Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Mouse]

I see what you want. But, I don;t believe a split BSG, with the mechanics we have now, would offer any of that. Do you see what I mean? The bean counting would still have to be done. Players would still have to cart pamphlets around. Nothing would change except that the BSG would be influenced by a smaller chunk of the community. It sounds like you just don;t want to accept influence to the BSG unless you can shoot at it.

Argument he had before was not liking that anyone can effect the BGS and he and others cannot directly stop them. In an "Open only" mode separate from everything else, 1 players are stuck in the mode, 2 only ones effecting the BGS is them, PP can be effected by direct actions.

- - - Updated - - -

I could say the exact same thing about you. Game works for you, sod everyone else.

I'm up for compromising and working a way it works for everyone. You have not been receptive as you don't accept anything is needed for Open advocates.

Not true again but good try, I've been trying to find ways for Open to be more fun and to GET PEOPLE IN OPEN. What I won't budge on is what FD won't.. the BGS.

 

[Dave1235]

Which after listening to arguments for months I want us competitive players to have a mode or far flung area of the galaxy where we will cause minimal upset to your playstyle. I like that solo and PvE playstyles exist. Keep the current modes and cross-mode power play. Just give competitive/PvP players somewhere they can play their way too.

CQC ? 8chars

 

[Mohrgan]

Hypothetically if we had an Open only mode I believe it would it work. Players would directly fight undermining/fortifying etc and trying to intercept pamphlet carriers.

Sure we would get people in other instances but we would accept that the server tries its best to match us up.

How would that create the minute to minute immediacy you were talking about? All I see is the satisfaction that the results, once a week, would have been produced by players you might have been able to shoot at. Is that it? Is that all you think it would take to attract a whole new community of players?

 

[Dave1235]

<snip>

CQC has nothing to do with factions. The difference between Quake and Planetside.

Read your own post CQC is the answer to everything you mentioned.

Which after listening to arguments for months I want us competitive players to have a mode or far flung area of the galaxy where we will cause minimal upset to your playstyle. I like that solo and PvE playstyles exist. Keep the current modes and cross-mode power play. Just give competitive/PvP players somewhere they can play their way too.

 

[Mohrgan]

With a PvP mode there would be no need for a weekly count up. Let it rage back and forth minute by minute. It works for Planetside 2.

But the mechanics of this game do not work that way. You are not just talking about a split BSG, you would be asking for a game redesign. Do you really see that happening, for a small group of possible players?

 

[Mohrgan]

I know I am against the status quo. I still think it would make the game much more captivating for me, various PvP, competitive and group players and a potential future audience.

I ask for it because it would make FD the dream game (for me) and as a customer the current CGs, Power play etc are lacklustre because of the current cross-mode implementation.

So, you are aware that just splitting the BSG won't satisfy you or your friends. You should make your proposal more in kind with your actual desires. You want an Elite centered around direct player to player conflict. Like say.... Eve in a cockpit.

 

[Asp Explorer]

We could have a merry battle over some territory with luck but unfortunately either some nefarious players from our own group would move to other modes to influence it or we would find ourselves in territory other modes are interested in. Either way we would be back to playing the same way Open works now which we don't like.

So Kickstarter your own game perhaps? Surely you must have some friends who can code? If there are that many people that you claim have this unfulfilled desire for pew-pew and pwnge - you'll reach a humble $250k goal in no time at all!

Good luck to you!

 

[Mohrgan]

So Kickstarter your own game perhaps? Surely you must have some friends who can code? If there are that many people that you claim have this unfulfilled desire for pew-pew and pwnge - you'll reach a humble $250k goal in no time at all!

Good luck to you!

It is very satisfying to dismiss an argument with a flippant comment. But, to get to the bottom of a legitimate complaint, and maybe bring two sides closer together, is much more useful. Sniping is the bane of discussion.

 

[Stigbob]

Solo player 1: Does any chap here find our gravy chain threatened by the odd pirate?

A "gravy chain" would break easily, be unpleasant to handle and a criminal waste of good gravy.

 

[Mohrgan]

A "gravy chain" would be break easily, be unpleasant to handle and a criminal waste of good gravy.

I will take a moment to expose myself to the wrath of the interweb, but I prefer Gravy over bacon. Oh, and dogs over cats.

 

[Mouse]

Honestly Mouse, I have behaved like an ass because I've felt I've had to.

Work with me, turn this thread into a discussion area where we can find modes/areas where everyone gets the playstyle they enjoy.

I have already said before for example - there definitely should be a PvE mode.

Your behavior has been why people have reacted hostilely to you, it did not help your cause at all.

We have been working on ways for everyone to enjoy the play style they enjoy, but not be drastically altering the game.

The issue is not that you want a PVP mode, you have that with open and many people have participated in discussions on how to make open better. The issue is that you want it a certain way separate from everything else in it's own bubble.

 

[Mohrgan]

I would like a mode centred around player to player conflict - yes. It would solve many issues for people interested in the outcomes of Power play, CGs etc and give a place for people interested in the piracy/trading/mining/bounty hunting dynamic with unavoidable consequences.

You have to realize that what you want is a remake of the basic design philosophy of the game. Your proposal, the real one, would require way more than just a duplicate of the BSG. It would require the BSG to be remade. That begs the question: Are there enough players to support that? And, where were they during the original development cycle? I am loathe to ever say this, but I'm pretty sure E: D never was, and never will be the game for you.

Saying that is not an invitation for you to leave the game. It's a shock moment and I am suggesting you will only continue to find frustration campaigning for that to come about. FD has ambitious plans for, and measurable success with, the approach they have begun. It is wildly optimistic, even delusional, to think posting here could have any success in altering the path we are on in this game, especially to the degree you propose.

 

[Dave1235]

I will take a moment to expose myself to the wrath of the interweb, but I prefer Gravy over bacon.

I was going to respond to some of your earlier points as I thought you were a serious poster, your above comment shows you are a troll

"Gravy over bacon", I am not sure I can take you seriously ever again, but that aside I have heard stranger things lately .

Also please restrain from "I will take a moment to expose myself", you might get a infraction lol.

 

[relayer]

The thread is very entertaining:

Solo player 1: Does any chap here find our gravy chain threatened by the odd pirate?

Solo player 2: By golly - I lost some Palladium 6 months ago to these heathens.

Solo player 1: I propose an immediate nerf to these rascals that dare upset our permenant high credit trade routes. On our convenience they can beg for 1% of our cargo if they plead and treat us like the Lords we should be.

Solo player 2: Here here. Now where is my good Scotch.

There's a different version, of course.

Open PVPer: We need to make people play in open because their ghost army is sneaking around at an unfair advantage.

Solo/Group Player: The three modes offer choice. They are good for all types of players.

Open PVPer: We should have extra compensation because we can't pewpew or blockade everyone.

Solo/Group Player: You won't be able to do that because of the instancing mechanics anyway.

OpenPVPer: It's the game's fault - it's broken.

Solo/Group Player: It's a big galaxy and people are spread out. Many chose to play in the mode that suits them at the time.

OpenPVPer: Open is a wasteland/barren!

Solo/Group Player: Maybe there are less people who want to play in open for various reasons.

OpenPVPer: We want a seperate BGS that isn't affected by ghost armies of cheaters.

Solo/Group Player: FD maintains we should all play in the same BGS simulation & have the same choices.

PVPer: Cowards hiding in Solo or Groups have the advantage in sneaking in to undermine things and we can't stop them!

Solo/Group Player: You have the same options and abilities to counter fortifications or undermine them.

PVPer: But I can't shoot them!

Solo/Group Player: Maybe your chosen mode is trying to tell you something.

 

[relayer]

There's a huge gulf between mindless bullies transgressing every virtue and PvPers - arguing against the existence or support of bullies and abuse does not automatically mean that a person wants PvP gone.

+1 and 8chars

 

[Asp Explorer]

It is very satisfying to dismiss an argument with a flippant comment. But, to get to the bottom of a legitimate complaint, and maybe bring two sides closer together, is much more useful. Sniping is the bane of discussion.

I'm sniping nothing. I only have a 9mm Anyway - what argument am I dismissing flippantly? What legitimate complaint is there to suggesting someone crowdfunds the game they want to play? That's how ED worked. It's how SC might work. He may come up with a killer game idea and become richer than everyone!

 

[Mouse]

I frankly don't think its an issue of want rather than need.

In order for PvP to be more constructive than random ganking there needs to be goals we fight directly for. Currently with all modes conjoined - players use Open for random fights and if they want to progress a goal move to solo/group. Open is the random battlefield it is today because of it.

If players had to pay attention to and advance/defend and police their faction in order to influence territory we would see a more stabilised galaxy.

I respectfully disagree about the want vs need. You want it , but it is not needed to play the game. I agree in constructive PVP, CQC I don't know will bring that. Personally I feel that if someone is of the same power and you kill them you should get penalized strongly and if you kill someone of another power you get rewarded.. I dont' think that would adding to PP but filling it out a little. Match the rewards you get for NPC's with PC's .

And I agree with security being more realistic

 

[Asp Explorer]

I have ideas but unfortunately my degree was unrelated to programming. I do spend my spare time messing around with Raspberry Pi's, arduino's and looking into python but advancement is very slow.

Your degree means nothing. Use your skills. Ardui's and Pi's are useful learning tools - use every single byte out of them, explore every channel. Learn, Apply, and Profit!

Actually please let me edit that. Any degree means nothing.

 

[relayer]

It is very satisfying to dismiss an argument with a flippant comment. But, to get to the bottom of a legitimate complaint, and maybe bring two sides closer together, is much more useful. Sniping is the bane of discussion.

I'm speaking up for Asp (and Mouse) here. These are acceptable comments from someone?

Honestly Mouse, I have behaved like an ass because I've felt I've had to.

Post 1618

That gets a pass but Mouse responding with an irritated comment to these attacks does not?

How about:

The thread is very entertaining:

Solo player 1: Does any chap here find our gravy chain threatened by the odd pirate?

Solo player 2: By golly - I lost some Palladium 6 months ago to these heathens.

Solo player 1: I propose an immediate nerf to these rascals that dare upset our permenant high credit trade routes. On our convenience they can beg for 1% of our cargo if they plead and treat us like the Lords we should be.

Solo player 2: Here here. Now where is my good Scotch.

This is a discussion? This is not baiting?

 

[Seonid]

Regardless of your doctrine I will continue to campaign for an Open only mode or equivalent as I see it as the most fun and most lucrative future for Elite.

I wish you well on your personal campaign, your tenacity is considerable as after over 2 and a half years, the stated design decision that existed before the game itself is still unchanged. Every post by FD on the subject has said this will not change. I look forward with interest to the progress of your campaign in 2 years time as I did with the Tooting Popular Front.