your only error was saying if the other faction isnt in open. even if they are they can never be instanced with players on the other side directly all the time. if one side just tries to defend using pvp and even a few commanders undermining never get instanced with an enemy due to luck or timezones or something then the undermining faction wins. you simply will never be able to defeat players undermining even if all of them agree to, and then play in open. at some point the pvpers will not be instanced with any enemies. thus they are wasting their time (jerking off in space). but the opposite side working the bgs gets instanced with no enemies - they just affect the bgs wihout interference.
- Status
No, these aren't semantics that are being argued over. They are fundamental technical details about the game. You seem to fall back on this "oh it's just semantics" when you don't actually have an answer. These "semantics" are why most of your ideas won't work, even if people do want them.
As do Solo, Group and Open in each of the other platforms with whom they are also unable to directly instance due to reasons outside of FDev's control.
Greetings Folks
Robert Maynard,
I agree the modes themselves are simple filters applied to a matchmaking system. The choices made, I suspect are not. You mentioned an unlimited PVE group was envisaged.
Care to speculate about its absence?
Last edited:
My guess would be because it would involve code changes to enforce PvE, something currently not required. In Mobius it's a group rule, an agreement, not a code enforcement.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While an Open-PvE group (mode) would seem to be an obvious candidate for one of the permissible additional Open groups (modes), it was not explicitly stated - although that the same sentence goes on to mention different rules to suit different playstyles would rather suggest that Frontier had PvE in mind, especially as they provided two modes that can be played as PvE (with the usual caveat about indirect PvP through the BGS - which is unavoidable in any mode).
I have speculated here previously (or in another thread, I forget) - it would seem that, at some point, Frontier decided to offer only one Open mode. That at least one Private Group has hit the 20,000 member cap might have come as a surprise to Frontier.
That various new features (Pilots' Federation Bounties, karma system) are being implemented in an attempt to make Open a more attractive place for more players to play would suggest that, maybe, Frontier consider that Open has a population problem - which might also be considered to be hardly surprising given that Frontier would also seem to be well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.
Only Frontier will be in a position to determine whether the changes have had the desired result - as Frontier are the only ones with access to the in-game analytics regarding who plays in which mode and for how long.
We'll see.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
This too. In a stream, DBOBE mentioned difficulties removing all possibility of PvP from an Open-PvE mode - and referenced station ramming as one form that had to be dealt with (by the introduction of the station speed limit) after it was realised that players were using it for PvP (when Frontier had not considered / expect it to be used as such).
Howdy GreyAreaUK, that may be well the case, since an open environment online, multiplayer, necessarily doesn't provide the consent a close private group however big, may provide.
Still, OPEN free for all, including, like Maynard pointed out correct, an optional PvP regardless your activity --- if we forget Piracy and bounty hunting, the "letter of marque" of ELITE D. for once,
well seem to seek its twin however, no?
Last edited:
Consider the difficulties discovered as the Mobius group over spilled it's banks. There simply could be a technological reason a Mode with the expected membership of a PvE-Open. On the other hand, I have always gotten the feeling that FD keep the modes as they are to keep some population in open. Many PvP'ers would see a PvE-Open as a betrayal of all the catchy phrases they trot out to defend all that goes on in Open. i.e. Dangerous, Cutthroat, Blaze your own.... You know the drill.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I doubt that Open(-PvP) would be empty even if an Open-PvE mode was offered - as there are those that profess to enjoy the frisson of the potential for PvP even if they do not initiate PvP encounters.
.... and the game has, from the outset, offered players two modes in which to play where they do not require to play among all other players.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Some would no doubt but here is the thing. FD provide the tools it's up to players how they populate the game. For example.. I bought sensible soccer on Xbox 360. They advertised it as supporting online multiplayer. Sadly the game was so niche there was hardly ever anyone online to play it. ... And yet it was still advertised as supporting online multiplayer . Were the Devs lying? Technically online MP was possible. Practically it was unlikely (maybe local multiplayer and solo should have been dropped to force the issue
)And let's not forget David Braben himself says ED is not an mmo in the normal sense of the word . Originally FD were not going to sell it as an mmo until loads of people explained it was more an mmo than games like warthunder which are sold as mmo
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Only trying to meet in the middle here. Again, still trying to allow both sides to play how they feel. System permits are already in the game. And can be used in this instance.
I understand we might not be able to see everyone. And there are some server issues that need to be addressed. But lets pretend they are fine hypothetically. And no straying off on petty nonsense.
People can play in Open on Xbox and PS4 as well. Our groups have chapters in each. And until Microsoft and Playstation pull their heads out. This is the only option from the beginning. And nothing changes in this perspective.
Another idea:
Permit locked systems for player factions. The attacker has to agree to the terms of the player faction they are attacking.
People don't want to PVE to PvP and people don't want to PvP(get shot at) to PvP.(Bgs pvp, PVEVP. PVPPEBEVEPVPVEVP KFC BBQ MCD) Whatever you guys want to call it.
So give the option for the owners of the player faction systems to only be effected on their terms. And by attacking them you accept the terms of engagement.
If people want bgs battles as they stand now. Then don't use the option.
Just like people have the option to to leave open so they aren't shot. People that play in open should have a choice not to be attacked from the other side either.
If sdc want to attack mobius player faction. They have to accept their terms. If mobius wants to attack sdc.
They have to do it in open.
Bottom line. One group has options. And the other does not.
One group gets to opt out. While the other does not.
One group gets to dodge attacks. While the other does not.
That's why sdc don't care if you attack them through the bgs. Go for it if that makes people feel better.
But that's the whole issue here. People should care for both.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why powerplay is used for modules. And not what it was intended for.
Therefore balancing will come in the future. Because they want this game mode to work.
C O N T E X T.
G G
I understand we might not be able to see everyone. And there are some server issues that need to be addressed. But lets pretend they are fine hypothetically. And no straying off on petty nonsense.
People can play in Open on Xbox and PS4 as well. Our groups have chapters in each. And until Microsoft and Playstation pull their heads out. This is the only option from the beginning. And nothing changes in this perspective.
Another idea:
Permit locked systems for player factions. The attacker has to agree to the terms of the player faction they are attacking.
People don't want to PVE to PvP and people don't want to PvP(get shot at) to PvP.(Bgs pvp, PVEVP. PVPPEBEVEPVPVEVP KFC BBQ MCD) Whatever you guys want to call it.
So give the option for the owners of the player faction systems to only be effected on their terms. And by attacking them you accept the terms of engagement.
If people want bgs battles as they stand now. Then don't use the option.
Just like people have the option to to leave open so they aren't shot. People that play in open should have a choice not to be attacked from the other side either.
If sdc want to attack mobius player faction. They have to accept their terms. If mobius wants to attack sdc.
They have to do it in open.
Bottom line. One group has options. And the other does not.
One group gets to opt out. While the other does not.
One group gets to dodge attacks. While the other does not.
That's why sdc don't care if you attack them through the bgs. Go for it if that makes people feel better.
But that's the whole issue here. People should care for both.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why powerplay is used for modules. And not what it was intended for.
Therefore balancing will come in the future. Because they want this game mode to work.
C O N T E X T.
G G
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Meeting in the middle would imply that the need for change is agreed and that a compromise is necessary.
That's ultimately up to Frontier - should they wish to do so.
.... although they may consider the play-styles of their players (that they can determine, to an extent, from their in-game analytics).
Moving away from the mode agnostic nature of pretty much any game feature (apart from Wings and Multi-Crew that can't be done in Solo, for obvious reasons) would be quite a big step for Frontier, i.e. to change the game from completely optional PvP to mandatory PvP (in particular circumstances).
The fact that Frontier have not changed their core game design, in approaching 5 years since the game design was published, might suggest that they're sticking to it.
Last edited:
If those that play in open, couldn't affect the BGS from open, I'd say you have a point. But, as it stands, the only way to oppose any faction is through the BGS which has universal access. No change is required for any group to defend their influence on a system. Don't fix, what isn't broke.
Ummmm actually if wings and MC was supported as it was MEANT to be it would be doable, and SHOULD be doable in solo
SDC didn't care about anyone affecting their faction, not to mention they apparently didn't even know they had one, or understood how the BGS works.
The key to understanding PVP in Elite is that the more you PVP, the more you lose in the BGS without some pretty rigorous planning and coordination.
Murderhobos and Lulzbunnies don't really apply here of course, the simple need to see player explosions is fulfilled simply by generating player explosions.
The key to understanding PVP in Elite is that the more you PVP, the more you lose in the BGS without some pretty rigorous planning and coordination.
Murderhobos and Lulzbunnies don't really apply here of course, the simple need to see player explosions is fulfilled simply by generating player explosions.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Youre right. But its obvious the player base is not happy on either side of the fence about it. And specific game features arent being used to its fullest extent because of it.
Technically no one is right or wrong in these situations.
Its coming down to what you said. Does there need to be a change?
And if Fdev want specific things to work. Its on their end to change it. And not what we want. But that doesn't mean we cant help and give feedback for ideas.
I mean Sandro's at least humored the idea here and there. So its not like they arent looking to change this. But its not like they are looking to change it either. But it does not mean there arent problems that lie within.
And thats none of our faults.
So it would be nice if people virtually shook hands with each other. Instead of making passive aggressive comments about it.(Yes im guilty).
Would also like to point out. I never received harassment from other players because I played in a private group. The only time I received any harassment was when I WHINED about getting shot. Thats something ya'll dont seem to understand. I did it too. I put myself out there. And I was told to git gud. So I did.
But I never received any crap when I played in mobius ect. I was only called a carebear when I whined. And not everyone that just enjoys the PVE aspects of the game is a carebear.
Im a carebear cause I want BGS changes. Im on the opposite end of the spectrum here. Ironic eh? But we want to care about the BGS. We aint gonna kill NPC ships all day. Its boring to us. We want to fight other pvpers over territory. PVPers want context. We dont want 1v1's. We want to be involved just the same. But we want to the ability to fight too against others too. And no one does. Because the people that really want to play the bgs. Dont have to play in open. So they wont. So we have no one to shoot but ourselves. Which is why its turned into 1v1's or wing fights. SOME OF THAT CONSENSUAL PVP kappa.
But if we get the chance to play the bad guy. And hope someone plays along. Escape or doesn't mind getting pirated. Thats really cool. And its really cool to see traders adapt and get better. Instead of WHINE when they have other options to begin with, which I was guilty of myself at one point.
Believe it or not. I could out carebear everyone of you. And it was cringy and I streamed it. FeelsBadMan. But I changed and adapted. And if I wanted to play in Open. I had to learn. I like the challenge. And others dont. But open is certainly harder than the other modes because of the dynamics. And there is no denying that.
Spit balled ideas. Instead of all the toxicity. Its no joke people dont want to get blown up.
I was in that spot too. I see why both sides are valuable.
And there are extremes on both ends.
So its in Fdevs hands. And we should try to work with them. Instead of against each other. Because at the end of the day. We are all on the same side. We love Elite Dangerous.
And thats why I see the need for balancing. Because with how small the community is, Especially for PVPers in comparison. Im one of the few thats done both. And I can see both arguments. And both are valid.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Whether the NPC Wingmen and Crew will be implemented is, at this time, unknown.
At this time, it rather seems that Frontier are content that we have to play multi-player to enjoy these features.
I for one would LOVE to have NPC Wings in Solo. Why is it that the NPCs can wing up with other NPCs but not Commanders? Is there a lore reason as to why Pilots are barred from teaming up with Pilots Federation pilots; not that I remember seeing. Plus we can hire fighter pilots which, when deployed, act like a wing.
Is it that difficult to code NPC wings? It's similar to having fighters. Except it's possible to have more than one at any given time with more autonomy than issuing Orders to a fighter.
If I remember correctly, wasn't there a training scenario in the game where you HAD an NPC wing?
Last edited:
Open/Coop, OPEN/PVE strictly is not possible.
Frontier can not enforce mutual agreement, nor can they by any means, prevent harassment or griefing. Glad we worked that out by now.
Yaffle, may as well put this thread to its well deserved rest, if OPEN/PvE is the quintessence and agreement for those sought out alternatives in here. There is no alternative to OPEN play as is. Nor can OPEN/PVE provide safety for like minded peaceful commanders.
We had this mode by now if Frontier only knew how to make it.
As you all know, I appreciate PvP in OPEN, although I, for now see no need to kill other players by myself. The statement above is not geared to belittle other views of the matter. However, I follow simple logic and believe what I say is true.
Fly safe folks, Check six!
07
Last edited:
- Status