In this Thargoid war there's also the point that Open just doesn't work. If you want a good instance to fight Thargoids sensibly in, it really has to be a private group. Open just goes wrong too much, with Thargoids only some people can see or which can't be damaged, etc.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
Coriolis EDCD Edition
A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous
s.orbis.zone
Not enough to survive against a wing, but enough to avoid what happened above...
Can work with 6A G5 Armoured/monstered PP as well.
Coriolis EDCD Edition
A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous
s.orbis.zone
Last edited:
What you do not get, is that getting roflstomped or attempt of it for many players does NOT add anything additional interest in gameplay. Though I agree flyin unshielded in Open is not wise way. I don't fly unshielded even in Solo.Coriolis EDCD Edition
A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous
Not enough to survive against a wing, but enough to avoid what happened above...
Can work with 6A G5 Armoured/monstered PP as well.
Coriolis EDCD Edition
A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous
Refugee runs don't work in open primarily due to the limited number of pads on the rescue ships.
That's something we learnt fairly quickly. I'd be surprised if there was still that much open traffic on the refugee runs now.
That maybe deliberate on Fdev's part to deprive gankers of 'content'.
That's rather deliberate from FD not wanting to implement another asset due to maintenance mode (Bingo anyone?) I'd say.
If you remember the first time rescue ships came along, we had sooo many ganks (my first one yay)... I don't believe one second there is any anti ganker masterplan behind this.
I'm curious, how many players do you know that don't participate in PP due to being able to participate in solo/PG?
If it were an isolated occurrence perhaps, but after a bunch of rare commodity (load a carrier) CGs and Megaship based CGs a pattern seems to emerge.
Even during the AX weapon CGs the closest we had to a ganking rant was someone complaining about hatchbreaking at Eurybia.
I don't honestly know, and I suspect that solo / PG is more of a straw / camels back issue on top of a lot of other problems in Powerplay (i.e. non existent opposition / repetitive gameplay).
Its what leads me to think Powerplay will become a Goid War like layer of the BGS, because Powerplay today is really a design that needed open to work given the restrictions of the BGS and game at the time.
No, it was not that one, that was something different, more "basic" about game difficulty itself.
... but making the best missions unlockable by higher security and economy states (and those would have been unlocked by trading and bounty hunting), making those activities matter in a different (and more strategic) way. Anyway, we're going offtopic.
It's not simply increasing them, it's adding more challenge to some activities making them count more than simplier actions, both for personal reward and impact on the game. That's what usually happens in most videogames btw. And one of the best counter-measures to grind and botting too (complex actions are less likely to be botted).
And about Open in Powerplay well... Sammarco did actually try to propose Open Only Powerplay. Ruining somebody's kid birthday btw, can't really remember who it was, I only remember my jaw dropped to the ground for that comment, really, it's a game and some people take it far too seriously, whoever it was I really hope they got something more important in their life somewhere on the road.
You've always been the optimistic one.
Ayway, I looked for that Security thread and couldn't find anything. I will make a thread about it then.
That's very subjective: no reason to do that if not interested... as that's only works for the ones looking for additional challenges.
Would you be prepared to have Open Only PP if it meant a significant drop in the number of participants?
If it meant you lost 10 -20% or so (which would have been in line with % opinion when Sandro / OA discussed it) then I'd take it- however you can still please everyone by doing smart design. My old suggestion of having explicit jobs for each mode would be one way but can only be done in those modes (so the Open part is the combat side, the solo / PG is the logistics of generating the cargo / PP materials).
But as I said to Robert, it really boils down to 'players as NPCs or NPCs like players'. Currently NPCs are living in 2015, and act like it against god tier engineered players, which is the crux of the problem, something that Open solves via brute force. If PP is to really be a mode agnostic feature FD will need to solve the issue of this- PP at its heart is a bubble wide war zone and NPCs / how NPCs spawn and attack just are not up to that. With U14 FD have built a prototype for this very thing, using missions and POI zones / BGS states, and danger is priced in.
In the end, I'll be happy with a system that scares and challenges me so that I have to play PP. Right now its the thinnest PvE imaginable and far below what it was billed as.
Wanting humanity to be defeated is a reason. Wanting to destroy ill prepared vessels is a reason. Either of which would be more understandable, by virtue of being more supported by the game's setting and mechanisms, than piracy.
As for grudge matches...well, a grudge has to start somewhere.
I've never had my CMDR pledge to any PP faction and my only participation is incidental.
Power Play has a lot of problems beyond the instancing system, but I would be much more inclined to take a second look if more direct conflict was practical.
That would remove almost all of the organic incentives for conflict. I want to have to scout, smuggle, run blockades, and commerce raid, among other things...none of which can work if contact or conflict is optional, or artificially segregated.
In reality no it would not- in essence for that idea the Open side would be Powerplay as it is today, the solo side would be missions generating / managing the cargo people move / make in Open. Open gets the combat from other players and solo / PG gets the trucking.
A Goid based PvE PP that has graded mission difficulty that has a radically higher difficulty ceiling (based on your Powerplay actions / choices) would do what you ask for too. But for that to work NPCs have to be a lot more aggressive and capable if you so choose to work for greater rewards.
So you're prepared to accept a 20% fall in participation. What would be your cut off point, if any?
The cut-off would be when nothing happens- and going from Sandros topics and OAs poll a great number would have come back.
Asking about numbers is moot really, since its more about those in Open interacting more and its that driving Powerplays gameplay- for example at least in Powerplay you have the core players (about 25%) that do all the heavy lifting and make powers 'work'.
I think we cannot really make previsions about player participation in Powerplay should it ever become an Open Only feature. It's true that some players will probably stop playing Powerplay, on the other hand some others could give it a try because, being the only exclusively open and pvp oriented activity of the game, it could give them something otherwise impossible to experience in Elite Dangerous.
Only thing we are sure is that Powerplay cannot keep on like it is right now, that's for sure. Then I hope FDev will consider if they want to make it a wider version of BGS (and it would be a shame and another lost opportunity in my opinion, but an improvement for sure) or maybe something completely different, giving finally context and solidity to player interaction.
Being them both friendly and hostile.
Only thing we are sure is that Powerplay cannot keep on like it is right now, that's for sure. Then I hope FDev will consider if they want to make it a wider version of BGS (and it would be a shame and another lost opportunity in my opinion, but an improvement for sure) or maybe something completely different, giving finally context and solidity to player interaction.
Being them both friendly and hostile.
Reasonz.
.
Reasonz, "ganking good".
Of course, wanton terrorism is in any setting more reasonable and common than criminal activity for economic gain. And more leniently tolerated. From mechanics part you are right, actual piracy is harder than simple ganking.