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

[Genar-Hofoen]

Oh look it's this thread again.

This entire thread is invalid. Why?

Because it doesn't matter which mode you're playing in - it's all the same game, and each player has an equal effect on the same data/BGS tokens.

Entire premise of thread is null and void because there is only one game client and one set of servers, the only difference is in the amount of other game clients yours connects to. That's it.

The three modes are nothing more than three game client connectivity modes - all playing the exact same game.

When you select Open, you are saying to your game client to try to connect with other game clients tagged as being in Open. Think of Open as just one YUUUUUGE private group - to the game client it's just another group tag.

Private group - connect to other game clients who are tagged with the same group name.

Solo - do not connect to other game clients.

But all modes are playing the exact same game and are connecting to the exact same back-end servers. The BGS is played via PvE tokens only. This is precisely why Frontier state that they consider all three client connectivity modes to be equal. Because in a literal, programmatic, and back-end server sense, they are.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Oh look it's this thread again.

This entire thread is invalid. Why?

Because it doesn't matter which mode you're playing in - it's all the same game, and each player has an equal effect on the same data/BGS tokens.

Entire premise of thread is null and void because there is only one game client and one set of servers, the only difference is in the amount of other game clients yours connects to. That's it.

The three modes are nothing more than three game client connectivity modes - all playing the exact same game.

When you select Open, you are saying to your game client to try to connect with other game clients tagged as being in Open. Think of Open as just one YUUUUUGE private group - to the game client it's just another group tag.

Private group - connect to other game clients who are tagged with the same group name.

Solo - do not connect to other game clients.

But all modes are playing the exact same game and are connecting to the exact same back-end servers. The BGS is played via PvE tokens only. This is precisely why Frontier state that they consider all three client connectivity modes to be equal. Because in a literal, programmatic, and back-end server sense, they are.

Wrong. They are far from equal.

Mobius wouldnt exist if that were the case. And people wouldnt attack others with the BGS through private and solo. Plain and simple.

 

[Phosphora]

Wrong. They are far from equal.

Mobius wouldnt exist if that were the case. And people wouldnt attack others with the BGS through private and solo. Plain and simple.

I'm playing in solo, affecting the BGS, and choosing not to meet other players. That's how I enjoy it. You too can affect the BGS, with play in open (where meeting others is possible) group (where it may be possible), or solo (where it isn't).

I can take real world actions to affect other people in the real world: I can work hard at my job, study for qualifications or campaign in elections - but using physical violence against me for taking those actions isn't acceptable. To an extent you can nullify my actions by working/studying/campaigning, but you can't physically attack me. You can't win at chess with rugby tactics.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

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, David himself and Michael have already commented on this:

All modes would have access to PP, so all cmdrs in SOLO will have the same access to their chosen Power, ranks, ships & merits etc. The only thing restricting the SOLO and PG modes would be delivering expansion materials. It is I believe a fair compromise as it allows SOLO, PG access to PP but gives genuine meaning to PvP powerplay in OPEN. SOLO is adversely effecting OPEN in this case, hence the compromise! Large PG like Mobius could have expansion aswell, just as long there is genuine PvP, moderately size PG's could have fortification and preparation, small just fortification.

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).

Yeah I agree it is not quite as straightforward for the BGS, I think on balance it is probably about right as is. Although the OP suggesting that increase rewards in this case faction influence for completing missions, as per the risk reward argument.

Of course this is just a suggestion but debating the problems in the game and offering solutions is what the forums are for. Frontier will make it's own decision on this as ever. Interesting D. Braburn's view and lead developers just for the influence they have but that shouldn't stop people having opinions or suggest new ideas.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Wrong. They are far from equal.

Mobius wouldnt exist if that were the case. And people wouldnt attack others with the BGS through private and solo. Plain and simple.

Fail.

The three modes are nothing more than three game client connectivity modes - all playing the exact same game.

o9o9o9o9

 

[BigF]

I'm quite happy with my private modes that I'm member of both Mobius and other types, PVP exists in two them,as for actual Open I have no real interest as my friends are not in it and as such my only time in it is spent with new players or out in deep space exploring where any contact is un likely.

If FD want open to be used the shut private groups, make unprovoked player killing a punishable thing that generates a fine that's actually bigger than a round of drinks, for starters, the current system is dumb 150 credit fine for speeding and 400 for killing a player is totally out of proportion.
Pay players a weekly bonus of 1000000 credits for staying in open all the time and not getting killed. You might get a quite a few more that way.

Currently open only offers a risk factor over the other modes. Nothing that exciting really That blasting your way out of a space station in Fed or Imp space won't generate each time you then try to land at their controlled stations afterwards without paying off the fine.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I'm playing in solo, affecting the BGS, and choosing not to meet other players. That's how I enjoy it. You too can affect the BGS, with play in open (where meeting others is possible) group (where it may be possible), or solo (where it isn't).

I can take real world actions to affect other people in the real world: I can work hard at my job, study for qualifications or campaign in elections - but using physical violence against me for taking those actions isn't acceptable. To an extent you can nullify my actions by working/studying/campaigning, but you can't physically attack me. You can't win at chess with rugby tactics.

Cheers, Phos.

Again all that is fine. Until player factions are involved.

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

GAME. SET. MATCH.

To add to this People are quitting because of it. And like I have said else where. They should NEVER be happy with this, https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/236246596810047494/367990022109921290/image.png

On top of that, they are better off making these changes to bring back all the inactive people. The people that quit the game because of the imbalances of the game.

If that means making 50 people unhappy to bring in 2000. Then so be it. But what they have going right now is holding them back. Its no joke. Ive seen it. And if I have seen it. So have they. Be prepared for some type of changes.

Remember when Rhea happened? More people logged in to make money rather they do anything of this "exciting" thargoid stuff. More people logged in to make money that havnt played in a VERY VERY long time.

And if the BGS was that engaging. Those people wouldnt have quit. The people that take advantage of the BGS the way you are. IS smaller than the PVP community.

Yes everyone effects the BGS. But not everyone uses it to its fullest extent. BECAUSE THE MAJORITY DONT CARE. You are NOT the majority. And in turn its hurting the growth of this game. POINT BLANK.

And the devs cant even argue that. If their community see's it. If hotel California lasts 5 years. Then, im sure they understand the cause and effects.

Im looking forward to the changes in beyond. Lets hope they do it right this time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Mobius wouldnt exist if that were the case.

Mobius exists due to some players not enjoying PvP.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Mobius exists due to some players not enjoying PvP.

You mean removing the risk while attacking player faction and getting the same reward as the people in OPEN play? Yeah, I know.

Far from equal in terms of balancing. Especially if you are the one being attacked.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You mean removing the risk while attacking player faction and getting the same reward as the people in OPEN play? Yeah, I know.

Far from equal in terms of balancing. Especially if you are the one being attacked.

Actually, no - the Mobius Private Group predates the introduction of player Factions by quite some time - it was created some time before the game launched, i.e. while it was still in Beta.

 

[Nyra Amarin]

You mean removing the risk while attacking player faction and getting the same reward as the people in OPEN play? Yeah, I know.

Far from equal in terms of balancing. Especially if you are the one being attacked.

This. This is the real problem.

Robert, you said me before (sorry I can't find that post now ) that forcing player to play in open mode wasn't fair. It is if we only talk about the multiplayer part of the game.

It is funny how most people call "griefers" to all those players who kill defenseless players because "they affect other player's fun and work" and later they play PP, BGS, bomb stations with UA's... etc from private groups doing exactly the same.
If you don't like the PvP part of the game ok... go private group. But then, do it without affecting other players because right now, "PvE" players (who are not really playing PvE, but a covered PvP) can affect whoever they want with maximum impunity.

So... What a lot of players are asking for is that multiplayer mode should be played (exclusively) from the multiplayer mode. All the rest part of the game could be played from private and solo groups (farming, trading, missions, transport, exploring... etc) as we do now.
That is what we are talking about.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Robert, you said me before (sorry I can't find that post now ) that forcing player to play in open mode wasn't fair. It is if we only talk about the multiplayer part of the game.

The BGS does not care what mode we are in - by design.

.... and the game does not require the player to play among other players.

If you don't like the PvP part of the game ok... go private group. But then, do it without affecting others players because right now, "PvE" players (who are not really playing PvE, but a covered PvP) can do whatever they want with maximum impunity.

That is what we are talking about.

Exactly - if one doesn't like PvP then move to a Private Group (a feature that has formed part of the game design from the outset).

Regarding not affecting the BGS - that'd be a significant change - as the single shared galaxy state that every player experiences and affects has also formed part of the game design from the outset.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

This. This is the real problem.

Robert, you said me before (sorry I can't find that post now ) that forcing player to play in open mode wasn't fair. It is if we only talk about the multiplayer part of the game.

It is funny how most people call "griefers" all those players who kill defenseless players because "they affect other player's fun and work" and later they play PP, BGS, bomb stations with UA's... etc from private groups doing exactly the same.
If you don't like the PvP part of the game ok... go private group. But then, do it without affecting others players because right now, "PvE" players (who are not really playing PvE, but a covered PvP) can do whatever they want with maximum impunity.

So... What a lot of players are asking for is that multiplayer mode should be played (exclusively) from the multiplayer mode. All the rest part of the game could be played from private and solo groups (farming, trading, exploring... etc) as we do now.
That is what we are talking about.

Bingo.

The BGS does not care what mode we are in - by design.

.... and the game does not require the player to play among other players.



Exactly - if one doesn't like PvP then move to a Private Group (a feature that has formed part of the game design from the outset).

Regarding not affecting the BGS - that'd be a significant change - as the single shared galaxy state that every player experiences and affects has also formed part of the game design from the outset.

Well the design sucks. And the numbers and the community show that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well the design sucks.

That rather depends on ones opinion.

And the numbers and the community show that.

Citation required regarding numbers. Regarding the community - again, a matter of opinion.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

That rather depends on ones opinion.



Citation required regarding numbers. Regarding the community - again, a matter of opinion.

ITS A VERY LARGE PORTION OF THE COMMUNITIES OPINION. NUMBERS SHOW DECLINE BECAUSE OF IT. Thread pop up everywhere. And hotel california lives strong for years because of it. Use your gimballed eyes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

ITS A VERY LARGE PORTION OF THE COMMUNITIES OPINION. NUMBERS SHOW DECLINE BECAUSE OF IT. Thread pop up everywhere. And hotel california lives strong for years because of it. Use your gimballed eyes.

As no data has been offered to support the contention it's still an opinion.

Threads pop up everywhere regarding the fact that players can avoid PvP because players can avoid PvP - that's a feature of the game that some players would like to see removed as they consider it to be a problem to be solved.

It's the PvP / PvE debate - that has been trundling on since long before this game was Kickstarted.

Frontier designed their game around a conscious choice to allow players to choose how many players they would play among - to accommodate all players, not just those that enjoy PvP.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

That rather depends on ones opinion.



Citation required regarding numbers. Regarding the community - again, a matter of opinion.

http://steamcharts.com/app/359320 Here is steam stats alone. Not to mention the people that arent using the steam.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...ired_of_cheating_frontier_give_us_a_trail_of/

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=EliteDangerous

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/7a201t/frontiers_rate_of_development/

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...dear_frontier_are_you_trying_to_redesign_the/ <~ that one is important.

I can post more. But I figures this was enough. I suggest you and frontier both look through the comments to see how unhappy people are. Lots of people have quit. Or wont buy the next Expansion.

But hey, what do I know. Its not like im not involved with major groups and talk with other people either.

Its not just PVP. But A LOT OF IT is PVP related. And if it wasnt? Again, there wouldnt be 5 years of hotel california and there wouldnt be people advocating for it. Just like I told others. People have said the same thing way before I got here. And when I seen the problems I thought hey, I could give some feed back that could help this game. COme to find out. Everything I have said has been said already.

And everyone that has seen those problems and can leave. And the new people as they get experience within the game. WILL SAY THE SAME THING. Its obvious its a problem. And Ive NEVER seen people try to hold a game back from progress and growth. Its pretty selfish to do so.

Again, the numbers and the community speak for themselves. o7

Oh and another thing. People dont like to use these forums because they are met with all this nonsense when people show proof and ask for change. They cant speak their mind freely. And they are belittled by mods that spend more time on the forums than in the game.

Want proof of that too???? HERE YOU GO https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...ntier_are_you_trying_to_redesign_the/dp1o2ou/

Like I said, The community and the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Stinja]

Haven't read all this thread, but I do take issue with this point from first post:

Oppertunities for interesting, emergent gameplay are lost because there is a path of least resistance open to all players, anywhere at all times

I think you need to check what "emergent gameplay" is, because lots of groups manage to do that in Open and PGs just fine.

Fuel Rats for example are absolutely emergent gameplay, done in Open happily, and without any sort of shooting (unless you count fuel limpets). All without any sort of payment, or expectation of payment. "Reward" is making another human being happier; saving potentially hundreds of hours of invested time; and keeping people playing who may otherwise rage quit&delete.

So IMO no changes needed to encourage emergent gameplay (already there), or reward (no profit needed, reward is non-monetary). K cheers

 

[Nyra Amarin]

Frontier has proved us all that they can change things if some part of the game is frustrating for players or if they consider it need a change whatever the reasons. So please, keep the "the game has being designed like this" comment apart.

Now let's point at what is going on with criminality. People was complaining about how bad the consequences of being a criminal against players are in this game (I'm agree with them).
Frontier started changing those consequences.

Now I ask something: why do people want those consequences if they play all the time from private groups because "the game was designed like this? If they are not really affected by what other players do concerning PvP?
I want it because I play in open mode (excepcionally in solo mode) but what about them?

I can see a really strong feeling against all combat players (and I'm not one of them) and I cannot understand why. What is really going on is that people want to win wars without opposition.

It is funny too that when we address all those players playing convered PvP, safety in their private groups from the logical consequences, they allways name the defenceless explorers in their arguments (I was exploring the whole last year, just for the record) and avoid how their actions are affecting other players, keeping those arguments always apart.
I left what I really love (PP and BGS) because how this game is designed.

But hey!!! Keep saying that "PvE" players (or what you call Pve players) are the most injured in this game. They are the little girl of Frontier and they complain the most.

Frontier designed their game around a conscious choice to allow players to choose how many players they would play among - to accommodate all players, not just those that enjoy PvP.

No... they didn't.

They are not considering the "MMO" part of the game at all. PvE and social parts included, not only PvP as you always claim.

 

[Manticore]

Frontier continued developing the game with freedom of player choice (with regard to whether they want to play among other players and, if so, which ones) at its core. The fact that Wings, PowerPlay and Multi-Crew were all implemented for more than one game mode would rather suggest that Frontier's stance on the topic has not changed.

.... and players in Solo and Private Groups are just as entitled to play the BGS / Factions / etc. as players in Open - the single shared galaxy state made that rather clear from the outset.

Thank you.

I've been looking for exactly the right way to frame this whole continuing adventure in Hotel California and you stated it really well; "freedom of choice".

And, as you say, in invoking that choice FD have decided that the BGS etc. are shared across all three modes. Their game, their mechanic and their choice.

Mobius exists due to some players not enjoying PvP.

I play in Mobius and Fleetcomm a lot and, it's not so much about not enjoying PvP, it's more that a dedicated PvE does exist if one chooses not to be in Open or Solo, for whatever reason.

That rather depends on ones opinion.

Agreed.

Again this whole forum issue of people stating opinion as fact...........

Citation required regarding numbers. Regarding the community - again, a matter of opinion.

......... and again the phantom statistics. If you read a lot of threads of this type it's easy enough to believe that that is an adequate numerical descriptor of people's game-play choices; it isn't

It's an adequate numerical descriptor of how many threads there are on the topic and that's not the numbers in the game.

And now (if it hasn't been already) the thread will probably be hijacked by this sort of thing:

..... or some other derogatory comeback.