Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jockey79]

FD has proven itself both flexible, and responsive to the players needs. There has always been a interest from FD for an Ironman mode. I don't feel comfortable being an absolutist. I welcome any good reason for improvements to the game. It's just that there hasn't been a strong enough argument that trumps the current point of view, and design.

Ironman Mode, should it ever turn up - would be voluntary self locking into a special mode that is still on the current BGS.
Most of the suggestions made on this topic are far from voluntary and normally end up with human traders being cannon fodder.

 

[relayer]

Even with one, it goes against what FD are doing - unless a massive chunk of the player base were to stop playing, they will just ignore calls for locked/ separate modes. As shown in my recently quoted Wall O' Info (Dev quotes near the bottom).

And there's the rub. It would appear that open is "a ghost town" "abandoned" "a wasteland" because people are leaving it to play without the jerks. I'd say that's a pretty good feedback for FD on the modes choice thing. Only they have the numbers. If the game was hemorrhaging players, I'd expect FD to be doing the Dance-Of-Contrition and tossing bribes. They aren't.

 

[Jockey79]

This just in from Update #85:

"Civil wars take place between minor factions in the same system over ownership of major assets like starports. During civil wars, only combat missions and activities help bring the conflict to a resolution. Security, development level and standard of living indicators all drop for the duration of the civil war."

So there ya go, combatters. You CAN make a direct change in PowerPlay by pewpew!.....

Versus NPCs mind you
(Remember, combat missions have NPCs as targets)

The daft thing is, I'm still confused over why humans are not worth the same 15 merits as NPCs for power play kills - but it does reinforce the whole PP is PvE point.

 

[Mohrgan]

Ironman Mode, should it ever turn up - would be voluntary self locking into a special mode that is still on the current BGS.
Most of the suggestions made on this topic are far from voluntary and normally end up with human traders being cannon fodder.

That may be true, but it could go a long way to satisfying those on the Open-only side. As an Ironman mode hasn't been described yet, it's scope could be adjusted to be more satisfying. Not every call has been as draconian as you make out.

 

[Mouse]

This just in from Update #85:

"Civil wars take place between minor factions in the same system over ownership of major assets like starports. During civil wars, only combat missions and activities help bring the conflict to a resolution. Security, development level and standard of living indicators all drop for the duration of the civil war."

So there ya go, combatters. You CAN make a direct change in PowerPlay by pewpew!

Also:
"We’ve also heard some players wanting a bit more challenge in their scenarios so an even more hazardous extraction site has been added to provide a more dangerous environment. In dangerous systems the scenarios around the nav beacons can also be a high threat version if it has been compromised."

So there's some more combat pewpew in RES!

So that should fix at least 2 arguments here...

- - - Updated - - -



I agree and plead mea culpa, although I did go back and edit out the snarky namecalling. Unfortunately, I was too late.
Ah, well.

Ninja'd by Jockey, but another question is. For all those demanding Ironman.. they can do it now.. why don't they?

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

And there's the rub. It would appear that open is "a ghost town" "abandoned" "a wasteland" because people are leaving it to play without the jerks. I'd say that's a pretty good feedback for FD on the modes choice thing. Only they have the numbers. If the game was hemorrhaging players, I'd expect FD to be doing the Dance-Of-Contrition and tossing bribes. They aren't.

Tossing bribes like cqc?

 

[Jockey79]

Tossing bribes like cqc?

Oh, that thing that is currently locked to X Box only

 

[Asp Explorer]

Tossing bribes like cqc?

What's wrong with CQC for pew-pew? If it gets all the pew-pews together blasting the peanut butter out of each other, then that's a great thing!

After all, you don't really want to go out and play Counterstrike in real life, do you?

 

[Jockey79]

Ninja'd by Jockey, but another question is. For all those demanding Ironman.. they can do it now.. why don't they?

I Ninja'd you on that question as well , I asked it last January/ February time - the answer was, no one trusts anyone else to be honest.
So everyone would still wonder how / where ships were earned but with the added paranoia of, have they died and lied about it.

I kind of agree, after my constable years I don't tend to trust the general public either..... but at least I have an excuse to be cynical

 

[Mouse]

I Ninja'd you on that question as well , I asked it last January/ February time - the answer was, no one trusts anyone else to be honest.
So everyone would still wonder how / where ships were earned but with the added paranoia of, have they died and lied about it.

I kind of agree, after my constable years I don't tend to trust the general public either..... but at least I have an excuse to be cynical

My question is more of a .. why do they need a Ironman? If people want to play Ironman they can.. just delete your save when you die.

 

[Mohrgan]

Ninja'd by Jockey, but another question is. For all those demanding Ironman.. they can do it now.. why don't they?

They may be. There is no reason to call people out all of the time. FD has stated their interest in an Ironman mode. It could be a great way to offer the open-only side an option. Having differing opinions does not mean we should disagree on everything. I would rather they campaign for Ironman mode than an open only solution to their distress. We should all be reasonable.

 

[Mouse]

They may be. There is no reason to call people out all of the time. FD has stated their interest in an Ironman mode. It could be a great way to offer the open-only side an option. Having differing opinions does not mean we should disagree on everything. I would rather they campaign for Ironman mode than an open only solution to their distress. We should all be reasonable.

I wasn't intending to be unreasonable or call someone out. I'm just wondering.

 

[Jockey79]

My question is more of a .. why do they need a Ironman? If people want to play Ironman they can.. just delete your save when you die.

That's what I'm saying, they can do this on a personal level but they also want like minded people to play with, they just don't trust those people to be honest and want FD to make a formal mode that enforces the rules

 

[Asp Explorer]

That's what I'm saying, they can do this on a personal level but they also want like minded people to play with, they just don't trust those people to be honest and want FD to make a formal mode that enforces the rules

Indeed. They were also asking for a history of which groups a player has belonged to, the ability to block comms to members of those prior groups, and a list of groups that members have interaction with.

Sad really.

 

[Mohrgan]

Rubbish. At least read what I wrote. I campaign for an EXTRA open only mode leaving all current modes intact.

The complete blinkered hate for PvPers is beyond a joke now.

I read Atak2's thread. It is reasonable and doable. It proposes to segregate those willing players in far off space. His proposal does open the question of: if you can accept choice, segregation, and a shared BGS in your proposal, why not accept those things between the modes?

 

[Mouse]

Rubbish. At least read what I wrote. I campaign for an EXTRA open only mode leaving all current modes intact.

The complete blinkered hate for PvPers is beyond a joke now.

There is no complete "hate" for Pvpers no matter how you poster, you've made that accusation before and every time it was proven for what it was.. false. My post that you qouted was refering to your from the old thread when you "quit" the thread. When it was written you had not posted, at least on my screen, your new ideas, instead you barged back into the thread immediatly hostile and insulting. So if you want to talk about rubbish, it is your attitude on your return to this thread topic. Heck Jockey even tried to be nice and you slaped his hand away. I'm not going to offer you the hand of friendship, it is already perfectly clear you came back to play victim.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a sensible question.

For me it fundamentally comes down to grinding meters. When modes are linked every action boils down to who can reach the meter threshold faster which however disguised it is - is an indirect action.

Now what I would like is actions to be direct - i.e. I directly come in contact and fight opposing players for objectives and see the result immediately because of those actions. I believe it would make my experience more exciting and dynamic with current and future objectives.

I can accept instancing because I believe the game will try to link us when possible but having any goals based around grinding meters against other modes ruins the opposition element for me as it becomes about grinding meters.

So what happened in EVE? If I remember correctly you were switching to that game because of the full open only PVP environment and that ED was terrible when people could do things that effected the background simulation and that you could not counter through PVP.

 

[Mohrgan]

That's a sensible question.

For me it fundamentally comes down to grinding meters. When modes are linked every action boils down to who can reach the meter threshold faster which however disguised it is - is an indirect action.

Now what I would like is actions to be direct - i.e. I directly come in contact and fight opposing players for objectives and see the result immediately because of those actions. I believe it would make my experience more exciting and dynamic with current and future objectives.

I can accept instancing because I believe the game will try to link us when possible but having any goals based around grinding meters against other modes ruins the opposition element for me as it becomes about grinding meters.

I get it. You want as much direct pilot v. pilot activity as you can get. You would like PvP to have a direct impact on the galaxy around you. I can sympathize, but as it stands it will always be about the meters, even if your proposal goes through. PP, and the BGS don't recognize PvP actions at all. Not even defeating a Cmdr, that gives you no merits at all, ever.

What I was saying was, if you can accept the design of your proposal, the current state of the game is even more forgiving. You can do all of that stuff with willing partners in open now, and be in human space.

 

[Mouse]

"Hand of friendship." Lol, like it was ever offered in the first place.

As you say I have not posted for a while but you and your ilk even unopposed post maliciously, condescend and mock those with a different opinion to yours again and again, page after page. Who is the real villain in this story?

P.S. I am playing Eve. An enemy randomly gifted me 40,000,000 ISK (credits) for being new tonight.

I love how you conveniently ignore the insulting posts by others that initiated responses that you claim are malicious, condescending, and mocking. Also you fail to note how many times everyone on this thread has thanked others and even agreed with differing opinions. Even have offered suggestions after disagreeing with someone that may help get what they wanted but not drastically change the game in order to achieve it. And ignore that sometimes people are just trying to blow off steam.

Nope.. not you... barge in claim those who object to Open only are the real evil villains of the discussion and are all these mean nasty things that the good Open only advocates don’t’ do and oh hey.. if you look over here you will see my new ideas. Not sure who you are trying to play, but most will see through the crap rather quickly.

And good for you in EVE, had that that happen to me in UO.

 

[Roybe]

That's a sensible question.

For me it fundamentally comes down to grinding meters. When modes are linked every action boils down to who can reach the meter threshold faster which however disguised it is - is an indirect action.

Now what I would like is actions to be direct - i.e. I directly come in contact and fight opposing players for objectives and see the result immediately because of those actions. I believe it would make my experience more exciting and dynamic with current and future objectives.

I can accept instancing because I believe the game will try to link us when possible but having any goals based around grinding meters against other modes ruins the opposition element for me as it becomes about grinding meters.

The game is based completely on PvP between groups, the winner decided by who collects the most PvE trophies....it seems my secret is getting out! ;P

 

[Mohrgan]

Ok, I've heard enough. PvP and PvE cannot work together. I say make Open play entirely about cooperative PvE--basically, Mobius--so that you don't have to wreck the game mechanics in the name of "balance", and relegate PvP to CqC.

I'm sick and tired of having my game wrecked by PvPers who cause everything to be changed so that tactics that worked before suddenly fail and I lose millions of credits getting killed all over the place, and they all expect to trample me. We CANNOT have it both ways, and the arguments are not getting any better as game mechanics progress.

Elite games have never been multiplayer before, and trying to make one that was has proven, in hindsight, a bad idea. Call it quits; cut your losses, and confine PvP strictly to Close Quarters Combat.

Open and PvP have their place in Elite. The discussion is about how the modes affect each other, and how to deal with that. I don;t ever want to see PvP dominate the balance of Elite, but it should be considered when something is obvious. Elite: Dangerous being the 1st multiplayer version of the series just means that the bugs have to get worked out. That is what this long and divisive thread hopes to consider.

Since the nerf to missiles and the like in 1.2, I think, there has been nearly no nerf in consideration of PvP. FD has been very good about that. In my view the multi-mode system has done an admirable job in putting PvP and PvE interests together in Elite. When you want a tussle, you can try to find one. When you want to focus on other stuff you have a place to go and do that. It's in convincing the whole player base of that, that the trouble comes in.