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

[Stigbob]

Man, Robert is just tanking everything thrown at him. Robert has earned my eternal respect.

And sort of off topic, but it's been mentioned that part of Frontier's advertisement for the game states "Hunt other Commanders" despite that going against the lore of the Pilots Federation (Of which every player is a part). I understand from a gameplay perspective it's impossible as you can't just boot players from your game for attacking other players given how the game was developed and thus the inclusion of a PF bounty for such actions. Again, off topic; just find it interesting.



I've brought this up before in the previous thread, but I don't know if it's been addressed, but before that I need some clarification. So, this idea to remove BGS influence from Solo and PG, is that just for these "PvP" Factions? Or does this include ALL factions? Now, I don't really get involved with all these groups so I wouldn't be able to spot a player group if I saw it. As such, I run missions for the minor factions that support a Major Faction (Federation, Alliance, and Empire). I ask because I'm in the US Military and deploy often. And the internet overseas isn't exactly something to be proud of, especially with how many other military members use it at any given point. The connection is so bad that I can't play in anything other than Solo. I don't want my game play experience hampered because I'm on a connection that I can't DO anything about. Nothing like trying to relax after a long exhausting day fighting for our freedom only to find the game no longer registers my time in game.

So, if this only affects the "PvP Factions" and not any of the others, then I can reluctantly allow it. Though I'd probably wonder why my work for one faction might not be doing anything should I stumble across one in-game. The moment you remove the BGS from Solo and PG completely is when I'll start fighting back.

It's a red herring.

When asked the open only proponents repeatedly say they are not interested in the BGS and won't bother with it anyway. So their request to remove BGS influence from solo/group has nothing to do with the BGS itself, it has to do with other players not being available as targets in open. There's a small minority of players who get very cross indeed at the idea that other players surround them in game but are unavailable for pew-pew, having opted out of open for whatever reason. Rather than accept the games basic design and clearly advertised features they try to have it changed.

 

[Rampant]

Sorry but I can't let you get away with that! In-game risk and reward is different to how you choose to play the game. If you choose SOLO PG or OPEN it is because you enjoy presumably playing in those modes for whatever reason. This is a separate issue to in-game missions rewards etc. This should take into account risk, amongst other factors, not whether you enjoy playing the mode. Deliberate conflating the two is obtuse and obstructive!

I do get what you are saying. Whether I accept it or not solely depends upon the integrity you display following the case I'm about to put to you:

This whole issue is just a red herring. The agenda being driven is solely an attempt to force more soft targets into Open by whatever means necessary.

The agenda is less about the risk/reward scenario and more about the end result. So I should be grateful if you would gracefully accept that the major proponents of this agenda are also conflating 2 issues. Perhaps you don't belong in the category of major proponents. I don't know your CMDR or your play-style, so I cannot judge in that respect. However, the agenda is being driven by those that will latch onto any small lever they can grasp in order to achieve the single aim that they crave. Do us a favour and acknowledge that this is true. Oh, it *is* true, by the way. Your integrity, on the other hand, has yet to be demonstrated...

What say you?



And while we're on the topic of integrity, would *SOMEBODY* acknowledge that - YES - if the BGS influence were restricted to Open, then there would be several undesirable first order consequences, imbalances and inconsistencies as a direct result. I have illustrated some of them. That there would be undesirable inconsistencies is beyond question. All that remains is for it to be acknowledged. Again, the integrity of this entire proposal depends upon that acknowledgement, rather than just not talking about it and ignoring it - which is much more obtuse and obstructive than anything I have done.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

Are there other commanders in solo? Will someone from the outside directly attack you in your private group for pressing an objective?

NOOPEEEEEEE

Unbalanced.



Well Fdev seen the proof. I dont have to prove it to you. So live in denial. But when the changes come. Ill make sure to help revise your little wall of text.

Yet again, disingenuous and contradictory.


When you say "can a Solo player be attacked", your conclusion is "Nope".

But when you say a Solo player can attack a group in Open, this is the entire crux of the thread.

This is a contradictory, contrary and conflicting position to take.


If you are saying that a player can attack another player or player group in Open by targeting the BGS in Solo, then the actual answer to your question "can a Solo player be attacked", then the real conclusion is "Yes".


You really can't have this both ways. Either BGS play is and "attack", in which case you can "attack" back, or, if you are saying that you cannot "attack" the Solo CMDR back, then he isn't making an "attack" on another player or group in the first place.

If you consider BGS interaction to be an attack on your CMDR, albeit "indirect", then your CMDR has the same tools to pursue the same attack against the BGS attacker. This is such a simple concept that I doubt you are having issues of understanding about it, but rather that you are deliberately ignoring that it can be performed in the pursuit of your agenda.


Any come-back on this?

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[bootsam]

Forcing players into open will have zero effect. Those solo/group players will simply stop playing altogether and open will still be as it is today. Nothing will change in open as a significant portion of players prefer pve full stop. Thats never going to change. The sooner some realise this, then the sooner perhaps we can move on. This argument or discussion has raged and raged and gets regurgitated so often its like watching repeats on Dave.

Affecting the BGS is the new tact. They cannot control their local bgs because strangers in the night pass by, do missions etc and they cant stop them. Neither do they wish to counter grind. Yet they want more difficulty and challenges. Essentially cutting through all the horse pooh the pvp bgs crew reads 'we want your cake and we want to eat it'.

Stop this nonsense. The excuses, justifications and tenuous grasps of fundamentals is just a denial of the reality of the game.

The truth is about CONTROL. The pvp want it, cant have it and dont like it.

 

[Rampant]

Forcing players into open will have zero effect. Those solo/group players will simply stop playing altogether and open will still be as it is today. Nothing will change in open as a significant portion of players prefer pve full stop. Thats never going to change. The sooner some realise this, then the sooner perhaps we can move on. This argument or discussion has raged and raged and gets regurgitated so often its like watching repeats on Dave.

Affecting the BGS is the new tact. They cannot control their local bgs because strangers in the night pass by, do missions etc and they cant stop them. Neither do they wish to counter grind. Yet they want more difficulty and challenges. Essentially cutting through all the horse pooh the pvp bgs crew reads 'we want your cake and we want to eat it'.

Stop this nonsense. The excuses, justifications and tenuous grasps of fundamentals is just a denial of the reality of the game.

The truth is about CONTROL. The pvp want it, cant have it and dont like it.

Incisive post.

I agree that this thread is a bit long, and a bit like the satirical a merry go round that someone added.

The point is about Control. Probably True.

I keep on with the posts myself simply and solely in order to illustrate that Control in this way - limiting or bonusing the BGS - will have several first order inconsistent direct consequences.

Such as a small group who play on PS4 in PG Mode being "attacked" by a PC player group from Open. Neither really knew that the other existed. One is just maintaining the system they call home, while the other is trying to expand into that system.

Option 1. - Remove BGS from Solo and PG. If the BGS is removed from PG Mode, then the Open group would take control by default. Even though they didn't even know that there was another group in that particular system. That would be imbalanced. Sure, I think the Open players would "like" that, but they would also necessarily have to agree that it is imbalanced. Any fool can see the imbalance, but I regret to say that many Open players would refuse to even acknowledge an imbalance would exist in this scenario (like they have already in this thread). Which would display a total lack of integrity, but there you go, this is the type of Open player we are discussing in my view...

Option 2. - Bonus BGS activity in Open. Same scenario above the PS4 players see their system BGS turn negative. Some of the group switch to Open to see if they can find any evidence of other CMDRs doing anything in Open. But they cannot see anything untoward! So they decide to play in Open for a while, working on the BGS and since they are good at BGS work they manage to prevent their system sliding too far negative and rescue their home from impending war/retreat/outbreak, etc... They got the 25% bonus to help them, but they faced absolutely ZERO extra risk to accrue that bonus.

This is just a very small slice of the bunch of first-order inconsistencies and imbalances that would occur as a direct consequence of both proposals.

These clear consequences are factually imbalanced and factually inconsistent. Yet not one of the proponents of the suggestions have acknowledged:

"Yeah, we can see there are inconsistencies and imbalances that would be brought about as a direct consequence...". They could then go on to say that either that they:

1. ... "still think it a good idea and want to press on with it, despite the imbalances that would result in our effort to balance the system" (contradictory choice) or else say;

2. ..."on reflection, we see that making imbalances occur is a bad idea when all we want to achieve is more balance" (consistent choice).


Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Arguendo]

And sort of off topic, but it's been mentioned that part of Frontier's advertisement for the game states "Hunt other Commanders" despite that going against the lore of the Pilots Federation (Of which every player is a part). I understand from a gameplay perspective it's impossible as you can't just boot players from your game for attacking other players given how the game was developed and thus the inclusion of a PF bounty for such actions. Again, off topic; just find it interesting.

I've always read that line as meaning "Bounty Hunter", but somewhere along the slippery roads of the forums it has changed meaning to "kill every cmdr you see."

 

[Kruger]

It's a red herring.

While I believe you, I still want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I've always read that line as meaning "Bounty Hunter", but somewhere along the slippery roads of the forums it has changed meaning to "kill every cmdr you see."

I've never attempted to bounty hunt another Commander because I thought the Pilots Federation frowned upon it regardless. If I saw a wanted Commander, I leave them be.

 

[Jockey79]

While I believe you, I still want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Kickstarter comments
DDA forum threads
Open Beta forum threads
The great merging making the S.O.G thread
S.O.G 2
S.O.G 3
S.O.G 4 Hotel California
The forum reshuffle to make this sub forum.

More than enough times have these issues been answered.
By Frontier, by mods, by myself.

Due to the repetitive nature of some CMDRs and reposting the same demands, I started to collect information so I had it on had to counter the same old tired posts.
It became "The Wall of Information" and the link to the most recent post of it is always in my Sig.

You'll notice some snide remarks a few pages back regarding it.

It always boils back to the same thing, veiled excuses to force more targets for those who want pew pew.
Even though the game design from the initial conception of the game was made to prevent unwanted interactions.

I've never attempted to bounty hunt another Commander because I thought the Pilots Federation frowned upon it regardless. If I saw a wanted Commander, I leave them be.

It's perfectly legit game play. You want to shoot them and collect it then go for it.
Also supported by the mission system, because if you get a mission to kill "pirates" and a wanted CMDR shows up. They will be shown as a "Mission Target" on your HUD.

 

[kinglemo2000]

While I believe you, I still want to give them the benefit of the doubt.



I've never attempted to bounty hunt another Commander because I thought the Pilots Federation frowned upon it regardless. If I saw a wanted Commander, I leave them be.

Stigbob is correct someone wrote on reddit about separating the BGS so open has it's own while solo and PG can share their own and perhaps have their own open PvE, some PvPer's said don't care about the BGS other want Solo and PG got rid of, so the PvPer's certainly are not united on the issue

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/7cvhyu/proposal_for_coping_with_griefers_and_cling/

 

[Darkfyre99]

I've brought this up before in the previous thread, but I don't know if it's been addressed, but before that I need some clarification. So, this idea to remove BGS influence from Solo and PG, is that just for these "PvP" Factions? Or does this include ALL factions? Now, I don't really get involved with all these groups so I wouldn't be able to spot a player group if I saw it. As such, I run missions for the minor factions that support a Major Faction (Federation, Alliance, and Empire). I ask because I'm in the US Military and deploy often. And the internet overseas isn't exactly something to be proud of, especially with how many other military members use it at any given point. The connection is so bad that I can't play in anything other than Solo. I don't want my game play experience hampered because I'm on a connection that I can't DO anything about. Nothing like trying to relax after a long exhausting day fighting for our freedom only to find the game no longer registers my time in game.

So, if this only affects the "PvP Factions" and not any of the others, then I can reluctantly allow it. Though I'd probably wonder why my work for one faction might not be doing anything should I stumble across one in-game. The moment you remove the BGS from Solo and PG completely is when I'll start fighting back.

There are no "PvP factions." There are NPC factions who were named by player groups, and a few of these player groups focus on PvP. Since direct PvP has little impact on the BGS, they find themselves at a disadvantage (oh the irony) when it comes to the indirect PvP this game is designed for.

Rather than petitioning Frontier to reward Player vs Player activities when it comes to BGS work, these mighty few PvPers would rather force players who are not into PvP combat into Open, either by rewarding playing in Open, or penalizing playing in Solo or Private Groups.

They refuse to acknowledge the reality of what they would actually encounter, or more accurately not encounter:

• They would never encounter players who play on a different platform than them. If they are on the PC, they will never encounter players on XBox or Play Station.
• They would never encounter players who play at different times than them.
• They would rarely encounter players whose connection is poor to them. Frontier's matchmaking service is primarily focused on getting a good overall Peer-to-Peer connection. Connecting with friends can be a challenge at times, especially if one of them is oversees or has a crappy ISP.
• They would rarely encounter players who are in an instance that supports few, if any, players. How many players an instance can support depends upon the host's computer. A poor computer can support few players, while a gaming rig can support many.

Frontier, starting with the Kickstarter, has always stated that controlling who you play with is a feature of this game. Even in Open, we have friends lists and block lists to control who we are instanced with. They are not likely to change this to suit a tiny fraction of the player base. They want as many people to enjoy everything this game has to offer, and that includes players who play in Solo, for whatever reason.

 

[Kruger]

Kickstarter comments
DDA forum threads
Open Beta forum threads
The great merging making the S.O.G thread
S.O.G 2
S.O.G 3
S.O.G 4 Hotel California
The forum reshuffle to make this sub forum.

More than enough times have these issues been answered.
By Frontier, by mods, by myself.

Due to the repetitive nature of some CMDRs and reposting the same demands, I started to collect information so I had it on had to counter the same old tired posts.
It became "The Wall of Information" and the link to the most recent post of it is always in my Sig.

You'll notice some snide remarks a few pages back regarding it.

It always boils back to the same thing, veiled excuses to force more targets for those who want pew pew.
Even though the game design from the initial conception of the game was made to prevent unwanted interactions.

I'm well aware of all the shenanigans that happened in those threads. But I meant within the confines of this particular thread.

There are no "PvP factions." There are NPC factions who were named by player groups, and a few of these player groups focus on PvP. Since direct PvP has little impact on the BGS, they find themselves at a disadvantage (oh the irony) when it comes to the indirect PvP this game is designed for.

Rather than petitioning Frontier to reward Player vs Player activities when it comes to BGS work, these mighty few PvPers would rather force players who are not into PvP combat into Open, either by rewarding playing in Open, or penalizing playing in Solo or Private Groups.

They refuse to acknowledge the reality of what they would actually encounter, or more accurately not encounter:

• They would never encounter players who play on a different platform than them. If they are on the PC, they will never encounter players on XBox or Play Station.
• They would never encounter players who play at different times than them.
• They would rarely encounter players whose connection is poor to them. Frontier's matchmaking service is primarily focused on getting a good overall Peer-to-Peer connection. Connecting with friends can be a challenge at times, especially if one of them is oversees or has a crappy ISP.
• They would rarely encounter players who are in an instance that supports few, if any, players. How many players an instance can support depends upon the host's computer. A poor computer can support few players, while a gaming rig can support many.

Frontier, starting with the Kickstarter, has always stated that controlling who you play with is a feature of this game. Even in Open, we have friends lists and block lists to control who we are instanced with. They are not likely to change this to suit a tiny fraction of the player base. They want as many people to enjoy everything this game has to offer, and that includes players who play in Solo, for whatever reason.

Which is exactly why I put PvP faction in quotation marks in my post. I know that they're just NPC factions with a special name and are ultimately controlled with the BGS.

---

I guess overall I'm just curious to see how they'll twist what I said to benefit them. Such as, in the previous thread, I was told that if I knew my internet was bad I shouldn't play because other MMO's would ban you for attempting to play. I believe it was LoL that was brought up with that analogy; a completely different style and type of game. So you can see where my amusement in watching all this comes from.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I'm well aware of all the shenanigans that happened in those threads. But I meant within the confines of this particular thread.



Which is exactly why I put PvP faction in quotation marks in my post. I know that they're just NPC factions with a special name and are ultimately controlled with the BGS.

---

I guess overall I'm just curious to see how they'll twist what I said to benefit them. Such as, in the previous thread, I was told that if I knew my internet was bad I shouldn't play because other MMO's would ban you for attempting to play. I believe it was LoL that was brought up with that analogy; a completely different style and type of game. So you can see where my amusement in watching all this comes from.

Indeed it was. Just play in solo and private for yourself. Until you internet connection is better. No one gets banned for disconnecting in a bot game against NPC's .

 

[Jockey79]

Just play in solo and private for yourself.

Or they can play in Open for themselves.

Just like Frontier intended, advertised and sold.

I like the term "Selective Multiplayer" that they use on https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/ to describe the mode system.

• Selective Multiplayer Modes: You can also play with everyone in a single world with three different online modes (Single Player, Friends Only, and Open).

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Or they can play in Open for themselves.

Just like Frontier intended, advertised and sold.

I like the term "Selective Multiplayer" that they use on https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/ to describe the mode system.

[/LIST]

And we seen how that worked out eh?

You've been arguing it since 2014 just like you said.

If it wasn't a problem, you wouldn't have been arguing it. Or have the defusing wall of text now would you?

These changes will be a great thing. WHEW 2018 is going to be AWESOME!

 

[Jockey79]

And we seen how that worked out eh?

You've been arguing it since 2014 just like you said.

If it wasn't a problem, you wouldn't have been arguing it. Or have the defusing wall of text now would you?

These changes will be a great thing. WHEW 2018 is going to be AWESOME!

"arguing"?

There is no argument here. The game was sold with Selective Multiplayer Modes as a feature.
I don't need to argue it, Frontier made it clear from the start that is what they were doing.

The fact you failed to understand that, or didn't bother to learn what Elite was before buying it really isn't our problem.
And the game wont changed based of complaints from 273 folks who didn't understand this isn't a PvP game, it is a game with optional PvP.

Not when the largest player group in game fully support the mode system and PvE.
So when the next load of content comes out, all 40,000+ of them will enjoy it from their PG.

I'll be too busy waiting on here for your reaction to continued support for the mode system.
And don't worry, I'm collecting your quotes for later

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

"arguing"?

There is no argument here. The game was sold with Selective Multiplayer Modes as a feature.
I don't need to argue it, Frontier made it clear from the start that is what they were doing.

The fact you failed to understand that, or didn't bother to learn what Elite was before buying it really isn't our problem.
And the game wont changed based of complaints from 273 folks who didn't understand this isn't a PvP game, it is a game with optional PvP.

Not when the largest player group in game fully support the mode system and PvE.
So when the next load of content comes out, all 40,000+ of them will enjoy it from their PG.

I'll be too busy waiting on here for your reaction to continued support for the mode system.
And don't worry, I'm collecting your quotes for later

Good save em all

I'll reiterate, I have no problems with the modes. Its the player attacks within them.

While people should be able to influence NPC's. They shouldnt be able to influence player factions. Reducing the infleunce they have in solo or private wouldnt effect you or anyone else as long as they wernt player based faction.

By dropping the influences that forces people into the multiplayer part of this game. While leaving someone on the other side of the galaxy able to effect their NPC factions as they see fit. And since they are away from other player groups. They could even go into open for the increased amount, just incase someone wants to defend it.

Just like support said here, https://imgur.com/a/83M5D. Even recognizing there is no counter.

Everyone still wins. And for some reason you have a problem with that.

However, I really do think the modes should be for personal growth, and the multiplayer aspect removed from them. If you want to influence everyone else? Play with everyone else on equal footing and equal risk. And some how they will incentivize this.

 

[Rampant]

Good save em all

I'll reiterate, I have no problems with the modes. *Its the player attacks within them.*

While people should be able to influence NPC's. They shouldnt be able to influence player factions. Reducing the infleunce they have in solo or private wouldnt effect you or anyone else as long as they wernt player based faction.

By dropping the influences that forces people into the multiplayer part of this game. While leaving someone on the other side of the galaxy able to effect their NPC factions as they see fit. And since they are away from other player groups. They could even go into open for the increased amount, just incase someone wants to defend it.

Just like support said here, https://imgur.com/a/83M5D. Even recognizing there is no counter.

Everyone still wins. And for some reason you have a problem with that.

There you are with that contradiction again.

Are BGS activities with NPC factions *really* player attacks? Or is that just a play on words to make it sound like your suggestion has more credibility than it deserves in reality?

Yours

Mark H

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

There you are with that contradiction again.

Are BGS activities with NPC factions *really* player attacks? Or is that just a play on words to make it sound like your suggestion has more credibility than it deserves in reality?

Yours

Mark H

Will you stop it lol. Arguing semantics.

Go say the same thing about mobius in colonia? Which they have a player faction. They have worked for it?

You see the diamond frogs post in General?

People represent their player faction. They worked for it. And hard.

You really dont have any idea what you're talking about do you?

Not yours,

World heavyweight forum PVP champion of the world,

That 90s Kid

 

[Rampant]

Will you stop it lol. Arguing semantics.

Go say the same thing about mobius in colonia? Which they have a player faction. They have worked for it?

You see the diamond frogs post in General?

People represent their player faction. They worked for it. And hard.

You really dont have any idea what you're talking about do you?

Not yours,

World heavyweight forum PVP champion of the world,

That 90s Kid

I'll stop it when you acknowledge the truth that messing with the BGS influence system would yield nothing but inconsistencies and imbalances.

Still yours

Mark H

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I'll stop it when you acknowledge the truth that messing with the BGS influence system would yield nothing but inconsistencies and imbalances.

Still yours

Mark H

Like how imbalanced it is right now? Giving solo and private the advantage against other players?

Or maybe the same way ollobrains UA bombs people.

Or why Fdev put fuel scoops on all the starter system ships during the PS4 Launch because of the imbalances. BECAUSE THERE IS NO COUNTER. Or a way to opt out of a BGS attack.

Im sorry but you're dead wrong. And the proof lies in video evidence and Fdev acknowledging it themselves.

I cant wait to see these changes. Finally we can play a balanced game.