So, the only difference would be the effects on the BSG/PP. I don't see how that would attract players that prefer Solo/Group to suddenly feel compelled to play in open. Those groups you mentioned do, already base themselves in open. Nothing would change, except for volume of change in the BGS, on both sides. What would be the benefit in that?
- Status
So, the only difference would be the effects on the BSG/PP. I don't see how that would attract players that prefer Solo/Group to suddenly feel compelled to play in open. Those groups you mentioned do, already base themselves in open. Nothing would change, except for volume of change in the BGS, on both sides. What would be the benefit in that?
It's hard to see how that would benefit anyone. The BSG/PP would still rely on PvE activity. Some one would still have to shift the beans. The tally would still have to be taken, and the results recorded. Add to that, that all of the stuff you desire can go on now. I just don't think the volume of change on the BSG/PP counter being a deciding factor in the divide between the modes.
It sounds to me like some kind of putative measure. 'If I can't shoot you, I don't want to see your influence'. Is that it? The BGS/PP is so big that splitting the effects would just slow down change. Is the Open-only community even big enough to support the BGS on it's own. Some comments on this forum would suggest not. I still see little to no benefit, to the game as a whole, to your proposal. It seems more of a case of 'I'm going to take my ball and go home' than a way to better the game.
I can only speak for myself, but from my perspective I see it as being fine that players get to play how they feel comfortable in having fun. If that means playing alone in Solo or with a limited number in a Private Group, that is completely acceptable. I wouldn't want to force players to play something that isn't fun for them. A long time ago I realized that forcing players to play a game that isn't fun just so I can have fun, isn't fun for me either. It's only fun for me if it's fun for everyone.
That's the same argument that I've seen stated by proponents of Solo and Private Group, that they shouldn't have to play in Open Mode if they don't want to. And they are correct.
However, here's the thing and perhaps something that gets overlooked. Solo and Group players get to play the game they want. It's the Open Mode players who are not getting to play the way they have fun. It's not because players choose not to play in Open, but in Solo/Private Groups.
The reason to play Open is to challenge yourself and your decisions directly against other players in a way that your actions can be measured in their influence on the game. That's not currently how Elite Dangerous is structured, everyone plays against a game that is designed to marginalize players influence over the background simulation. That works just fine for Solo and Private Groups because players are focused on playing directly against the game itself. Open Mode players want to feel like they play against other players as much as they do against the game. That also includes playing with other players, against other players. They want a game that in some basic way, acknowledges what they do and the effort they put into playing it.
That can't happen as long as Solo and Private Group activities influence everything that happens to the simulation that Open Mode players also share. Part of the disparity of views between players on this matter is partly because I do not think some players and FDev themselves fully appreciate what is wrong with Open Mode. The Open Mode inflicts a condition that culminates in a feeling of insignificance to an Open Mode player. No matter what you do in the open mode, your actions can not be measured for their influence. You are still ultimately playing a Solo/Private Group game mode under the guise of a proper Open Mode feeling.
In the end, it would be great in my opinion if we could find some compromise that allowed Solo/Group and Open players to all coexist in one mode. However, that ideally won't happen. So, instead of battling to win players who are set to play the game a certain way, it should focus on getting the players who play neither to come back or start playing.
Solo/Group Modes work well enough for the players who play those game modes. It is Open Mode that needs adjustment to improve the environment. We don't need to convince players to play the game differently, because there are still enough players who do not play at all to populate open mode if it was simply more appealing.
This opportunity is being drowned out by the protectionist motive to defend what is working for some at the expense of not accepting what isn't working for others.
I don't want to fix the way any of you play. I don't want to force you to play the way I play. I just want to improve the way I play, because it isn't as fun as I think it could be.
And I think the way I like to play is fun enough to convince a lot of players to come play Elite Dangerous.
And that would make Elite Dangerous better for every one of us.
That's the same argument that I've seen stated by proponents of Solo and Private Group, that they shouldn't have to play in Open Mode if they don't want to. And they are correct.
However, here's the thing and perhaps something that gets overlooked. Solo and Group players get to play the game they want. It's the Open Mode players who are not getting to play the way they have fun. It's not because players choose not to play in Open, but in Solo/Private Groups.
The reason to play Open is to challenge yourself and your decisions directly against other players in a way that your actions can be measured in their influence on the game. That's not currently how Elite Dangerous is structured, everyone plays against a game that is designed to marginalize players influence over the background simulation. That works just fine for Solo and Private Groups because players are focused on playing directly against the game itself. Open Mode players want to feel like they play against other players as much as they do against the game. That also includes playing with other players, against other players. They want a game that in some basic way, acknowledges what they do and the effort they put into playing it.
That can't happen as long as Solo and Private Group activities influence everything that happens to the simulation that Open Mode players also share. Part of the disparity of views between players on this matter is partly because I do not think some players and FDev themselves fully appreciate what is wrong with Open Mode. The Open Mode inflicts a condition that culminates in a feeling of insignificance to an Open Mode player. No matter what you do in the open mode, your actions can not be measured for their influence. You are still ultimately playing a Solo/Private Group game mode under the guise of a proper Open Mode feeling.
In the end, it would be great in my opinion if we could find some compromise that allowed Solo/Group and Open players to all coexist in one mode. However, that ideally won't happen. So, instead of battling to win players who are set to play the game a certain way, it should focus on getting the players who play neither to come back or start playing.
Solo/Group Modes work well enough for the players who play those game modes. It is Open Mode that needs adjustment to improve the environment. We don't need to convince players to play the game differently, because there are still enough players who do not play at all to populate open mode if it was simply more appealing.
This opportunity is being drowned out by the protectionist motive to defend what is working for some at the expense of not accepting what isn't working for others.
I don't want to fix the way any of you play. I don't want to force you to play the way I play. I just want to improve the way I play, because it isn't as fun as I think it could be.
And I think the way I like to play is fun enough to convince a lot of players to come play Elite Dangerous.
And that would make Elite Dangerous better for every one of us.
I have no issues with anything you have written here. I would welcome any way to make open more attractive to the players. But, it has to be come in an organic way that doesn't penalize solo/groups players, nor incentivizes open. It has to come as a result of the open environment being more appealing and players choosing to play there.
Intrinsically no mode is more worthy than another, so there is no justification for artificially propping open up. My opinion has always been. Open has in it, just as many players as it can support. Start a campaign to hook the interested players up with a buddy to wing up with. Create an event in some system to attract interest. Anything like that would be very welcomes. It's should be up to the players to improve open's image and to attract as many players as they can. Don't ask FD to favor one play style over another.
Last edited:
I have repped that post[1], but with a caveat: the term "amount of extra risk" is a bit vague. The probability of a PVP encounter is relatively tiny, more so when you get out in the sticks. But the result of such an encounter, especially if you're flying a "PVE-build" ship, can be catastrophic. It's like playing Russian Roulette with a 2000-barrel revolver. The odds are very much in your favour, but if you get unlucky you're going to have a really bad time.
And it's that "PVE build" thing that's part of the problem. FD's clever design has given us the ability to switch modes, but their awful implementation of other game aspects means that to switch modes effectively we also have to switch ships, or at least modules. A predominantly Solo or Group player shouldn't have to keep a "PVP build" ship on standby if they want to go into Open, but they're asking for a whole lot of trouble if they don't. That's not the fault of those who prefer Open, that's the fault of FD for completely failing to balance the modes.
Everything's so damned convoluted at this point that it's almost impossible to come up with a working solution to this, but the fundamentals haven't really changed since last year. For what it's worth, buried as it will be in the noise of this thread, this is the roadmap I'd start with:
- Limit SCBs to one per ship
I can hear the wailing already, but since SCBs were dropped into the game without any warning or consultation they have become the single biggest factor in widening the gulf between the modes, and between NPCs and players, and thus bringing about the self-fulfilling prophecy that Solo would become "easy mode". NPCs use them rarely, and singly. Players should be similarly restricted. They should be a one-off "oops" button, not a backpack full of health potions.
- Bolster the authority response to aggressive acts in high-security, rich systems
I feel as though I'm banging my head on a wall with this one, but until the risk is balanced across different star systems in the same way it was in Frontier and FFE then there's no strategy when it comes to avoiding risk. Anarchy systems? Anything goes. Rich, high-tech democracies? Instant and overwhelming authority response to illegal aggression. With a sliding scale between them. I don't care how "unrealistic" instantly-spawning police ships are, it's what's needed. In a single-player game you would simply never spawn the aggressors in a "safe" system. In a multiplayer game where the aggressors are players, authority hammers are the only way.
- Balance the credit rewards according to risk
Once there's a sensible distinction between anarchies, democracies and everything in between, profits should scale accordingly. Trading milk runs in safe systems should pay barely enough to cover a ship's running costs. Bounty hunting missions should be rare and low-paying simply because criminals would be rare, and wouldn't live long enough to amass large bounties. In troubled and lawless systems the opposite would apply.
- Fix player-on-NPC piracy so it becomes as viable as player piracy
There's a whole bunch of things that need addressing here, from a proper "declare piracy" mode to better limpets and more valuable NPC cargo. At the moment even those people RPing "proper" pirates are basically having to target players just to make the numbers work, which is crazy. Of course some people will always want to pirate players, and that's their choice, but it shouldn't be a forced choice because the game doesn't offer anything as a sensible alternative.
- Tweak NPC spawns in Solo and Group according to player activity in Open
This is something that was discussed a few times in the DDF. Have a background level of NPC activity for each system that matches the current political state, but allow the game to tweak this if something unusual happens in Open. So if, say, a pirate player group decides to push its luck in a system that's been relatively safe, pirate NPC activity should increase accordingly in the other modes. If the player group is successful, the NPC activity continues. If not, it scales back again. Note, and I can't stress this enough, that this should only be done when all of the other tweaks are already in place. If the NPC spawn tweak was done first (and it might be tempting, because it's so relatively easy) then we'd have NPC aggressor gangs roaming freely in what should be safe systems just like their player counterparts, which would be the entire opposite of what needs to happen.
[RIGHT][1]actually I tried to but I haven't spread it around enough. Apologies, and make it a virtual +1 instead.[/RIGHT]
Last edited:
No one is arguing, or should be arguing, that one mode is better then another. That is the point, I think we've established that each mode is targeted towards a certain appeal for playing. Certainly, this is also not about anyone favoring one mode over another or compelling FDev into taking such a stance.
No offense, but your continued opinion gives me the impression that you, like many, do not understand why Open Mode players do not agree that everything is working as it should. A point that people keep rebuking, by trying to convince them that they are missing something.
They are not missing anything. The game is missing something.
What you are really saying is, "Pretend that it works the way you need it to".
If only it was that simple.
I applaud your post. It has a reasoned set of suggestions that don;t prioritize one mode over another. This is stuff we can sink our teeth into and potentially press on to FD. Thank god (if you believe in that sort of thing). I especially like how the 'Balance the credit rewards according to risk' portion of your post isn't mode specific. I Hope other, from both sides of the debate can shift focus to suggestion rather than recriminations. Bravo Commander.
I am down with restricting ships to one SCB each. The size of the ship should account for an increase in the power of the SCB's between ships. There is a thread, maybe more than one, lol, on changing the SCB thing. One has some clever ideas on improvements. This is a subject that needs to be worked out, and I will leave the debate to those threads.
The Authority response comes up a lot. I haven't much backround on the subject from the development discussions but my best guess is that is on the radar for FD, but our patience as a group is not too strong. The effects would have to be demonstrated before I could accept that it would help any. As it stands, authority ships hold no more threat than any other NPC, and to a skilled PK'er what threat could they pose. Only massive numbers of NPC's can really ruin anyone's party.
Changing the profitability of trade in less lawful systems would encourage players to take more risk, to make more credits, but I believe this goes hand in hand with the Authorities response and effectiveness. This would be subject to the same concerns as above.
I am totally in favor of improving the profitability of pirating NPC's. There should be nothing standing in the way of this idea. I abandoned piracy after my first few profitless attempts. The idea of piracy was/is an attractive RP game style, but in order to get the stuffs we all want, it wasn't doing it.
Tweaking the balance of NPC's to match open is a bit of a tricky subject. I have seen this discussed before and it smacks of Open is the true arbiter of play. There are uncounted instances of any given system, and to suggest that because one of them is populated more heavily than the next, that it should have an over all effect elsewhere is dubious. What would stop players groups from stuffing a zone to make travel through them a lag fest. Maybe we could use some debate over this feature.
I think the real issue here is time. Much of what we want the game to be is complicated to produce and have work right. FD needs time to put the pieces together, and it has to happen while we play. We have to have patience. That is where the rub is. There are just too many players who have not bought into the the game as a process. They have not accepted that things are where they are because it take time to implement these ambitious plans.
Each part of the puzzle has to be created, introduced, and adjusted. This means FD has to put things in game, gather data, adjust and gather again, and so on, as they put it all together. This is a new phenomena, for me at least, and the process has to be followed, and understood by us. Our combined attitude doesn't appear to have that kind of patience. Accepting deferred reward is not a strong suit around here. But let's hope that we can survive the fray while things come together.
Welcome to the debate, and do please return and contribute. Your voice should be well received.
I think I pretty well understand their frustrations. Open players feel that because they can't directly oppose all players, that they are being cheated out of game play. I am even willing to say that they may be. But, the ability for players to have the experience they want, individually, is more important than satisfying each and every player. It's like our 'Bill of Rights' here in the states. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. But, we still say you can't call 'Fire' in a crowded theater. There is a balance that has to be made to offer everyone an equal measure of that freedom. That is the crux of my stance. The ability for an individual to choose his playstyle, for that session, is more important than the player who want to have opposition to contend with directly.
FD has done a decent job of keeping the goals of the BSG/PP accessible to all. I say that open players can play as they wish, with the other players that wish to join them. I don;t suggest that they are wrong in their wish to contend, I just say they have to be satisfied to play with those that agree with them.
Absolutely not. I like the idea of working with other players on co-operative goals. I like the complexity that online brings, even though I never play in Open. My 'Carebear' antics do not affect your PvP.
Before I bought the game, I made sure that it would support the way I like to play.
Cheers, Phos.
While I agree with the rest of your post (i very much like the analogy to freedom of speech), I think it's important to correct this - it's practically impossible to force someone into a PVP encounter if they know what they're doing.
If the victim doesn't know to high-wake to another system, or to escape the encounter, then low wake and log out (which is not combat logging as no combat is happening) the chances are the PVP encounter will be more akin to a seal-clubbing "encounter".
I generally agree with the notion of limiting SCBs, but I have to disagree on the "NPCs use them rarely, and singly" part. From my experience, higher ranked NPCs, especially in bigger ships, use SCBs almost as often as you could expect from a human player. They usually don't carry as many SCBs, though (rarely more than two – banks, that is, with several charges, not just cells).
Wrong thread, comrade.
Functionally true, but I was speaking to the spirit of their distress, rather than any actual tactics. Some players expected the skies to be filled with willing opponents. They blame the option to play in solo/group for the lack they find now. The reality didn't meet their expectations, and I do sympathize.
How about checking the context next time?
- - - Updated - - -
Accept that the different modes as they are now are an intended core functionality of the game and that the developers are not inclined to change that.
/end thread.
Last edited:
I like the ideas except the last one that you feel is the most important. It is not a balancer in any way, instead it would be a mechanic that can be easily abused. As for your prior post to this one, I do kind of take exception to it. It would be great if more people played in Open, the game is for people to have fun. But you are coming from the premise of "The reason to play Open is to challenge yourself and your decisions directly against other players in a way that your actions can be measured in their influence on the game." Now that may be the reason that you are in open, but not ever other player plays in open for this reason. And even IF everyone in open played for the exact same reason as you mentioned there is still no reason to separate BGS of the modes. I really wish I understood why some in Open really think that the BGS is such a game breaking and evil thing. So you can't see every single ship that may influence a system minutely, neither can someone in solo or in a private group. Even if everyone was in open, you'd still never see every ship, even if you stayed awake and monitored the system 24/7. Separating the BGS would not be some magical fix all that would make Open more appealing.
Bounty hunting in Open is bugged.
I have NEVER seen a large wanted cruiser spawn in Open when I have been hunting in a wing at either a RES or NAV beacon.
If the cr received was the same in Open as in Solo I would play in Open all the time, as I would enjoy the greater challenge AND the camaraderie between myself and my wingmen friends.
Its a bit disappointing that you have to play Solo to make enough cr to buy the bigger ships.
Just my noobish opinion.
I have NEVER seen a large wanted cruiser spawn in Open when I have been hunting in a wing at either a RES or NAV beacon.
If the cr received was the same in Open as in Solo I would play in Open all the time, as I would enjoy the greater challenge AND the camaraderie between myself and my wingmen friends.
Its a bit disappointing that you have to play Solo to make enough cr to buy the bigger ships.
Just my noobish opinion.
How about not being lazy and actually bothering to make your contribution relevant to the thread?
This is not a thread about shield cell banks. Your entire post was about shield cell banks. This entire thread is about open Vs. groups Vs. solo modes. If you feel your contribution is relevant, it behoves you to demonstrate it. For the record, I still think it isn't. Deal with it.
Last edited:
- Status