Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant
- Thread starter Lateralus
- Start date
- Status
Well the so called player -factions aren't really player-factions. Its still AI-factions with a name some players gave them. It still misses all the mechanics a default- MMO have concerning guilds and stuff. So why do people care so much about AI-factions and why do they care if the solo-people affects it - I do not know - since it doesn't really affect the game in a noticeable direction, its just a faction with a different name. Instead of the rather default AI-name "Gold mafia" its called "Cool bananas".
So the imbalance you are talking about doesn't really exists - just in their heads like a fantasy - because player doesn't have anything real to defend - more than a name on a faction.
If FDEV really meant factions to be player-controlled they would have implemented that from the beginning with guild-like services and member-lists etc.
I think its cool that players discovered the BGS and affected it like the way they do (not sure FDEV thought players would do this in an organized largescale way), and its cool that FDEV let them get an AI-faction in their name - but its still just a name.
Last edited:
If you are referring to Solo and PG players (and different platform players, and players in your block list, and players in different times if play) affecting the BGS not to your liking.... Then what you wrote is a downright lie.
You can also affect the BGS.
The players you are talking about are simply gaming the BGS. They are not affecting you directly. They are affecting the BGS.
Likewise, you are free to affect the BGS as well. But this does not appear to be satisfactory for you. *You* appear to want to be able to affect them *directly*, through PvP combat.
Why so entitled?
You have all of the options available to you. Same as the other player.
I just don't *get* it. I simply don't understand your viewpoint.
Explain to me why this is so important that you get your way which is *extra* and *over and above* what you might label your "adversary" has?
Cheerz
Mark H
Last edited:
Well the problem here is is that you are rewarding one mode, and thus effectively making other modes 'lesser' when they aren't meant to be, so yeah that likely isn't going to work, forcing people like that will only really make one group happy, those that feel that there aren't enough player targets around for them.
And given we have no actual stats from frontier, last I checked, something which I personally would love to see on destribution of game modes?
The question is more is it really a problem that some people chose not to play in open? I play in open almost exclusively, and have had no real problems with other players, I know plenty of people that have had it similar, where it has been at best minor, because of the scale of Elite, as well as the way matchmaking worse.
In general it seems that getting killed for no reason is a significantly bigger problem for the american population then none american?
And this doesn't really address the whole "There are players that simply destroy others because they enjoy ruining the fun of others" aspect of why people might avoid open..it would in essence just reward those that play in open with more money and effectively punish those that don't, not really a solution.
And it seems based around the PvP argument, that people need to be in open to do x, so they can be affected, for example BGS, but here's the truth, if someone is working BGS, people cannot effectively PvP wise stop them, you need to fight back with BGS, and some people cannot accept this, and want PvP to be more relevant, but to Elite, a PvP kill is not really any different then an NPC kill, that's what the game is build around, so yeah.
Maybe one solution might, that the people seen as too eager to ruin other people's fun, are, indeed out to do that, and are bad apples, and that we other players might need to do a better job taking down these bad apples.
And no, this isn't assuming their intentions. If there is no in game reason for the kill, the reason must be based on something out of the game, you can kill people for a slew of reasons, but the whole, interdict and destroy random people, which still seems to be the issue brought up? is clearly, without knowing the attacker, not based on a game play reason, and maybe it should be? because as many threads point out it is affecting others and their enjoyment of the game, that people aren't playing in open, and no amount of reward is going to make people play with people they see as disruptive elements, if anything if they are forced to it, they might just quit instead? which no one should wan't?
According to who? clearly not according to the game developers, maybe your view is the one that is wrong? remember, you can affect HIS gameplay as well even when he is in solo, via bgs and similar, the only thing you CANT do when he plays solo, is PvP......and that's the thing this whole thing revolves around? PvP people feeling there are no people to hunt?
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
The game mode literally says solo.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/solo?s=t
You're purposefully removing yourself from other players. But you still want have the multiplayer experience. Without having repercussions of the full multiplayer experience. "Ah I dont know why they're trying to add pvp to this game" The whole game is PVP. If you use the BGS for intent against others, instead of the market. There is a whole lot of stuff that goes into it.
But solo. nah dudes. Solo means, you're playing for yourself. Level your character there, work on your ships, grind some cash even. But when it comes to players and factions. All or nothing.
People begging for meaningful PVP, They dont have to change Powerplay, or the BGS. All the have to do is limit the influences from within the modes. By a lot. And all of a sudden dead game modes work flawlessly. "Griefing" comes to an end because PVPers have something to do. Player factions have fun and engaging fights.
Mean while solo still gets the narrative and self progression. If you opt out of multiplayer aspects, you should opt out of all of them. Plain and simple.
Again, all these things that arent working. Could be, if it wasn't for these modes. You can still explore, and do anything you want. Besides influence other players while in solo mode. SOLO. Its SOLO. Good lord.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=385593
Not the same 4 - 5 people here. And I wish you'd stop making these false claims, it's getting tiresome proving them to be false.
Also shown how your massive 273 comments is also not proof of anything. 808 replies here alone.
These forums are quite busy, with people who actually knew what they were buying and enjoying it.
So please, show me your post that has more than 89,220 people agreeing with you (that's how many members these forums have).
As you've shown 273 in a singular example in a locked thread on Reddit.
Going to ignore the fact I've linked you the meaning of "multiplayer".
It has "shared game experience"
That does not mean you have to play with them to get that experience. Just play the same shared game.
And to do shared the game, even in Solo
The fact you complain about Solo mode and then declare this without any sense of irony is amazing.
A game where you can choose to play the environment and not other people, CANNOT be a "PvP game".
This is a game with *optional* PvP.
This is also the root of your problem, you've mistaken what Elite: Dangerous is as a concept and game.
It's a PvE game, made for a single person to experience with badly thought out multiplayer bolted on.
Yes - it's fun and engaging to not play with PvP-Pro-Bro's who demand you play with them and spill RAEG everywhere
And... posit a PlayerFaction. They get themselves entrenched in a system. The game's AI [faction] might decide to take over their system. The ships will be AI generated, not CMDRs. Even if PlayerFaction shoots down every NPC, the game is just going to generate more ships.
In that case, you're going to have to work the BGS yourself, because shooting down every opposing ship in the system as a tactic isn't going to work for you.
This is not black or white. There is no war here between solo and open players (even when players are intended to start one).
I don't know why all of you understand that it must be a way or another when it could be both.
I know the game was design how is now, but things inside the game have changed a lot and it will be changing.
What I'm asking is for havimg more options that we have now. Not only a "PvE" or "PvP" choice but both.
And make that "PvP" part more coherent and logic - what means more fun too - by encouraging more and more players to share this game IN GAME (and not out of it) while those who want to continue playing Elite alone or with a little group of friends could keep doing it.
I can see fear when you say things like "I don't always feel like socializing or sharing my experience". Nor you nor anyone, and I cannot understand why you feel that fear when we are not talking about ruining the game to anyone but making it richer than it is right now.
If Frontier would be more fair about this it would did one of these options long time ago:
- Let the shared part of the game only visible and playable in open mode (This is minimum PP)
- Delete de open mode forever. Cause right now, it is causing more frustration than fun.
Last edited:
I'm well aware what solo means, you are removing yourself from playing with other people.
However that absolutely and utterly has no bearing on the fact that you affect the mechanics of the game, the background of the game, if the game is made like that, and here's the thing, Elite: Dangerous is made exactly like that, and I will again tell you what you are skipping over. You can fight back against solo people, the exact same way they 'attack' you.
The only difference is, that certain PvP minded people do not WANT to do it that way, they want to do it via PvP, which ultimately would have no effect, you'd need to stall a player completely, killing every single player that is doing what you don't want, repeatedly, continually, to prevent them from doing stuff even if they play in open, and i play almost exclusively, and here's the thing I've only run into very few PvP minded people, so they cannot affect how or what I do to the background sim.
So when you go.
It seems like you are the one that do not understand how the game works? you CAN cause repercussions for those players by fighting them with background sim, repercussions are not meant to come via PvP in this game.
And saying
It seems like you simply do not like the way the game is build and are wilfully ignoring that aspect of the game, and the fact that Elite: Dangerous is not a PvP game, being able to kill other players doesn't make it a PvP game.
What does make a game a PvP game, is having PvP specific mechanics, where PvP makes a difference compared to PvE, however Elite: Dangerous makes no difference if it is a player kill or not, play the arena mode, if you want a PvP game, it is focused around it, the main game, is not, it is focused around the background simulation, and you can via it, attack and defend.
Forget the dictionary definition of 'solo' when it comes to this game, as in the context of this game, 'solo' is just a name given to describe game client connectivity, so that angle of attack isn't going to work, and we wouldn't be having this conversation if Frontier had called the modes "None-Connect", "Group-Connect", and "Any-Connect" - but chose instead what's there now.
Also, you're correct, this game IS a PvP game : Indirect-PvP. Whereas your good self and others are trying hard to advocate for Direct-PvP. Many folks on this forum have been trying to say that you can play this game entirely via Indirect-PvP.
In fact one could form a group, use Discord, organise, and every member of its group could never play in the 'open' client connectivity mode and if they played the BGS with the best strategy, win the BGS locally and in surrounding star systems having never seen another of their group members or players, entirely within the 'solo' connectivity mode!
That's how the game is designed.
'Open' connectivity mode is that game above but merely being able to see other players.
Your good self and others here are trying to change the game such that the BGS should only be affected by way of Direct-PvP. That's not the game that was designed, nor advertised, nor put forward at the Kickstarter, nor was it the game I bought into as a Premium Beta backer.
Regards
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
I don't think there is need for extra reward (credits) in open - your reward is that you share space with other players, if you prefer playing so.
To me random encounters like Thargoid-assault wings, or at least some risk/challenge when doing CG cargo runs is the reward. I'm not good enough to take on a PvPer, but good enough to get away - for the most of the time. I'm only playing in PGs when out exploring, or -especially lately- when I'm doing combat CGs*.
*Having followed by a known combat-logger/ganker, who invites a more skillful leader of a ganking association only to attack 2 vs 1 is not my cup of tea - especially not if I'm combating multiple NPCs.
To me random encounters like Thargoid-assault wings, or at least some risk/challenge when doing CG cargo runs is the reward. I'm not good enough to take on a PvPer, but good enough to get away - for the most of the time. I'm only playing in PGs when out exploring, or -especially lately- when I'm doing combat CGs*.
*Having followed by a known combat-logger/ganker, who invites a more skillful leader of a ganking association only to attack 2 vs 1 is not my cup of tea - especially not if I'm combating multiple NPCs.
Here's the funny thing. There is what I hear PvPers say in the game, and what a select few are going on and on about on the forum.
You are absolutely right, there is no war between solo and open players. The majority of them get along fine and have no issues with each other. The people posting here are not representative of any mode or playing style. They utter their own opinions. I don't speak for PvE, I speak for me.
I think Powerplay could be added on to. I once made a half baked suggestion about it.
Please park the psychology bus over to the pedestrian side of the road. Wait ... hang on .... I can see bull excrement when you say: "I can see fear when you say things like".
Yeah ... when I am enjoying elite with a fine wine, some snacks and a smoke I am trembling.
I believe you when you say you don't understand.
- keep the modes as they are, because they're working fine.
Last edited:
I think we're making great progress, here. Step-by-step.
Let's just assume, for discussion's sake, that you are an average aptitude player. As am I, as is *everyone else*. We're all just average computer gamers.
Bearing in mind that you said it has been easy for you to gear your ship and to acquire the techniques in order to escape every single time (so far), then it wouldn't be a stretch of logic to say that practically any player could do the same. Gear themselves up and prepare themselves with good techniques to escape interdictions, practically speaking, 100% of the time.
Agreed?
(Let's not talk about new players in basic sidewinders, this is an illogical distraction. Surely you don't advocate seal-clubbing, do you. Don't we all agree that it is best practice to advise new players to play in Solo or Group modes until they have a decent understanding of how to fly and operate their ship. At which stage, they should have the ability to gear up their ship and be able to assimilate the required techniques just as you and I can as average players. Agreed?)
There are even some threads on this very forum, by PvP combat players, that detail exactly what engineering to apply, where to get the materials for doing so, and the actions to use to escape interdictions practically 100% of the time. I'm sure you've seen them...
If we agree so far, let me know...
Yours
Mark H
I think the entire focus of this is misdirected, PVE'ers are not responsible for anything that has ever happened in open. People who say they've left open usually do so specifically because of players who would describe themselves (with varying levels of accuracy) as PVP'ers. For example I gave up on open for about a year because I was bored of the station griefers, as PVP whilst a fun thing to do isn't worth the hassle of constantly putting up with that sort of player.
There are no game mechanics putting people off the idea of open, it's just people and the way they behave.
It's not FDEV's fault it's not PVE'ers fault it's not anything that can be changed with a patch, you have the least popular and therefore largely irrelevant mode you created for yourselves.
There are no game mechanics putting people off the idea of open, it's just people and the way they behave.
It's not FDEV's fault it's not PVE'ers fault it's not anything that can be changed with a patch, you have the least popular and therefore largely irrelevant mode you created for yourselves.
Last edited:
/sarcasm on
But yeah, as an Open PvP player, you affect *my* BGS when you're in PG or Solo, and it isn't *yours* to affect, because you're not in Open for me to PvP... (or words to that effect)
/sarcasm off
I get a feeling that ^this^ is the thrust of this thread any many threads like it...
I'd be happy for your thoughts on that. Anyone?
Yours Aye
Mark H
Last edited:
Well that's basically it. At the end of the day, some players want EVE-style battles for territory where such battles are settled via direct PvP space fights.
Their problem in trying to get that is, this game isn't a executive control game. Territory is fought by way of the BGS, using PvE tokens. And these people don't like Elite's design so want Frontier to transform it into something not-Elite, to the cost of the majority of other customers who are happy with the way Elite and its connectivity modes are designed.
It's like a game of chess played over the internet, where the players don't have to see each other, and a chess move can be made by anyone for White or Black, with an option of seeing other players make that White or Black move, and the additional option of players crossing virtual swords.
These folks are advocating only being able to play the chess game whilst seeing all other players, and forcing the chess game towards more crossing swords than moving chess pieces. They also want invisible chess players to not be able to move the chess pieces any more unless they become visible, and are willing to meet the sword.
I just got an idea. I'm not sure whether it's genius or brilliant or just the flu talking.
Actions in Open do not influence the BGS. It makes so much sense. The BGS is a result of PvE activities so it doesn't belong in a mode that enables irrelevant PvP. Anyone who wants to influence the BGS does so in solo/PG, equaling the environment for everyone. The thing that sets open apart from the other modes is not relevant to the BGS anyway. In Open you can use tricksiness with your connection which means you bypass the chance of meeting other CMDRs, plus instancing, plus different gaming platforms, plus timezones, it's a mess. My solution has none of these drawbacks.
Everyone is happy, cake all around.
*achoo*
Maybe it is the flu talking.
Actions in Open do not influence the BGS. It makes so much sense. The BGS is a result of PvE activities so it doesn't belong in a mode that enables irrelevant PvP. Anyone who wants to influence the BGS does so in solo/PG, equaling the environment for everyone. The thing that sets open apart from the other modes is not relevant to the BGS anyway. In Open you can use tricksiness with your connection which means you bypass the chance of meeting other CMDRs, plus instancing, plus different gaming platforms, plus timezones, it's a mess. My solution has none of these drawbacks.
Everyone is happy, cake all around.
*achoo*
Maybe it is the flu talking.
- Status