC-controlled systems should be good enough for PvE players right? I thought that's what they wanted to do?

EDIT: To clarify, I'd suggest that the restriction only apply to the attacking faction, it is perfectly reasonable to be able to defend your system from a private group or solo.

Any type of player can request that a Faction is inserted and any player can affect Factions from any mode - by design. On the topic of affecting Factions from Solo and Private Group, Michael Brookes had this to say:

That's an old comment, squadrons might force them to adjust their design philosophy - squadrons probably weren't even on the table when Michael Brookes said that.

That's one opinion as to the outcome of such a contentious change. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

Sure, but the only one that counts is Frontier's and what they ultimately do. If they want open play and PvP to be the 'meaningful' experience that David Braben said it would be and not just a pointless fight-club, then I would encourage them to do something along the lines of this suggestion (or similar)... otherwise open and pvp will forever be an irrelevance.

I've seen the BGS argument often. My faction got shafted by players in private.
There are 3 different systems in operation, pc ps4 xbox 1. How do you know its just those folks in solo or private that are affecting your faction ? The BGS is there to be manipulated anyhow or do you somehow think your time and effort should result in some kind of faction manopoly that can never be challenged ?
Personally I want to see more solo focused content pushed out, lots more, heaps more, keep it coming.

If BGS tankers are messing with your faction, they are always in a secure mode... They won't risk being exposed, let alone attacked in open (weak min/max trade builds blow up easily).

Cross platform-open play is fine, because there's no reason why player groups can't field wings across all of them.

 

[StiTch]

Welcome to the great issue with game modes.

Open will never become truly relevant, as there is - as you put it - no real advantages.

However, it cannot gain any advantages because any such advantage would be vehemently screamed down by PG/Solo players.

Nice to know that "not worrying about that which affects only others gameplay" extends as far as it suits the person saying it. Ironic then, isn't it, that objections to Open benefits are founded purely on spite?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well yes, if you want to attack another player faction then you shouldn't be able to do it from solo or private... it's a silly concept for a very cowardly tactic, that results in a very hollow, frustrating and dull experience for all (grind vs counter-grind... ooo the excitement).

From the point of view of a player that enjoys PvP. Most players apparently don't get involved in PvP and Frontier would seem to be well aware of that.

Influencing NPC-controlled systems should be good enough for PvE players right? I thought that's what they wanted to do?

That's rather a selfish notion - I'm glad that Frontier didn't implement it that way.

EDIT: To clarify, I'd suggest that the restriction only apply to the attacking faction, it is perfectly reasonable to be able to defend your system from a private group or solo.

Define "attacking" in this context - trading affects Factions, as does selling Exploration Data, smuggling, cashing in Bounties and Combat Bonds, running missions and carrying passengers - none of which require PvP.

.... and one need not do anything directly to a Faction to lower its influence - one may simply boost the influence of other Factions in the system (that are most likely NPC factions) to effectively lower the influence of a particular Faction.

That's an old comment, squadrons might force them to adjust their design philosophy - squadrons probably weren't even on the table when Michael Brookes said that.

Old the comment may be, however it post-dated the introduction of CGs and PowerPlay - which were implemented for all players in all modes , preceded by Wings and followed by Multi-Crew - which were both implemented in both multi-player modes. With those precedents, I'd not expect Squadrons to be any different - as I expect that Frontier will naturally accommodate PvE players as well as PvP players in relation to Squadrons.

Sure, but the only one that counts is Frontier's and what they ultimately do.

The fact that Frontier haven't shifted from the stance that all modes are equal and valid after all this time might be strongly suggestive as to their opinion going forward.

If they want open play and PvP to be the 'meaningful' experience that David Braben said it would be and not just a pointless fight-club, then I would encourage them to do something along the lines of this suggestion (or similar)... otherwise open and pvp will forever be an irrelevance.

Difficult to do in a game that has an opt-out of direct PvP as one of its core design features - and everyone bought the game with the ability to opt out of direct PvP.

 

[relayer]

The PvPers want me to play the game their way [direct combat only].

They don't want to play the game my way [everything else but PvP].

Seeing as how I paid the same money as those guys for this game, I think I will choose to play the game my way.

Simple.

EDIT: On the other hand, I've said for years here and from experience in other multiplayer games, if the ganksters are truly destroying Open, then it behooves the "true PvPers" to clean their own house, as an incentive to draw players into open for "balanced combat." Of course, this sally is met with howls and moans most of the time.

 

[relayer]

Simple solution:
Open play is its own unique universe, and solo/pg is its own unique universe.
Separate the modes into 2 separate servers.

Even easier and proposed in any number of threads on this topic, a PvP flag setting on the main menu [per session]. FD don't have to pay for more servers and etc.

 

[relayer]

seeking direct player interaction

This point gets reiterated in almost every "open advocate" post, so it must be a central argument.

- because of instancing mechanics, no one player group would see all opposing players 80% of the time even if they are all in open.

- because of timezone and work hours, you are not going to see all the players at a single place.

- all of this only applies to PC. If you are an Xbox or PS4 player, you're not ever going to see 2/3 of the player base.

So, what is next? Demanding that a separate galaxy and BGS be available to only Xbox or PS4 players? Demanding FD change the entire architecture of their game to please only one segment of the playerbase?

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

 

[Captain Willard]

Funny thread. I play mostly solo, some pg. I am spreading the minor faction I support "just for fun" to multiple systems. If peeps from open or pg reduce my systems to dust, I have no way to combat them. Life is funny like that eh?

 

[Makdo]

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.

Well that was a long-winded way of saying it but I agree with your position. This argument has been dressed up so many different ways in various multi-player games but still boils down to "we want more non-pvp players to shoot at."