Modes These arguments are tedious.

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
This topic is active simply because Frontier have not capitulated to the demands of a subset of a subset of the player-base regarding the access to existing game content.

Whether it needs to change is a matter of opinion.

What like they did with C&P. The only consistency is the inconsistency - IMO
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
What like they did with C&P. The only consistency is the inconsistency - IMO

I expect that the changes to C&P were as a result of Frontier's apparent desire to encourage more players to play in Open - and the previous disparity in consequences for the targeted player (rebuy, loss of cargo, exploration data, NPC Pilot, etc.) and the attacker (6,000 Cr. bounty) did not seem to encourage those who might, more often than not, be the target in such an interaction.
 
This topic is active simply because Frontier have not capitulated to the demands of a subset of a subset of the player-base regarding the access to existing game content.

Whether it needs to change is a matter of opinion.
"It" has to change, "it" being content geared towards PvP.

"It" cannot be done by restricting gameplay from players who have paid and are actively engaged in this gameplay.

It's obvious, if anything is going to be changed, it's going to be an addition. Either by adding a layer on the existing BGS/PP mechanic, or by introducing a new mechanic.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
"It" has to change, "it" being content geared towards PvP.

"It" cannot be done by restricting gameplay from players who have paid and are actively engaged in this gameplay.

It's obvious, if anything is going to be changed, it's going to be an addition. Either by adding a layer on the existing BGS/PP mechanic, or by introducing a new mechanic.

The "it" I was responding to was the contention that Player Factions being the same as NPC Factions, in terms of the BGS and pan-modal interaction, "has to change" to suit those players who prefer PvP.
 
The "it" I was responding to was the contention that Player Factions being the same as NPC Factions, in terms of the BGS and pan-modal interaction, "has to change" to suit those players who prefer PvP.
Fairy Nuff. To be honest, I started reading the thread and by the end I was confused about what "it" was. The "it" that needs to change is quite a dynamic concept and changes from post to post ("L.A. to Chicago") :)

But then a diddy sprang to mind, as it always does.

https://youtu.be/ZG_k5CSYKhg?t=108
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Fairy Nuff. To be honest, I started reading the thread and by the end I was confused about what "it" was. The "it" that needs to change is quite a dynamic concept and changes from post to post ("L.A. to Chicago") :)

Those seeking changes to the status quo don't present a single focused proposal - it varies from "remove Solo and Private Groups" at one extreme to the more benign "increased reward for Open play based on the increased risk".

The former is extremely unlikely to happen due to the fact that all three game modes have been part of the published design from the outset and the fact that Frontier have stated, on more than one occasion, that they consider the game modes to be equal and valid choices.

Going down the risk based reward route might end up with unexpected (to those seeking such a change) outcomes - as many decisions made by the player contribute to the level of risk (or lack thereof) that they experience.
 

ALGOMATIC

Banned
Those seeking changes to the status quo don't present a single focused proposal - it varies from "remove Solo and Private Groups" at one extreme to the more benign "increased reward for Open play based on the increased risk".

The former is extremely unlikely to happen due to the fact that all three game modes have been part of the published design from the outset and the fact that Frontier have stated, on more than one occasion, that they consider the game modes to be equal and valid choices.

Going down the risk based reward route might end up with unexpected (to those seeking such a change) outcomes - as many decisions made by the player contribute to the level of risk (or lack thereof) that they experience.

Common, my proposal is good. There are like what, 100 PFs out of thousands NPC factions. Make those open only the rest stays the same.

PP, it is a failure anyway why not make it OPEN only and let PvP rule this domain. You can still haul cargo but cannot avoid direct resistance.

SOLO, add any features that would be if ED is a single player game. I just dont know what additions SOLO players miss because of balancing the MP part, I know they are restricted in some ways.
 
Common, my proposal is good. There are like what, 100 PFs out of thousands NPC factions.

They are all NPC factions. Just because you convinced Frontier to change the name of one, doesn't make it yours.
It's still an NPC faction you try to influence, from any mode, just like the rest.

PP, it is a failure anyway why not make it OPEN only and let PvP rule this domain. You can still haul cargo but cannot avoid direct resistance.

There are lots of options for PP, of which quite a few have nothing to do with the mode system.
That's just another red herring and you know it.

SOLO, add any features that would be if ED is a single player game. I just dont know what additions SOLO players miss because of balancing the MP part, I know they are restricted in some ways.

Solo currently miss out on Wingmen and Multicrew.
Frontier cold make AI ships/crew to fill those roles but currently have not.
 

ALGOMATIC

Banned
This is why I've been quiet, because I tried this over a year ago and got the same response.
That's how I discovered the difference between real PvP'ers and just griefers / gankers.
Those making demands, are not real PvP'ers and are not trying to improve PvP or Elite.

Lucky for us, Frontier do read the forums and have seen what these "vocal few" are up to.

I just gave a good proposal to make PF and PP open only to force direct opposition instead of PG wars, will give meaning to PvP, SOLO players will remain un affected and are free to interact with NPCs bgs factions.
I also suggested for vastly improvements of the SOLO player expirience by giving them things that wont be availble in OPEN.

Does it sound like griefing to you?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Forcing players to play in Open to be able to influence their Faction seems to be a non-starter, given that the majority of players don't seem to get involved in PvP (i.e. the majority of Player Factions may also have been introduced for player groups that don't get involved in PvP).

Making changes to Solo would affect Open indirectly - as players can mode switch at will.
 
I just gave a good proposal to make PF and PP open only to force direct opposition instead of PG wars, will give meaning to PvP, SOLO players will remain un affected and are free to interact with NPCs bgs factions.
I also suggested for vastly improvements of the SOLO player expirience by giving them things that wont be availble in OPEN.

Does it sound like griefing to you?
Nope. Sounds like: please can I have more players who are flying non-combat ships? Because I am too scared to face combat ships, so I'll not consider ideas that will pit combat ship vs combat ship. Instead I want traders and couriers that don't provide any challenge to me. Otherwise I might lose. And someone will make a youtube of me losing. And that's no fun. The only fun youtubes are those of me killing a whole bunch of sub par ships.

It sounds like: I can dish out, but I can't take it.
 

ALGOMATIC

Banned
Nope. Sounds like: please can I have more players who are flying non-combat ships? Because I am too scared to face combat ships, so I'll not consider ideas that will pit combat ship vs combat ship. Instead I want traders and couriers that don't provide any challenge to me. Otherwise I might lose. And someone will make a youtube of me losing. And that's no fun. The only fun youtubes are those of me killing a whole bunch of sub par ships.

It sounds like: I can dish out, but I can't take it.

WHAT????

Anyone involved in PF vs PF or PP vs PP will have combat ships of they chose so.
 

ALGOMATIC

Banned
Sounds like this thread is taking the ussual turn.

So to conclude and answer the original suggestion:

OPEN only content is a must. New layer or existing layer, doesnt matter. PvP takes the most effort and preparation both from combat and trader ships. It has to be rewarded accordingly.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Sounds like this thread is taking the ussual turn.

So to conclude and answer the original suggestion:

OPEN only content is a must. New layer or existing layer, doesnt matter. PvP takes the most effort and preparation both from combat and trader ships. It has to be rewarded accordingly.

It usually does when there are demands for existing content to be made inaccessible in two of the three game modes (and completely inaccessible to players on consoles without premium platform access).

A new layer - that's a much less contentious request that would very probably gain more widespread support.
 
WHAT????

Anyone involved in PF vs PF or PP vs PP will have combat ships of they chose so.
Because PvP is so effective in influencing the BGS right? No it's not. So whoever is doing the BGS and PP will not have PvP fitted ships. They'll be subpar to PvP builds. Just the way you like it. You having the advantage, no opposition.

You know this, don't play coy. It's transparent and it's not fooling anyone.
Yes it is. Their choice of which ships to fly with. They chose to fly min maxed trader, thats on them.
Doesn't need to be min/maxed traders, shielded traders don't pose a threat to you either. As I said before, you will argue anything as long as you're the one having the advantage, and will cry foul when that advantage is negated.

Can dish out, can't take it.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom