Modes The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California

[Sylveria]

You are serious, right? Facts. From Frontier? Like the raw data?

Yeah, I definitely would NOT hold my breath on that one.

FDEV is assuming a position of neutrality because they don't want to alienate a particular player base... be it PvE or PvP. If you think about it, it's a rather smart business decision to keep people speculating, so they can keep raking in the money.

Now, I would assume by comparison of other games that offer dedicated PvE vs PvP environments (servers, for example) the population of which PvE far exceeds those of a dedicated PvP server... which should in and of itself tell you where the majority of interest lies when it comes to gaming in general (doesn't matter which genre). Based on that assumption, I can make an educated guess that there are more PvE'ers than PvP'ers.

I don't expect any company to be transparent with said information if it's going to affect their bottom line in any way- after all, even 20% either way would be huge loss of potential income.

 

[Gunnet]

Now, I would assume by comparison of other games that offer dedicated PvE vs PvP environments (servers, for example) the population of which PvE far exceeds those of a dedicated PvP server... which should in and of itself tell you where the majority of interest lies when it comes to gaming in general (doesn't matter which genre). Based on that assumption, I can make an educated guess that there are more PvE'ers than PvP'ers.

That is one statistic we don't have to rely on assumptions and inferences for:

... we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.

 

[Kruger]

Yes, in League of legends for example you can play bot games, and if you disconnect its not a big deal. You arent effecting your team or the other.

However if you do have a bad connection, and Im speaking from experience here I had a 2 week ban from ranked because of my bad connection. I was not DCing on purpose. They told me if they knew it was bad. Then stay out until its fixed because it effects everyone in the game. Everyones MMR is effected because of it. And I agree.

Now I want to reiterate that there are many suggestions to be made. And that was just mine. And I dont mind meeting in the middle.

Even this proposal Ziggy Stardust put up. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...erplay-PvPvE?p=5899189&viewfull=1#post5899189

I dont mind meeting in the middle so everyone is happy. But even this would require a good internet connection even, for the PVE stuff. Your disconnection could mean a loss for your team.

I understand one offs happen. But if you're in no position to play because of your connection as you are over seas right? Then im sorry you shouldn't be involved in it. Just like I shouldn't have been involved in those ranked games in league and got the 2 week ban.

Again that comes down to your problem until its fixed. When its fixed then you can take part in the wonderful world of PVP.

But all PVP games require a good connection. Not just this one.

And I agree, Frontier needs to fix their end drastically. And maybe thats why we havnt seen any progression in the way of PVP due to their horrid networking. Even they see it when they live stream and try to play it off. But they do understand its an issue. And I am sure it will be tackled someday.

However if the servers were the greatest in the world. And you know your connection is bad. Im sorry but thats on you. And you would be a hindrance to your team. Its not that we dont want you there. Because we do. We just dont want you there knowing your connection is in the dumps.

I know you said you're taking a break but:

I'm not overseas yet. My connection at home is awesome and can easily handle Open. I however, don't play in Open because being a hollow square tends to attract unwanted attention.

However, when overseas at a deployed location, the internet is crap and as such I can only play in Solo and I still have no interest in PvP. So Solo is fine with me, but I don't want to be locked out of the BGS just because I'm in Solo.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

FD would be loudly criticized for creating the logical PvE-Open mode. They would take the heat from the PvP community for 'betraying' them by not only condoning (Adjustments made to PG to facilitate Mobius expanding) but encouraging players to abandon the open they dream of.

Now before you start yelling at me, I don't feel that way. But, I've heard enough around my PvP friends to be sure that this would be the case. The best thing FD can do is just stand their ground, and let PG's cover their butt.

You are right of course... However that would be ignorance on the PvPers part as FD could just point to their earliest design docs and say "but this is the game you bought it was always in the plan". That said personally I am no longer sure it is the answer. Even among us pveers there is a lot of difference. Some want no friendly fire and that we become ghost ships if we are about to ram another player. Myself I would hate this as policing fire and flying with care is part of the game for me. Immersion is a dirty word for some here but for me it's why I play. In an ideal world players would not be male appendages and pve mode would have no special rules but players click a box saying I accept I will not attack PF member's. But a section of players on here have shown they can't be trusted. Some companies employ someone to look through video evidence of griefers (which they would be in a pve mode) and would give account bans.. but I do not see FD doubt this.

Maybe mobius like PGs is the answer.... Tho if FD could remove number limits and make tools to allow the group leader to assign trusted sheriff's to also control the group .... I dunno.
In an ideal

 

[Dietger]

They did. A while back Mobius was becoming unstable due to it's population size, so they did what they could. Which included creating new Mobius PG's to spread the load out. I was shifted from the original group, into Mobius PvE. Now, there are three Mobius separate groups, to absorb the number of players interested.

Greetings Commander,
How many players are playin in Mobius overall, do we know that? I am curious.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I can understand people are upset and dont want specific types of game play to be removed from them. But there has to be a way to meet in the middle.

To compromise implies a need to change - before a compromise position is sought, first a need for change must be agreed. Not everyone agrees that change is necessary. I haven't yet seen a proposal that doesn't simply take away from gameplay for players in Solo and Private Groups.

And so far this Idea is a pretty cool Idea, https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/375671-Half-baked-suggestion-Powerplay-PvPvE

It is, in my opinion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Greetings Commander,
How many players are playin in Mobius overall, do we know that? I am curious.

I'd expect that many players are curious - and also what proportion Solo / Private Group players are of the active player-base as a whole.

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

20,000+ people play within PG's focused on cooperative or pve based play with restricted/consent-based pvp. This indicates a desire among the player base to have a PVE type server (consistent with so many other mmo's). FDEV can choose to ignore this, or embrace it. I believe they would see an increase in player population if a PVE server were to be added as an option. At the very least, FDEV should consider expanding the hardware and software to increase the PG group size for mobius and mobius PVE.

If this is a "game" and game mode selection OPEN, PG , Solo is acceptable, what logical reason would there be from allowing players from participating in a PG dedicated to cooperative game play? - None. Is there a practical gameplay difference between a PVE server with PVP optional play instances and a PG dedicated to cooperative gameplay? In my opinion: no.

In my opinion, FDEV should look at the data and make decisions to increase the player base. I think the data shows there are missed opportunities to do that at this time.

i could be wrong on this, but you seem to be thinking of World of Warcraft with its servers and flags mode gameplay. Elite (if i understand right) doesn't have those servers as susch - its servers do not actually hold the players, just the galaxy and the bgs. the players are done with local instancing - which is why those who do not understand how the BGS is designed complain about other modes than open affecting the BGS - they have the assumption that combat is the way you should stop undermining, but ignore the fact they cannot be instanced with every single commander on their own side, let alone on the opposing side. it's not like a massive WoW raid, which is hosted on a server.

but to cap it all, in wow nobody could run into me and kill me just doing that. in elite, unless a basic gameplay mechanic - collision physics - is removed. meaning you clip through literally EVERYTHING - planets, space stations, other ships and stars and black holes - is not just reworked but completely removed, then there is no way in ELite to disable someone ramming you and this would not matter if you were flagged for PVE only or not.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You are right of course... However that would be ignorance on the PvPers part as FD could just point to their earliest design docs and say "but this is the game you bought it was always in the plan". That said personally I am no longer sure it is the answer. Even among us pveers there is a lot of difference. Some want no friendly fire and that we become ghost ships if we are about to ram another player. Myself I would hate this as policing fire and flying with care is part of the game for me. Immersion is a dirty word for some here but for me it's why I play. In an ideal world players would not be male appendages and pve mode would have no special rules but players click a box saying I accept I will not attack PF member's. But a section of players on here have shown they can't be trusted. Some companies employ someone to look through video evidence of griefers (which they would be in a pve mode) and would give account bans.. but I do not see FD doubt this.

Maybe mobius like PGs is the answer.... Tho if FD could remove number limits and make tools to allow the group leader to assign trusted sheriff's to also control the group .... I dunno.
In an ideal

Man you guys have a really skewed opinion here. No wonder this is all screwed up.

Every single PVPer uses private group.

I played on a WoW server that was PVE for a very very long time. I could care less if someone got ganked on the PVP server.

We are totally fine with Mobius existing. Most of us and maybe even frontier didnt see a 3rd party server that big happening though. Just the random one offs with friends so they didnt have to fight over ships in specific zones you know? So a lot of us see what powerplay could be. A mix of both. PVE and PVP all in the same realm. Protecting traders in wings. And fighting over territory.

Thats what people mean when they say "Mobius ruined open play or powerplay". Its not that we just wanna shoot something. We want to use a game mode to its fullest extent. And not just for modules. You guys like PVE, and we like PVE too. We have to PVE our butt off to PVP. As a matter of fact we spend more time PVEing than we do PVPing. We all have to PVE, sandro was not wrong.

We just wish pvp was optional and included in some aspects of the game. As I am sure you are aware that PVP activities consist of 1v1, set up wing fights, or trying to role play, or straight up murderer/pirate. Anyone can type out a reason. But most dont buy it. "Just an excuse to grief". When some of us try to try to give the people what they want. Roleplay or some context. No matter how much effort goes into it, IE Zarek Null. Hes the only dude I see Legit Role PLAY besides the Code. And Ive tried it like I said. But theres not enough context coming from Fdevs end. Sandbox game after all. And its up to the people how they feel about it.

So its really hard to make any of this stuff work. So the dudes in private group can hang out there. And thats cool. No one is going to think any less of them.

Its the whiners that click open play. Knowing the game has lasers and multicannons in it giving open a negative outlook when its implied to begin with.

I really dont understand why people fight over open play. Especially members of private groups or strictly solo players. They know why they are there.

The only real reason I see is context and bad balancing with secondary rolls. Even mobius agrees engineering made pvp unbalanced and it effected open play, he says it on reddit all the time. Even PVPers say it. As a matter of fact its the only thing I think both ends agree on. Huh, Go figure. Didnt really think about that until I was typing this out.

Crazy.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

I'd expect that many players are curious - and also what proportion Solo / Private Group players are of the active player-base as a whole.

If FD would provide exact numbers it would only shift the discussion and people would interpret those numbers the way they want to fit their opinion.

Take that recent reddit poll and the thread about it on this forum. People discussed what majority is, what the most popular mode is and everybody claimed the the provided numbers support their view - opposing views.

Numbers won't help.
Numbers with an objective interpretation won't help as that interpretation would be disputed.

In the end no facts, no evidence - nothing - will result in this endless debate to stop, since this debate isn't about facts and evidence or numbers, it's about emotions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Man you guys have a really skewed opinion here. No wonder this is all screwed up.

Just because an opinion is not shared does not necessarily mean that it is skewed - just different.

We are totally fine with Mobius existing. Most of us and maybe even frontier didnt see a 3rd party server that big happening though. Just the random one offs with friends so they didnt have to fight over ships in specific zones you know? So a lot of us see what powerplay could be. A mix of both. PVE and PVP all in the same realm. Protecting traders in wings. And fighting over territory.

Thats what people mean when they say "Mobius ruined open play or powerplay". Its not that we just wanna shoot something. We want to use a game mode to its fullest extent. And not just for modules. You guys like PVE, and we like PVE too. We have to PVE our butt off to PVP. As a matter of fact we spend more time PVEing than we do PVPing. We all have to PVE, sandro was not wrong.

Wanting to protect traders rather suggests that those traders share the desire to be shot at by other players - there's no guarantee that that is the case.

There's nothing stopping some of the players that prefer direct PvP getting into their trade ships to be protected by others.

We just wish pvp was optional and included in some aspects of the game.

It is optional - that's the whole point. It's not required though - and therefore does not form a mandatory element to any gameplay features.

I really dont understand why people fight over open play. Especially members of private groups or strictly solo players. They know why they are there.

Open play is the only game mode with an unlimited population - that's one reason that it is contested - it's meant to be a place where most players want to play - and Sandro's comments recently bear that out - Frontier would seem to want more players to play in Open (and they're making changes in an effort to encourage players out of Solo and Private Groups).

The only real reason I see is context and bad balancing with secondary rolls. Even mobius agrees engineered made pvp unbalanced and it effected open play, he says it on reddit all the time. Even PVPers say it. As a matter of fact its the only thing I think both ends agree on. Huh, Go figure. Didnt really think about that until I was typing this out.

The modes debate existed long before Engineers was released - imbalance between ships / loadouts existed from the beginning, i.e. combat ships were better at combat than trading ships; trading ships could not necessarily easily escape combat ships; etc..

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Just because an opinion is not shared does not necessarily mean that it is skewed - just different.



Wanting to protect traders rather suggests that those traders share the desire to be shot at by other players - there's no guarantee that that is the case.

There's nothing stopping some of the players that prefer direct PvP getting into their trade ships to be protected by others.



It is optional - that's the whole point. It's not required though - and therefore does not form a mandatory element to any gameplay features.



Open play is the only game mode with an unlimited population - that's one reason that it is contested - it's meant to be a place where most players want to play - and Sandro's comments recently bear that out - Frontier would seem to want more players to play in Open (and they're making changes in an effort to encourage players out of Solo and Private Groups).



The modes debate existed long before Engineers was released - imbalance between ships / loadouts existed from the beginning, i.e. combat ships were better at combat than trading ships; trading ships could not necessarily easily escape combat ships; etc..

Is it optional though. All I see is a buncha whiners.

Its not like we bought elite dangerous and said HAY! WERE GONNA PLAY THIS SPACE GAME WITH POWERPLAY FACTIONS and Cargo ships to pirate. But instead we better 1v1 with other pvpers. Or we get called bad names and told we are ruining their game play.

This works both ways.

How many times have you seen people say "HE JUST BLEW ME UP FOR NO REASON"? Well lets fix that. Give them their reason. Because its not going to stop. Its going to happen anyways. So why not add a little bit of context through a menu option or something. Good guys, Bad guys, whatever. But as it stands right now. No matter what excuse you give "its just a reason to grief".

And I dont see why people are complaining about it. When they have the options not to select that mode to begin with. Blows my mind.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I'm just saying, I'd love an official Open PvE mode, instead of 3 massive PGs.

I'd still hop in Open from time to time, but then atleast in Open PvE I'm even more likely to meet like minded CMDRs.

I'd love to know the total population of all 3 Mobius groups.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
The modes debate existed long before Engineers was released - imbalance between ships / loadouts existed from the beginning, i.e. combat ships were better at combat than trading ships; trading ships could not necessarily easily escape combat ships; etc..

That's the original sin of this game - the complete lack of balance between ships.

Everything in this endless debate results from this design decision.

Most other games have a balance between "classes". The damage dealer is usually fast with high damage output and has weak defenses (glass canon). The tank is slow with good defenses, but low damage output.
Then there are additional classes for groups (support, long range,… depending on game).

But the basic balance is between offense and defense. Increasing one results in a decrease of the other.

In ED we have ships with high damage output and high defenses. Module slots needed for defensive systems are the same as those required for completely non combat activities.
Big ships being faster than small ships.

Engineering (and especially special effects) just exaggerated those problems to absurd levels.

Risk vs. reward gets often mentioned, but there is no risk vs. reward in this game. The attacker can select the target and reduce any potential risk to zero.
The attacked can't reduce the risk to zero without turning the ship into a combat ship and therefore abandoning the intended gameplay in favor of combat.

To make things worse most direct PvP related gameplay aspects are designed to make it interesting for the attacker without zero thought if that gameplay is entertaining or enjoyable for the attacked player.

TL;DR: Core design of the game isn't balanced and not suitable for direct PvP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Is it optional though. All I see is a buncha whiners.

Opinions, naturally, vary.

Its not like we bought elite dangerous and said HAY! WERE GONNA PLAY THIS SPACE GAME WITH POWERPLAY FACTIONS and Cargo ships to pirate. But instead we better 1v1 with other pvpers. Or we get called bad names and told we are ruining their game play.

Neither Piracy nor PowerPlay requires other players to be in the same instance - that's an optional aspect. NPC Piracy is probably more lucrative than pirating CMDRs anyway.

This works both ways.

How many times you seen people say "HE JUST BLEW ME UP FOR NO REASON"? Well lets fix that. Give them their reason. Because its not going to stop. Its going to happen anyways. So why not add a little bit of context through a menu option or something. Good guys, Bad guys, whatever. But as it stands right now. No matter what excuse you give "its just a reason to grief".

And I dont see why people are complaining about it. When they have the options not to select that mode to begin with. Blows my mind.

Indeed it does.

Giving players a reason to blow up other players, in an effort to stem complaints regarding the attacker having no reason to attack, would very probably be counter productive in terms of the population of Open, in my opinion. Those that don't seek to be attacked by players would likely just not play in Open.

Frontier would seem to be attempting to make Open the go to game mode for all players, not just those that like direct PvP - with that in mind, I expect that the coming changes to C&P, the introduction of Pilots' Federation Bounties and a karma system will seek to curb particular player interactions - hopefully for the better - we'll see.

Until there's another game mode with the same population limit as Open, i.e. unlimited, where players that prefer not to engage in direct PvP can play, I expect that the complaints about Open will continue.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

That's the original sin of this game - the complete lack of balance between ships.

Everything in this endless debate results from this design decision.

Most other games have a balance between "classes". The damage dealer is usually fast with high damage output and has weak defenses (glass canon). The tank is slow with good defenses, but low damage output.
Then there are additional classes for groups (support, long range,… depending on game).

But the basic balance is between offense and defense. Increasing one results in a decrease of the other.

In ED we have ships with high damage output and high defenses. Module slots needed for defensive systems are the same as those required for completely non combat activities.
Big ships being faster than small ships.

Engineering (and especially special effects) just exaggerated those problems to absurd levels.

Risk vs. reward gets often mentioned, but there is no risk vs. reward in this game. The attacker can select the target and reduce any potential risk to zero.
The attacked can't reduce the risk to zero without turning the ship into a combat ship and therefore abandoning the intended gameplay in favor of combat.

To make things worse most direct PvP related gameplay aspects are designed to make it interesting for the attacker without zero thought if that gameplay is entertaining or enjoyable for the attacked player.

TL;DR: Core design of the game isn't balanced and not suitable for direct PvP.

I generally agree.

I opened a thread a while back called "Should a ship be able to tank and gank at the same time?".

I believe it's a design flaw that a ship can do both extremely well. IMHO, It should be one, or the other, or a balance somewhere in the middle.

Although I'm not entirely sure how to do it.

 

[Crank Larson]

Ive said my piece.

Promises, promises. You've also said that before.

 

[Crank Larson]

It seems established that mobius, mobius pve and any other mobius derivatives are PVE "patches" for the PVE player base. If I understand the counterargument to a PVE server, it is that the pvp players will "get mad" if a PVE mode is offered.

No, this isn't the case at all. There is no server in this sense - all player interaction is over P2P. The only servers involved run the galaxy and provide matchmaking services.

Most PvE players use Mobius as a PvE mode. I doubt any of them would object to Mobius simply being turned into a PvE mode, but there are technical limitations that prevent this (which is why there is a 20000 limit on the group size).

 

[Crank Larson]

We are totally fine with Mobius existing. Most of us and maybe even frontier didnt see a 3rd party server that big happening though.

Mobius isn't a server. Player servers do not exist. This has been pointed out numerous times, and you still don't understand, and/or are ignoring the significance of this. Until you understand how the game works, you're going to have problems arguing for change - it's why most of your arguments are simply incorrect.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Mobius isn't a server. Player servers do not exist.

Indeed - the modes themselves are simply filters applied to the matchmaking system, along with Wing membership, Friends lists, Block lists, etc. - Solo = put no other players in my instance; Private Groups = only put other players playing in that Private Group in my instance; Open = put other players playing in Open into my instance (if possible) - all subject to the preference modifiers mentioned previously.