Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Yeah.. no. That defeats the point of having multiple playstyles even being an option.
By that same logic, take all the weapons out the game, and all the hostile entities and make a pure space-trucking simulator with no online component and watch the playerbase die overnight.
You really can't have a sensible discussion on these forums at all can you.
I don't know why I'm even wasting my breath. Frontier needs to start ignoring a lot of the people on here entirely as they don't care about a fair gameplay element, they care about an advantage that only they posses.
I don't know why I'm even wasting my breath. Frontier needs to start ignoring a lot of the people on here entirely as they don't care about a fair gameplay element, they care about an advantage that only they posses.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all, given I’ve said as much, repeatedly, on this thread.
For an allegedly “PvP based system,” it has very few features that facilitate PvP, starting with who is hosting the instances.
And there is no weighted influence from Solo/PG, anymore than there is in Open. Outside of, as you say, “the wrong place, wrong time,” the chance of a random hostile encounter is so slim, it’s a distinction without a difference, and the advantages of Open, namely the huge pool of potential players to form a PUG with, by far outweighs that minuscule amount of risk.
The fact remains that some players are simply not fun to play with. If most of those players are playing in Solo/PG for whatever reason, I’d much rather they stay in those modes, thank you very much. I’m already not instancing with 99% of the playerbase due to the real world equivalent of “wrong place, wrong time.” Does it really matter if the modes make that it’s 99.2% or 99.3%?
See the post regarding efficiency and the Cutter example for more on how Solo/PG impact the system. I'm not going to repeat it.
The reason you don't encounter any is because there is no concerted community effort to push certain powers in Open, the majority of players doing that, will do it in solo or PG, where they have an efficiency advantage.
If we want this system to work effectively, then open only is the way to go.
As players get used to the system and start making cohesive moves to push factions in certain territories, then there would be many more ships in open, and an obvious effort in certain places, and thusly a push-pull in every respect regarding interacting with the system.
Some players will hunt those of other factions to stop them contributing to the command points, others will hunt those commanders, some will pirate the players doing the undermining, others will do the undermining itself. This allows for a gameplay ecosystem in which the community is fully involved and enforces community ties as a result.
As I stated earlier, there would be alliances, and mercenaries and the like resulting from PvP becoming a more meaningful form of gameplay, this builds relations, and makes player based faction play diverse and more nuanced.
Again, you would see a lot less in the way of random murderhobo'ing if you have PvP players joining groups and fighting for a cause. You might sometimes have some on-side who will cover your six, you might also have others who will seek to destroy you, this is how emergent, community based gameplay works.
Yep hey I think that weighted approach makes a lot of sense so the private/arcade style players can even feel like they are "chipping in" to the live world problems. It's really the same thing to be said about factions too though. I dunno, like let's say you go to an open chess tournament and play five hard games but ohh stand little chance, because people at home were commonly able to beat NES chess twenty times in the same timeframe.
It seems like that to me.
Best regards,
It seems like that to me.
Best regards,
If you say so man.
I'm all for intelligent discussion from a logical standpoint, I'm not going to indulge deliberately inflammatory attitudes or a refusal to see things beyond your own little bubble. So crack on posting, I'm going to ignore you henceforth.
But the risk of that 1% changes how you play the ENTIRETY of the other 99%...
Someone has left ham slices on your eyes.
^^^But it doesn't, i fly the same ship in all modes, go to the same systems
O7
This.
I can get to my destination much quicker, as well as much safer, with shields than I can without. And those same shields will protect my ship from players just as easily as NPCs. The only difference between a player and an NPC is that I might be willing to try and fight an NPC, and that NPCs don't get confused when I don't follow their script on how an encounter should go.
Noone is getting confused by you being forced to leave an instance. I don't know where you're pulling that from lol.
The point is, you will always be at an efficiency advantage in solo or PG than you will be in open. NPC interdictions can be evaded in even the most immobile ships, they're absolutely no challenge whatsoever. PvP based interdictions, if you fight them, are a losing battle due to how PvPers are of a much higher skill bracket in said mechanic due to it being a part of their day to day.
If you submit, it goes one of two ways. You make the mistake of jumping back into low space, and get interdicted again, which then costs more time, and thusly you're losing out to the solo player in efficiency there, or you do the smart thing and high-wake out of the system and try again, hoping said players are busy elsewhere, if they're not, repeat the cycle, losing yet more time compared to what is achievable in solo or PG.
There is no requirement for a shield in Solo or PG, due to the ease of evading NPC's, so tonnage is more efficient to move and thusly each one of these things compounds over a time-period to the degree you simply wont be able to out-do someone in either of those modes because of the drop in time, and therefore efficiency.
Of course there is also situation number three; You get pulled, Grom-bombed and destroyed, potentially sending you to the prison ship if you have outstanding fines in the system you were destroyed in, or at the very least, sending you to the station with an empty cargo hold, time lost, try again.
There is an inherent imbalance between these group settings. Like it or not, thats the fact of the matter.
Sure, you might not see anyone within the system you're doing your business, and at the moment, as people adjust to the new system, that might well be the norm, as groups start to organize, if you play in Open, these are indeed potential outcomes for your undermining activities should you take part in the wider faction effort.
You don't have to deal with any of them in Solo or PG, at best you might get one NPC try to stop you en-route, which can be evaded in less than 30s, the other scenarios do not allow for that, hence the efficiency goes down, and assuming equivalent time played, you will not be able to compete with how much Solo/PG players will be able to influence the system when you are playing in Open.
To be fair mate its a mute point, there is so much exploiting going on Solo/PG/Open makes no difference at all.
O7
You are wrong on my assumption. The suggestion to implement v2.0 PP into an open-world PVP framework molds the player vs. player activities into a massive intergalactic dominance venue where players have an open forum to seek out and engage other rival faction players. You can go through the annexes of online gaming history to learn that games that have boundaries on player vs. player do very well, in balancing the player vs. player activities to coexist within the player-base that do not engage in player vs. player activities. Any game that does not implement boundaries to shape the scope of player vs. player activities divides the player-base, and in this context, which server choice players prefer while playing.
To address your presumption, I am fielded the suggestion to use the now released v2.0 PP to shape and set boundaries to player vs. player activities. The "gank" or "gankers" verbiage describes one PVP playstyle of the player vs. player enabled environments: Lots of people cry "gank" and get salty when their defeated without a chance, including veterans within player vs. players communities cry foul when they felt wronged.
I am trying to track on what you're saying. There are plenty of online players that engage in PVP solo style, a story unto themselves, in many, many PVP oriented games. Using v2.0 PP does not remove or distract from that player's story unto themselves; however, the story unto themselves is told within the player vs. player boundaries and scope of the game. Just because v2.0 PP is designed to be progressive collaboration of players to support their chosen faction, within the galaxy, does not force players into a team vs. team PVP environment than leaving that type of group play open to the players to decide. Player vs. player activities within the boundaries of the v2.0 PP is only one factor in deciding the progression or regression of their PP faction.
FDEV can do whatever in the game. I am merely pointing out an option to define boundaries and the "membrane" between consensual and nonconsensual PVP that would be adjoined together without rigid rulesets: a quick isRivalFaction? Boolean validation on FS Interdictions is one boundary to support the scope of the v2.0 PP player vs. player environment.
It's not a moot point
Open can't compete based on numbers. That's it. Too many are doing their business in PG/Solo for the open die hards to counteract them. Not that PvPers were ever stemming the tide against even other open players. Besides, open only PP2 does not mean more players in open. It means fewer players engaging in PP2.
The whole, "my play style is the correct play style and I should be rewarded over people that don't play like me", thing is pretty annoying at this point. We all have the same ability to choose our mode. If someone wants to sacrifice meta because one way is more fun to them, that is their business, and their choice. They are not somehow worthy of higher rewards.
Some are just looking for additional victims, and others want meta benefits without the sacrifice of following the meta.
The whole, "my play style is the correct play style and I should be rewarded over people that don't play like me", thing is pretty annoying at this point. We all have the same ability to choose our mode. If someone wants to sacrifice meta because one way is more fun to them, that is their business, and their choice. They are not somehow worthy of higher rewards.
Some are just looking for additional victims, and others want meta benefits without the sacrifice of following the meta.
...said the fox not able to reach the grapes.
Good for you, no reasons to use other than open-play modes then.But it doesn't, i fly the same ship in all modes, go to the same systems
