Modes The Wall of Information.

[Jockey79]

The Wall of Information;


A quick look at the history of; and tech used to bring you this game (explains why some things are not possible).

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;EvJPyjmfdz0]https://youtu.be/EvJPyjmfdz0[/video]


Thanks to Roybe for for the link to the video.

Kickstarter Information;

Spoiler

From the Kickstarter Page;

*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*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,*

Regarding Multiplayer;

Spoiler

Steam Store Page

"Multi-Player" and "Co-Op" : Not just "MMO"


Frontier website; www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/wings


https://imgur.com/0kmpH03


Dev comments;

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.


Michael

Thanks for that clarity Michael.


Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.


Michael

FuzzySpider
The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.


Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?


Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective les of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

Power Play Information.

Spoiler

PowerPlay AMA related links regarding Modes and Powerplay;

Hi Micheal




I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.




Michael

In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.




Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs

For fun




That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

Here is a post from Sandro Sammarco "musing" over a bonus to Open mode for Power Play;

.....
And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.


My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.


Now, one final Caveat. *As it stands currently*, we have time allotted in season two to work on Powerplay. These suggestions are just a part of that work - there is other stuff as well. However, I can't commit to the Unbreakable Vow, because it's very possible that in the fluid world of development, things might change!


I just wanted to set these ideas free and see how well they settle, so, comments welcome!

Hello Commanders!


A couple of clarifications:


* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.
* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.
* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.
* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.


Hope this info helps.

Sandro highlighting the competitive nature of Power Play / consensual PvP.

Make no mistake, one element of Powerplay is about competition within a power - that's intentional, but it's also about grand scale territory control between powers, offering context and reward for consensual PvP competition and letting Commanders feel part of a team, which this mechanic would support.


I hope this gives folk an idea about the direction we're heading in.

[video=youtube;uetVzNINdKU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s[/video]

The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.

Updated comment regarding Power Play and PvP;


[video=youtube_share;nvMYy0ry9mA]https://youtu.be/nvMYy0ry9mA[/video]

And even more Power Play talk (in relation to the Focus Feedback suggestion of Open Only Power Play).

[video=youtube;52kOyADxK5E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52kOyADxK5E&feature=youtu.be&t=2945[/video]

And regarding the game design;

Spoiler

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

To highlight something from that above quote;

“You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play."

Here is a quote from Zac Antonaci for the "game is dying" proclaimers.
Dated 10th July 2015;

They need to be.

Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.

Hey Fred,

I wanted to reply to this honestly if I may.

I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.

<snip>

Zac

And a nice, clear, concise comment from Michael Brookes regarding the modes;

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

Dev Update 6th August 2015 (https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248);

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

(I added the bold / underline in the quote to highlight the last line)

Engineers Live Stream (RE: Open PvE Mode);

Spoiler

2 Points raised and answered;

Open PvE Mode? (42:43);
Is ED a PvP game? (44:12);

[video=youtube;gEtHu3AXw2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q&t=42m30s[/video]

Some General Information;

Spoiler

DB was asked a question "Is Elite and MMORPG?" in the LiveStream tonight.

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;RdP1DmRYco8]https://youtu.be/RdP1DmRYco8[/video]

He answered it like this:

19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.

"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."

Ed speaks and then David adds:

"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."

Regarding the PvP / PvE split;

On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .

Extra note on "Griefing" and posts by Sandro on the topic;

Hello Commanders!
In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.
When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.
Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.
Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.
Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.
Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.

Hello Commanders!
A couple of points worth noting:
The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.
Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.
Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.
At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.

Reddit AMA from X-Box One launch, in relation to the Back Ground Simulation and Modes;
https://np.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/3nlmdg/its_frontier_developments_developers_of_elite/

Updated Crime and Punishment system, thanks to Sleutelbos for the link / information;
(from : https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=423)


Crime & Punishment FAQ

Updated: Thursday 28th June 2018
How do fines and bounties work?

• When you commit a crime, a fine or bounty is applied to your ship.
• Fines never mature into bounties and bounties never become dormant or expire.
• If you commit a crime in another pilot’s ship during multicrew the fine or bounty will be applied to your most valuable ship.
• Fines can be paid at security contacts, however, bounties can only be paid at Interstellar Factors when your Notoriety is at zero.
• New for 3.1: You can now hand yourself into security contacts if you have a bounty and a zero notoriety rating. Handing yourself in will pay off the bounty and result in deportation to the nearest detention center.
• If your ship is destroyed with a detected bounty you will respawn in a Detention Centre, where you will need to pay off all valid fines and bounties in that jurisdiction.

What other types of bounty are there?

• Interstellar bounties are issued when fines and bounties for factions aligned within a superpower become too high. They are valid in any jurisdiction governed by that superpower or their associated minor factions.
• Power bounties are issued for Powerplay related crimes. They do not affect starport services access and are only valid in Powerplay-specific scenarios. Currently, power bounties can be paid off at Interstellar Factors.
• Pilots Federation bounties are issued for illegal PVP crimes. They are valid in all non-anarchy systems.

What are hot ships and modules?

• When a bounty is applied to your ship it is “hot”. All equipped modules also become hot.
  - Stored ‘hot’ modules will need to be cleaned (at 5% of their rebuy cost) before being transferred to a clean ship
  - Hot modules in storage will not be cleaned when paying off fines/bounties on a hot ship, potentially incurring extra costs if you have a low-value fines/bounties
• While docked in a jurisdiction where your hot ship is wanted your Starport Services access is restricted.
  - Ships can access outfitting anywhere except Starports controlled by a faction that has issued a bounty or fine against them.
  - Basic refuelling will be available at all Starports that offer the service regardless of a ship’s legal status
• Hot ships can be cleaned at Interstellar Factors if your Notoriety is at zero.
• Hot ships can be sold for a significantly reduced profit.

What is Notoriety?

• When you commit a murder your Notoriety is increased by one unit up to a maximum of ten.
• Notoriety is applied to your commander, not your ship.
• The higher your Notoriety, the higher the bounty on your head.
• If you murder another player (i.e. not an NPC) the higher your Notoriety, the lower their rebuy cost.
• If your Notoriety becomes too high you will attract the attention of the ATR.
• Notoriety decreases one unit every two hours of play when obeying the law.
• Notoriety does decay while docked, however, it will not update in your statistics until you undock and jump to supercruise.

What is the ATR?

The Advanced Tactical Responders are heavily armed security ships. They are tasked with stopping high-Notoriety commanders, either by forcing them out of a system or destroying them.

10th Jan 2019, information awating confirmation regarding the C&P / ATR :

...

They just made updates to ATR and how rebuys work. Someone killing super weak ships all the time based off their playtime. Their Rebuy gets reduced, they dont lose as much.

Someone with a high notoriety their rebuy is much higher, some cutter guys have had over 1 bil in rebuy to get their ship back or they lose it.

It works well right now. People just dont see it yet.

Other Information;

Missing Feature from the DDA;

Ironman Elite
During commander creation the player may set the "ironman" flag. Ironman commanders can never be grouped with normal commanders. Players can use the same name for both normal and ironman commanders.

• Escape pod systems can be damaged and made inoperable (they are still invincible once launched)
• Escape pods are disposable: after use, a new pod can be purchased
• Escape pods must be manually activated
• Failure to use an escape pod permanently kills the commander if the ship suffers catastrophic hull damage (breaks apart)
  • Permanently killed commanders can be resurrected as a normal commander (no ironman flag), continuing from when they died
  • Ship warning systems and visual/aural cues activate when the ship nears total operational failure
  • The commander is not killed by any amount of ship operational failure
• Commanders have emergency personal life support which activates in the event of life support failure
  • Personal life support can only sustain a commander for a limited time, but restocks when the commander is in a breathable atmosphere
  • If a commander's personal life support runs out the commander is permanently killed

The BGS / shared Galaxy

https://youtu.be/VCy1ZYjLvdQ?t=872

The other Adam: "But more importantly than that, it represents how player's actions represent the world around them. We're talking about actions from players no matter what platform, or mode they're on"
Adam: "Yeah"
Adam & Will nodding
The other Adam: "It's all part of one shared galaxy, which is something amazing, in the same way we're doing things with exploration [...] every one is part of Elite is part of the same shared world"
Will: "Yes"
The other Adam: "And that I think is a really special part of our game"

Those who have checked out of Hotel California will now be allowed to leave.

 

[Jockey79]

My live edit and update thread.
As I get links and quotes in my Inbox from folks, then have a habit of emptying my Inbox without looking (d'oh).

Thanks to all who have sent information so far and helped out.

Also, I have removed all quotes that are not from Frontier or an official Stream / Interview.
As I'm being accused of too much bias with other forum users posts on the Wall of Information.
So I've made it "approved" information only for now.

But thanks to all who have commented and added to it.

If people could throw new / updated information here, or suggest edits to help keep the information clear and clean, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks all, and hope you like the new layout

 

[Jockey79]

Which is patently false. If a notorious 'griefer' kills your little PvE ships the following will happen:

1) The victim's rebuy is drastically reduced.
2) The bounty on the attacker is drastically increased (if my corvette butchers your T9, I'll easily get 5 million per kill added to my bounty!)
3) Docking rights are revoked, and if the player keeps it eventually the majority of the bubble will be locked.
4) Insane OP uber-ships will haunt the attacker.
5) All the above wont stop until the attacker either pays his bounty (the total sum of all full insurance fees he caused, even those not payed by the victims due to the price reduction!) or his forced to pay it at a detention center.

There are already very serious penalties and costs to killing people in Open, far more than the victim faces.

You may want to check/link to this as well:
https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=423

Added a C&P Spoiler, thanks for the heads up.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Advised by Jockey to plonk this here for consideration for the Wall

David Braben comments on Open PvE mode:

[video=youtube_share;gEtHu3AXw2Q]https://youtu.be/gEtHu3AXw2Q?t=2563[/video]

In summary:

It would be nice, but it would end up breaking the game.

 

[Jockey79]

Advised by Jockey to plonk this here for consideration for the Wall

David Braben comments on Open PvE mode:



In summary:

It would be nice, but it would end up breaking the game.

Engineers live stream spoiler already there, but I'll rename it to make it clearer why it is there as we both start at the same point.

Want me to time index any particular comments under the video?

 

[Marra Morgan]

Engineers live stream spoiler already there, but I'll rename it to make it clearer why it is there as we both start at the same point.

Want me to time index any particular comments under the video?

The one you gave me - 42:43 - is when he addresses Open PvE, and immediately after he makes some comments about it being a PvE coop mainly by design, but also including PvP.

 

[Jockey79]

The one you gave me - 42:43 - is when he addresses Open PvE, and immediately after he makes some comments about it being a PvE coop mainly by design, but also including PvP.

Rgr.

Will make a note of the time indexes for folks then. Thanks.

[Edit : Put time index above video for each part. ]