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

[Daynen]

Oh, How far a topic can be derailed in just a few days time...

Sadly, it's far too easy to look at a certain group of players and think they're the cause of a problem, when the source originated far before those players...and probably actually CREATED those players in the first place.

The central issues with the open vs. everything else debate are, sadly, foundational. when Frontier's solution to "providing for PVE'ers and PVP'ers alike" was allowing us to pass each other like ships in the night, rather than looking at the ingame repercussions of everything we do, a mistake was made--the symptoms of which we see many times a day. The way the galaxy responds to our actions, in ways both big and small, is what ultimately leads us to such divides. Cause and effect do not add up in ED. So many things do not make sense, even in the most charitable of context, that players are eventually led to random, purposeless means of amusement, i.e. shooting oher players to alleivate boredom. The "living, breathing universe" is apparently a vegetable in a coma, because it's both barely alive and brain-dead.

Before any differences between open and other modes can be truly resolved, FD needs to re-evalutate several things that run much deeper--namely, the consequences of our actions. Engineering modules to get more performance should honestly have come with higher penalties (and perhaps been unlocked through more interesting means than rep grinds.) The behavior of security ships in regards to the "scan the dead to rights criminal before you shoot" phenomenon desperately needs to be addressed. The supply and demand of marketplaces needs to be a real, non-infinite thing that is actually AFFECTED by traders. Players need more ways to be part of the universe beyond hauling, scanning and shooting things. Only then will the debate between open and everything else look like a real, solvable problem. I've seen several potential bandaids in this thread, but the more I consider them, the more I realize none of them will really work in the long term.

In other words, open vs. non-open is probably the symptom, rather than the cause of the problem.

 

[Cuddlestuff]

(Sorry for my english)

I can respect that.
But it is not fair for those players looking to interact others through the tools of this game. These are combat, PP, BGS and CG's.

About 3 of these:

1. CG's = Lore). For example, if a big group of players disagree that Imperium plan to build an imperial base neara Federation zone, or I don't like anti-thargoids weapons, right now, there are no ways to avoid it because of the solo mode.
There are no way to present these ideas to other players and fight for it, creating conflicts, dialogues, etc... between players (that means another ways to have fun).

2. BGS) I played BGS for a long time and playing against ghosts is frustrating. It is completely illogical and unreal to not be able of interact with people who enter in "your system", and not only because "I wanna fight", but also to patrol or organize incoming traffic of players.
For example, when someone came through open into one of our systems, we played our roles and we could asked them what were they doing. If they were delivering commodities we could kindly asked them to deliver it into an specific station.
Of course ... only 1 iof 1000 players trade in open mode. So, we could have 1000 of ships in the traffic report, go out of the station and watch the space full of NPC's

3. PP) The most affected by this. I joined a group of PP players and lasted for a month bacuse It was frustrating.
While most of players only deliver papers in the hours of greatest influx, players who are genuinely interested in PP have to counter that affluence first (which is sometimes from thousands and thousands of players) and play "extra hours" to carry their plans out later.
If PP could only be done in open, groups of PP could organized themselfs for entering into an enemy system or defending their own, thus stopping the traffic of undermining in the same hours of game (and not more hours of playing, as it is happening now)

Playing PP seriously in this game is harder than a real-life job right now because of this.

I read a lot that the PP system is "poorly designed". But the real problem is not how PP has being designed, but that what happens in private modes affect the open mode.

I understand that there are A LOT of people who do not want to meet anyone in this game. That's why I think that private and solo modes should not disappear.
BUT affecting others without consequences (with or without intention) is not fair too.

Right now people who want to play alone are not really playing alone: ​​their actions affect others, turning the solo and private modes just into a tool for affecting whoever they want with impunity, and forcing PP, BGS and Lore player to play much more hours of PvE playing that it would be really needed (and completely cancelling the combat as one more tool - the 4th one -).

From my point of view, PP and CGs should be limited to open. And all actions from players in solo and private modes should have no effect on the BGS.

I know the "I have a real life" song when people talk about "being killed".
But what those people do not understand is that PvP, BGS, Role, Lore and PP players have a real life and like this game too (but less and less as this problem is still not solved).

Oh, How far a topic can be derailed in just a few days time...

Sadly, it's far too easy to look at a certain group of players and think they're the cause of a problem, when the source originated far before those players...and probably actually CREATED those players in the first place.

The central issues with the open vs. everything else debate are, sadly, foundational. when Frontier's solution to "providing for PVE'ers and PVP'ers alike" was allowing us to pass each other like ships in the night, rather than looking at the ingame repercussions of everything we do, a mistake was made--the symptoms of which we see many times a day. The way the galaxy responds to our actions, in ways both big and small, is what ultimately leads us to such divides. Cause and effect do not add up in ED. So many things do not make sense, even in the most charitable of context, that players are eventually led to random, purposeless means of amusement, i.e. shooting oher players to alleivate boredom. The "living, breathing universe" is apparently a vegetable in a coma, because it's both barely alive and brain-dead.

Before any differences between open and other modes can be truly resolved, FD needs to re-evalutate several things that run much deeper--namely, the consequences of our actions. Engineering modules to get more performance should honestly have come with higher penalties (and perhaps been unlocked through more interesting means than rep grinds.) The behavior of security ships in regards to the "scan the dead to rights criminal before you shoot" phenomenon desperately needs to be addressed. The supply and demand of marketplaces needs to be a real, non-infinite thing that is actually AFFECTED by traders. Players need more ways to be part of the universe beyond hauling, scanning and shooting things. Only then will the debate between open and everything else look like a real, solvable problem. I've seen several potential bandaids in this thread, but the more I consider them, the more I realize none of them will really work in the long term.

In other words, open vs. non-open is probably the symptom, rather than the cause of the problem.

Please comment more often

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The bonus you get from playing solo or a private group is relative safety (NPC's are not a threat to anyone with a couple of weeks of game-time), so there is already sufficient motive to use one of those two modes - therefore there is no need for incentive bonuses.



Not 'held above' (why is this always the perception of the suggestion?), just acknowledging the fact that;

• Open is different from the other two modes so requires some unique features to make it work effectively
• Some players do exploit solo & pg to mess with other players work (often out of bitterness for some PvP reason) check out exhibit A below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo



You've missed the point; yes you can PvP but it has little purpose and affects nothing - so players just fly around looking for random fights because they are bored or lack purpose. This idea would give PvP a purpose and a reason to get involved with defending their faction's BGS work.

Also I should point out that PvP players have to PvE more than anybody to get all the necessary engineers unlocked and materials found - so telling me to go PvE is a bit silly, been doing that for three years... it's dull.



The notion that you can defend your faction in open from player threats.



No thanks, without open I would have already stopped playing several years back - but that doesn't mean it's not deeply flawed. When you've played long-enough you may understand.



Oh no, you got me!

I have as much an agenda as every biased responder does in this thread...



What if blazing our own trail means defending our faction from solo-warrrior interference? Oh wait, can't do that... (this is where all pvp factions lose interest in 'meaningful' or purposeful combat)



I've not suggested that anywhere in the OP... All I've said is open would get a bonus to profits to account for the extra risk, and trolling a player faction from other modes than open would not be possible.



Lots of non-combat players moan about a lack of incentive to play open because the extra risk they will face, therein lies the necessity.



Is that why open vs solo threads are always such quiet, drama-free places?



Ah come on, isn't it rather obvious by now that a very large part of the community avoids open because of the player risk? Suggesting otherwise is at best naive, at worst deliberately misleading. You might not be worried about being ganked, but a lot of the PvE community are - hence why they are always begging frontier for an Open PvE mode.



There are many reasons yeah, but the main one is avoiding player hostility.

I agree with everything here. It shouldnt be this hard to fight for this stuff.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

Oh, How far a topic can be derailed in just a few days time...

Sadly, it's far too easy to look at a certain group of players and think they're the cause of a problem, when the source originated far before those players...and probably actually CREATED those players in the first place.

The central issues with the open vs. everything else debate are, sadly, foundational. when Frontier's solution to "providing for PVE'ers and PVP'ers alike" was allowing us to pass each other like ships in the night, rather than looking at the ingame repercussions of everything we do, a mistake was made--the symptoms of which we see many times a day. The way the galaxy responds to our actions, in ways both big and small, is what ultimately leads us to such divides. Cause and effect do not add up in ED. So many things do not make sense, even in the most charitable of context, that players are eventually led to random, purposeless means of amusement, i.e. shooting oher players to alleivate boredom. The "living, breathing universe" is apparently a vegetable in a coma, because it's both barely alive and brain-dead.

Before any differences between open and other modes can be truly resolved, FD needs to re-evalutate several things that run much deeper--namely, the consequences of our actions. Engineering modules to get more performance should honestly have come with higher penalties (and perhaps been unlocked through more interesting means than rep grinds.) The behavior of security ships in regards to the "scan the dead to rights criminal before you shoot" phenomenon desperately needs to be addressed. The supply and demand of marketplaces needs to be a real, non-infinite thing that is actually AFFECTED by traders. Players need more ways to be part of the universe beyond hauling, scanning and shooting things. Only then will the debate between open and everything else look like a real, solvable problem. I've seen several potential bandaids in this thread, but the more I consider them, the more I realize none of them will really work in the long term.

In other words, open vs. non-open is probably the symptom, rather than the cause of the problem.

Agree with a lot of this. I would add the game is still a work in progress and it will hopefully be improved on with future updates. Crime & Punishment and core gameplay are going to be overhauled in 2018, so hopefully can get to a better place with regards to griefing etc and making OPEN balanced for all playing styles . OPEN should be a place for all but it is sci-fi space game/sim that allows you to buy weapons. It is part of the game to be attacked by NPC or human players, being a trader evading destruction is what is part of the fun/challenge of the game. It isn't the commodities page that is for sure but all good games have to balance rik and reward. If OPEN is more risky then the rewards should be higher and certainly PP activities should be contested which cannot be done from SOLO.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In other words, open vs. non-open is probably the symptom, rather than the cause of the problem.

The reason for the continuing debate is simple: not all players enjoy (direct) PvP and this is a game that is designed to allow players to choose whether to play in a game mode with or without the possibility of (direct) PvP while still enjoying all other aspects of the game.

 

[Von_Bedda]

If they don't want more potential targets, why complain about players in Solo and Private Groups affecting the BGS, CGs, PowerPlay and Factions?

actions within the SOLO & private group affect the Open (one galaxy for all) like a cmdr said in the first few posts, it allows commanders to part take in CG BGS and PP without any consequences from human players, thus making it a harder slog for players who play in OPEN to reverse or stop any actions of those completed in SOLO & PG

 

[TerranJupiter]

Good lord cmdr's,
It's so easy to pick apart a post and tell everyone why something won't work. I think OP has an idea, it may be flaw in some areas, but focus on the )&)^ message. I think it's about trying to get more people to play together and there's nothing wrong with that. I get the some people don't want to. If you're smart you take the suggestion and feed into it rather than pick it apart.

Would player corporations or guilds not help with more player interaction? They would not be privet groups they would be in open and places could combine towards a common goal which means interactions between player in those organisations?

I mostly play in open but will use Solo if i want to land on a pad thats being blocked on an outpost but i prefer open as you do have other players going about there business. As for greefers i guess in any space civilisation in a massive galaxy you will get pirate groups and criminal players who like to blow stuff up for the fun of it so if you are going to play in open you know that that might happen.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

The reason for the continuing debate is simple: not all players enjoy (direct) PvP and this is a game that is designed to allow players to choose whether to play in a game mode with or without the possibility of (direct) PvP while still enjoying all other aspects of the game.

That is "having your cake and eating it" I'm afraid. PvP is an essential part of PP not being in a mode that allows there to be a direct contest is unfair, to the point where it is detrimental to the game as a whole let alone OPEN. This tread has knocked that argument about enough as it is, no need to go there again. I have suggested a compromise that would allow SOLO and PG's to participate in PP earlier in the thread but the current status quo is little more than an exploit. SOLO is all well and good but it doesn't make sense that it has all the benefits of OPEN but none of the risk.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is "having your cake and eating it" I'm afraid. PvP is an essential part of PP not being in a mode that allows there to be a direct contest is unfair, to the point where it is detrimental to the game as a whole let alone OPEN. This tread has knocked that argument about enough as it is, no need to go there again. I have suggested a compromise that would allow SOLO and PG's to participate in PP earlier in the thread but the current status quo is little more than an exploit. SOLO is all well and good but it doesn't make sense that it has all the benefits of OPEN but none of the risk.

For their to be a compromise there needs to be a decision that there is a problem to be solved - not everyone agrees that all three game modes affecting PowerPlay is, indeed, a problem - Frontier consciously implemented it for all players, regardless of game mode....

Solo has risk, just not from other players.

PvP is not essential for any element of this game - if it were then certain elements of the game would be unplayable without it.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Moving this ongoing discussion to the Modes sub-forum.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

For their to be a compromise there needs to be a decision that there is a problem to be solved - not everyone agrees that all three game modes affecting PowerPlay is, indeed, a problem - Frontier consciously implemented it for all players, regardless of game mode....

Solo has risk, just not from other players.

PvP is not essential for any element of this game - if it were then certain elements of the game would be unplayable without it.

Failing to recognise the problem does not mean there isn't one, that fact that this thread has highlighted the problem quite well. In the specific case of power play I would argue PvP is a major part of it, maybe not technically essential as fortifying, preparation and expansion can be done in SOLO. I would argue it isagainst the spirit of it as PP was all about consensual PvP at is heart.

Having different modes in the game has been beneficial for players taking part in modes their comfortable with but it has meant exploits have arisen which is negative to the game as a whole. Exploits should be highlighted and closed down, I hope you agree?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Failing to recognise the problem does not mean there isn't one, that fact that this thread has highlighted the problem quite well. In the specific case of power play I would argue PvP is a major part of it, maybe not technically essential as fortifying, preparation and expansion can be done in SOLO. I would argue it isagainst the spirit of it as PP was all about consensual PvP at is heart.

Having different modes in the game has been beneficial for players taking part in modes their comfortable with but it has meant exploits have arisen which is negative to the game as a whole. Exploits should be highlighted and closed down, I hope you agree?

Whether there is a problem, or not, is a matter of opinion. Opinions vary. It seems to boil down to a simple point: some players that enjoy PvP don't want players that don't to be able to affect some (all?) game elements. Even more simply: it's the PvE / PvP debate rerun E: D style.

All direct PvP is optional in this game - that much is perfectly clear from the design - and Frontier have not restricted any permanent game content to a single game mode, even content introduced after launch (that offers players optional direct PvP) - and every player bought the game as such.

To remove that content from players in two of the three game modes at this time would not seem to be a compromise - it's a simple removal.

The BGS is affected by all players, in all game modes (and now platforms) - by design - this has been part of the desired player experience from the outset. Community Goals, PowerPlay and player Factions all follow this fundamental philosophy. That some players consider it to be an exploit (because players opposing them from Solo / Private Groups cannot be directly opposed) is understandable - however the fact remains that direct PvP is optional in this game, in all things.

If the game had been pitched as Open only then I'd have no problem with that as it would have been a clear statement by the developer that they were developing a game with non-optional PvP - I just would not have got involved in the Kickstarter.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Whether there is a problem, or not, is a matter of opinion. Opinions vary. It seems to boil down to a simple point: some players that enjoy PvP don't want players that don't to be able to affect some (all?) game elements. Even more simply: it's the PvE / PvP debate rerun E: D style.

All direct PvP is optional in this game - that much is perfectly clear from the design - and Frontier have not restricted any permanent game content to a single game mode, even content introduced after launch (that offers players optional direct PvP) - and every player bought the game as such.

To remove that content from players in two of the three game modes at this time would not seem to be a compromise - it's a simple removal.

The BGS is affected by all players, in all game modes (and now platforms) - by design - this has been part of the desired player experience from the outset. That some players consider it an exploit (because players opposing them from Solo / Private Groups cannot be directly opposed) is understandable - however the fact remains that direct PvP is optional in this game, in all things.

Well the forums both here are reddit seem to share the same popular opinion. And that is people arent happy with it. And sure there are a few that are. But the complaints are very valid.

In every thread I have seen you in. You try your best to diffuse and progress made to make changes to give this game more depth. And its really quite tiresome to see someone in your position shut down anyone asking for change. While you are entitled to your own opinion. Which is perfectly acceptable. The same rules and redderick you say apply to you as well.

And not only are people voicing their opinion. They are also backing it up with proof of gameplay. And showing the imbalances within the game. Which turns those imbalances into facts.

Like heat, Like Powerplay not being used to its fullest extent. And like the BGS when it comes to player factions. The fact is people want to take advantage of PVP. And use the tools in the game to support it. Furthermore, the proof of 5 years in hotel California also shows this as fact.

Its not opinion any longer. As more and more people progress within this game. More and more people will end up saying the exact same thing. And even on these forums, I am seeing people that were against changes to solo and private. And now are asking for changes to be made for open. And are looking to better themselves for player vs player activities.

The proof and facts lie within the community and gameplay footage.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well the forums both here are reddit seem to share the same popular opinion. And that is people arent happy with it. And sure there are a few that are. But the complaints are very valid.

Some users, no doubt. The majority, doubtful. Whether the complaints are valid, or not, remains a matter of opinion as it depends on ones stance on required PvP (and not all players enjoy PvP).

Frontier would seem to be well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP - and don't want Open to be a Armageddon PvP scenario (to use Sandro's words, quoted earlier). Whether they change the game to suit the play-style of a minority of players remains to be seen. We will see, in time - however Frontier do have the advantage of knowing which players do and don't get involved in PvP as well as player mode distribution - I expect that that will inform their choices going forward.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

Whether there is a problem, or not, is a matter of opinion. Opinions vary. It seems to boil down to a simple point: some players that enjoy PvP don't want players that don't to be able to affect some (all?) game elements. Even more simply: it's the PvE / PvP debate rerun E: D style.

Of course, but generally speaking if it's a problem for somebody it's a problem. Flipping the coin griefers generally don't think their style of play is a problem but other players do, so it's a problem.

All direct PvP is optional in this game - that much is perfectly clear from the design - and Frontier have not restricted any permanent game content to a single game mode, even content introduced after launch (that offers players optional direct PvP) - and every player bought the game as such.

To remove that content from players in two of the three game modes at this time would not seem to be a compromise - it's a simple removal.
[/QUOTE]

PvP is optional in terms of the mode you play true. Post 48 is where I suggested a compromise to the PP mode issue that would allow PP in SOLO. Also it help with dealing with other mode base exploits aswell.

The BGS is affected by all players, in all game modes (and now platforms) - by design - this has been part of the desired player experience from the outset. That some players consider it an exploit (because players opposing them from Solo / Private Groups cannot be directly opposed) is understandable - however the fact remains that direct PvP is optional in this game, in all things.

Yes a blanket ban for SOLO for the BGS would be punitive but you have to accept the player owned factions are disadvantaged at present so having a solution that limits that would be beneficial.

 

[Phosphora]

The BGS is affected by all players, in all game modes (and now platforms) - by design - this has been part of the desired player experience from the outset. That some players consider it an exploit (because players opposing them from Solo / Private Groups cannot be directly opposed) is understandable - however the fact remains that direct PvP is optional in this game, in all things.

Agreed - I personally prefer it this way. Avoiding PvP shouldn't restrict my game (except for PvP itself). Someone's personality may lead them away from meeting/fighting with others, but those people shouldn't accept a lesser game.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Of course, but generally speaking if it's a problem for somebody it's a problem. Flipping the coin griefers generally don't think their style of play is a problem but other players do, so it's a problem.

For some players it is a problem - however it's not a problem for all players (probably not even the majority of players).

Griefers can be avoided simply by changing modes. Restricting content to Open would mean that players seeking to avoid them would also lose access to any mode locked content.

PvP is optional in terms of the mode you play true. Post 48 is where I suggested a compromise to the PP mode issue that would allow PP in SOLO. Also it help with dealing with other mode base exploits aswell.

It's not just PowerPlay though - and PowerPlay, like the rest of the game, offers optional PvP. The whole game is based around the principle that all players experience and affect the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode or platform.

A compromise suggests that there's something in it for both sides - what is proposed is a removal (even if it is only partial) from two of the three game modes.

Bear in mind, David himself and Michael have already commented on this:

For fun

That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

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

Yes a blanket ban for SOLO for the BGS would be punitive but you have to accept the player owned factions are disadvantaged at present so having a solution that limits that would be beneficial.

It would be unacceptable to some even if it was desirable for others. I don't accept that player owned factions are particularly disadvantaged by their members not being able to shoot at player opposition - as those players would probably be much more effective engaging in the PvE activities that the opposition is engaging in - also, a significant proportion of player Factions (probably the majority of player Factions) will have been created by PvE players (as the majority of players would not seem to get involved in PvP, according to one Dev).

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

For some players it is a problem - however it's not a problem for all players (probably not even the majority of players).

Griefers can be avoided simply by changing modes. Restricting content to Open would mean that players seeking to avoid them would also lose access to any mode locked content.



It's not just PowerPlay though - and PowerPlay, like the rest of the game offers optional PvP. The whole game is based around the principle that all players experience and affect the single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode or platform.

A compromise suggests that there's something in it for both sides - what is proposed is a removal (even if it is only partial) from two of the three game modes.

Bear in mind, Michael has already commented on this:





It would be unacceptable to some even if it was desirable for others. I don't accept that player owned factions are particularly disadvantaged by not their members not being able to shoot at player opposition - as those players would probably be much more effective engaging in the PvE activities that the opposition is engaging in - also, a significant proportion of player Factions (probably the majority of player Factions) will have been created by PvE players (as the majority of players would not seem to get involved in PvP, according to one Dev).

Honestly he can comment all he wants. Its holding the game back from growth. Period. You may not like it. They may not like it. But people arent staying because of it. Among other reasons.

Things and opinions about this can change as the game evolves.

And im pretty confident it will in the near future.

Bear in mind, this is not the first time a developer has went back on what they said and a game continued to grow. If world of Warcraft didnt make changes they were against in the beginning. It wouldnt be as big as it is today.

Its okay that people ask for change. And its okay when devs make those changes.

Again, keep that in mind.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Honestly he can comment all he wants. Its holding the game back from growth. Period. You may not like it. They may not like it. But people arent staying because of it. Among other reasons.

Things and opinions about this can change as the game evolves.

And im pretty confident it will in the near future.

We'll see. I'll certainly get into any Developer initiated discussions on the topic.

Bear in mind, this is not the first time a developer has went back on what they said and a game continued to grow. If world of Warcraft didnt make changes they were against in the beginning. It wouldnt be as big as it is today.

Its okay that people ask for change. And its okay when devs make those changes.

Again, keep that in mind.

The game certainly will change - whether any of us can accurately predict the eventual outcome is, as yet, an unknown.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

We'll see. I'll certainly get into any Developer initiated discussions on the topic.



The game certainly will change - whether any of us can accurately predict the eventual outcome is, as yet, an unknown.

As will I.