PvP The PvE <-> PvP Rift

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Your whole idea that FD 'sold' a game based on certain features is complete fiction. There are a whole crap ton of features that were 'sold' to backers that ended up not being included in the game. Your idea that a general statement in their marketing material about players being able to effect the game translates to an explicit promise that "Solo player's can manipulate the BGS" is a pretty big stretch. The idea that players determine the universe has pretty much being reneged on since the get go.

The single shared galaxy state that everyone experiences and affects is not a feature that was cut - it was published as part of the initial design pitch and released with the game - and two more platforms now share that galaxy state.

The current game advertising also states that players in Solo can affect the economy, politics and conflicts of galaxy.
 
There is noting wrong with consequences to mode choice (example inability to effect BGS in Solo). Free choice is about making a decision based on costs and benefits. It isn't about having it all.

Your game client does not know which mode you are in. Modes are only matchmaking filters.
Same reason we can’t have an open PvE mode or PvP flag.

All these suggestions would require a huge amount of recoding.

It will never happen.
 
CMDR Frentox has tapped out, and now the attention of the horde slowly but inexorably shifts to focus on lone CMDR Jason Barron...

Stop crying. It's embarrassing to the PvP community. You advocate Open/PvP yet cry that NPCs are too easy? This game isn't just for you bub. Get your ducks in line Commander.
 
Because you did it covertly and no one knows it was you.

Hmm, I can accurately be assessed a bounty for a stray round in a 75 ship CZ but somehow the largest ship in the game can avoid detection making multiple daily runs into ports. Seems legit. Now yes, if I was in instance but somehow never saw the player in system because I was doing other things your logic would hold water. But we are talking about the complete inability to have any chance what so ever to detect those shipments. Even in the case where we can analyse the BGS and realise it is going on we are still powerless to stop it, hardly seems reasonable.
 
The underlying problem remains the same:

The BGS is the problem. It's the Excuse, the Crutch, and the Source of much of the irritation and glutial myalgia that plagues both Elite and these forums.

After all these years people still can't play nicely with it, perhaps it's time to take it away.

BGS is short for BackGround Simulation. Meaning it's something happening in the Background. But people play like it is ForeGround Simulation.

Individually players have far too much influence over it, and the short cycle time doesn't help either.

Either individual influence needs cut by a factor of 1000 or.. the BGS needs to be taken away entirely.

Not even the Engineers have skewed game play to the degree of playing Elite: Risk continues to do.
 
Most player faction have recruitments across all consoles. Make the game the same across the board would mean our guys could defend just the same on PC.

This is hardly an excuse.

And for the next bit cause I know it coming. Go buy some game time like everyone else that wants to be a part of multiplayer games on consoles.



2015.

Were in 2018 now boys. Lots of things change with games. Even things they say wont. Elites not special in this regard. No matter who says it.

Why not recruit across all Modes as well. Bring in some players that enjoy PG's and/or Solo.

As to upcoming changes, things do, and will, change in E|D, but there has been no sign at all, that FD intend to limit a player's access to the game mechanics. Not one. Even the oft' mentioned 'bonus to PP in open' didn't even consider limiting access.

Having no evidence to stand on, your left with some kind of vague, ephemeral, taunt, that because there are changes coming, that FD will suddenly about face, and redesign, for PvP is crazy. Expect a new layer of rewards for engaging in PvP, when aligned with a PP Power, or something similar. There are many people around that can tell the difference between 'meaningful' and 'plentiful'.
 
Your whole idea that FD 'sold' a game based on certain features is complete fiction. There are a whole crap ton of features that were 'sold' to backers that ended up not being included in the game. Your idea that a general statement in their marketing material about players being able to effect the game translates to an explicit promise that "Solo player's can manipulate the BGS" is a pretty big stretch. The idea that players determine the universe has pretty much being reneged on since the get go.

Do you mean offline ?, solo replaced it.

A single shared BGS was the idea from the get go, if you go with multiple BGS's (not going to happen anyhoo) which one then becomes cannon ?. How would you feel about it being the Mobius BGS that gets to drive new CG's, the Thargoid story and all the news in game.
 
Why not recruit across all Modes as well. Bring in some players that enjoy PG's and/or Solo.

As to upcoming changes, things do, and will, change in E|D, but there has been no sign at all, that FD intend to limit a player's access to the game mechanics. Not one. Even the oft' mentioned 'bonus to PP in open' didn't even consider limiting access.

Having no evidence to stand on, your left with some kind of vague, ephemeral, taunt, that because there are changes coming, that FD will suddenly about face, and redesign, for PvP is crazy. Expect a new layer of rewards for engaging in PvP, when aligned with a PP Power, or something similar. There are many people around that can tell the difference between 'meaningful' and 'plentiful'.

Maybe somethings are better left unsaid?
 
Your game client does not know which mode you are in. Modes are only matchmaking filters.
Same reason we can’t have an open PvE mode or PvP flag.

All these suggestions would require a huge amount of recoding.

It will never happen.

I actually agree with you. Which is why I just discuss the logic of it on this board rather than start threads or actively campaign for it. To be honest, the scariest thing would be for FD to agree and act on it. Even in cases where the whole community agrees something needs to change and FD decides to act they will invariably turn it into a mess (witness the C&P changes).
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Do you mean offline ?, solo replaced it.

A single shared BGS was the idea from the get go, if you go with multiple BGS's (not going to happen anyhoo) which one then becomes cannon ?. How would you feel about it being the Mobius BGS that gets to drive new CG's, the Thargoid story and all the news in game.

Not quite - Solo has existed for just as long as Private Groups and Open (the All Group) - as they were all part of the initial design information published as part of the Kickstarter.

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?
The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.
The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).​

How does multiplayer work?
You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.
You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!
There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.
We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.​
 
It wouldn't seem mixed if you and like minded players didn't insist on injecting your agenda into every counter opinion you run across.

Nah,

I'm pretty sure that trying to justify murder-hoboing because people have said stuff you don't agree with and then talking about finding common-ground are completely at odds with one another.

Will the real jasonbarron please stand up?
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom