Too late, already happened/happening lol
- Status
Too late, already happened/happening lol
Stopped reading here so this may have been responded to later. Answering points raised:
This is in no way true in every case, and probably at least half of them are out beyond the core systems. You'd get only NPCs even if you were in open, so, not less risk.
"Player opposition" would depend on many of the points raised repeatedly in this thread. I'm not going to delineate all of them. Suffice it to say that you might be able to stop some deliveries but not all or even half, given the matchmaker's parameters with regard to ping times & instance load. You might sometimes see 12 people in an instance.
"Player opposition" is the sticking point; you have the same ways & means to "combat" undermining & fortification. PowerPlay has explained this many times; you have exactly the same choices as the rest of the modes. You just don't want to accept that. It is not a direct-combat situation or framework.
Pretty wrong there. If you go just outside of the main ports-of-call or stay off 3rd-party commodities lists, you probably won't see another person for weeks (and this according to many open players who post here).
Um, there's always risk. Getting trapped between two suns comes to mind. Being repeatedly interdic't by the (much smarter now) AI opponents does also. If you wish to play open but avoid the jerks, you just keep rerolling the instance until they are (mostly) gone.
Well, there's a problem there: many open advocates posting here tell me that "open is a barren wasteland" and then you make it sound like it's jam-packed with hostile forces. This is rather confusing. Either it is or it ain't.
Open affects my playstyle too; all the modes do. Because of the cesspool open has become (according to some) you are complaining about the state of open. That's fine. But don't expect to talk about taking things away from the other two modes to favor open; it just isn't going to happen, no matter how many posts of this type are made.
Please see the links in Jockey's sig regarding the many times FD has said the modes are a core game feature.
This is in no way true in every case, and probably at least half of them are out beyond the core systems. You'd get only NPCs even if you were in open, so, not less risk.
"Player opposition" would depend on many of the points raised repeatedly in this thread. I'm not going to delineate all of them. Suffice it to say that you might be able to stop some deliveries but not all or even half, given the matchmaker's parameters with regard to ping times & instance load. You might sometimes see 12 people in an instance.
"Player opposition" is the sticking point; you have the same ways & means to "combat" undermining & fortification. PowerPlay has explained this many times; you have exactly the same choices as the rest of the modes. You just don't want to accept that. It is not a direct-combat situation or framework.
Pretty wrong there. If you go just outside of the main ports-of-call or stay off 3rd-party commodities lists, you probably won't see another person for weeks (and this according to many open players who post here).
Um, there's always risk. Getting trapped between two suns comes to mind. Being repeatedly interdic't by the (much smarter now) AI opponents does also. If you wish to play open but avoid the jerks, you just keep rerolling the instance until they are (mostly) gone.
Well, there's a problem there: many open advocates posting here tell me that "open is a barren wasteland" and then you make it sound like it's jam-packed with hostile forces. This is rather confusing. Either it is or it ain't.
Open affects my playstyle too; all the modes do. Because of the cesspool open has become (according to some) you are complaining about the state of open. That's fine. But don't expect to talk about taking things away from the other two modes to favor open; it just isn't going to happen, no matter how many posts of this type are made.
Please see the links in Jockey's sig regarding the many times FD has said the modes are a core game feature.
Lots of people will be disadvantaged. Who in their right mind wants to grind out 3 character? Seriously, if anyone really thinks players are going to grind out a Mobus character and then switch to an open character to make open players happy they are crazy.
People will ether stick with one mode (likely not open) or be so annoyed that FD went back on a core concept for the game, and stop playing altogether.
"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
I guess players and bases would have to occupy the same instance for players to see it. And of course your base can be looted and destroyed while you're away --that's part of the risk. That's why you build it somewhere remote and quiet where it cannot be easily found at all unless someone skims over a planet and stumbles across it.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah, you've got a point there. :/
Last edited:
I'd rep you again if I only could...
Got him for you
Not sure what you mean by the same instance - the same instance as what?
I think he means "every" instance - it makes more sense that way.
Well, every instance (like a station) would work, but then they cannot be destroyed (only looted), because the status of the base would have to be the same across all instances. The same instance as the players might work, in that the base would have to be stumbled on, like a USS of sorts. Whereas a station would have to be visible to everybody, the base would only be visible to players stumbling on its little sphere of existence.
The "all modes are good modes" people posting here since the first megathread was spawned (who are classified as "solo/groups") have not turned down "every idea" from open-pvp advocates. We have echoed other open posters in calling for real penalties to player murder, ganking and the like. We've even offered some of our own ideas to help open.
Where we draw the line is taking things away from the solo/group modes or adding penalties (x% less profit; x% less PP actions, etc) or "enticements" (x% more basic income, x% more credit, etc). None of us has initiated suggestions to nerf or penalize open; only players, because that is where the problem seems to lie for the open-pvp crowd.
The solo/group crowd... doesn't really care. They have no problem with "invisible ghost armies" affecting trade prices or PowerPlay; just one other element of randomization added to the BGS. Is open "a barren wasteland"? This seems to be where the open-pvp crowd have complaints. If open is that way, then players are making it that way. Fortunately, we don't have to play with those players if we choose.
Then again, "open is chock full of pvp gankers, sharks and hackers" gets put forward as "the risk we take in open." So? You asked for the risk; it's why you're playing open. You want to be rewarded for that? Particularly seeing as many open-pvp players post to many threads citing this "moar risk" as an excuse to alter the solo/group's game?
You chose your mode. You knew what that entailed. You also still have the choice of playing in solo or group mode. If you don't want to take it, one positive solution is for FD to amp up the federal cops and penalties for player murder (which many people have asked for - solo, group or open). If you're not being disingenuous, this should satisfy; open will become "safer" and probably more people would play there.
But taking things away from two of the three modes because one mode is making problems for itself through player actions? Ain't gonna happen. DB has reiterated this point time and again. Trying somehow to strongarm FD through forums is ridiculous and, I might add, ugly and really shows a player's orientation to the game and to other players no matter how clever their Debating 101 tactics appear.
Where we draw the line is taking things away from the solo/group modes or adding penalties (x% less profit; x% less PP actions, etc) or "enticements" (x% more basic income, x% more credit, etc). None of us has initiated suggestions to nerf or penalize open; only players, because that is where the problem seems to lie for the open-pvp crowd.
The solo/group crowd... doesn't really care. They have no problem with "invisible ghost armies" affecting trade prices or PowerPlay; just one other element of randomization added to the BGS. Is open "a barren wasteland"? This seems to be where the open-pvp crowd have complaints. If open is that way, then players are making it that way. Fortunately, we don't have to play with those players if we choose.
Then again, "open is chock full of pvp gankers, sharks and hackers" gets put forward as "the risk we take in open." So? You asked for the risk; it's why you're playing open. You want to be rewarded for that? Particularly seeing as many open-pvp players post to many threads citing this "moar risk" as an excuse to alter the solo/group's game?
You chose your mode. You knew what that entailed. You also still have the choice of playing in solo or group mode. If you don't want to take it, one positive solution is for FD to amp up the federal cops and penalties for player murder (which many people have asked for - solo, group or open). If you're not being disingenuous, this should satisfy; open will become "safer" and probably more people would play there.
But taking things away from two of the three modes because one mode is making problems for itself through player actions? Ain't gonna happen. DB has reiterated this point time and again. Trying somehow to strongarm FD through forums is ridiculous and, I might add, ugly and really shows a player's orientation to the game and to other players no matter how clever their Debating 101 tactics appear.
Last edited:
The problem is that instances overlap the same physical space. It would be very easy to have different people in different instances at the same location even if thy were all in open.
So even if they could only be looted the owners would freak out if they could be looted by someone they couldn't see in a different instance. They get upset about PP and CGs - if we were talking about structures they "own" they would be incandescent.
It would make this thread look like a happy clappy tea party...
That is what is so confusing.. to some those of us who don't play in open are "cheats" and demand stuff.. yet they can't form a good argument against others who play in Open and utterly contradict those who claim "solo is ruining open"
Yep. One of the main arguments used to make players try Open — that PvP is actually rare, and thus that it isn't really more dangerous than Solo or Group — is clearly at odds with the argument that Open should give more rewards because it's more dangerous, riskier.
(Which is a fallacy, BTW. Well-designed games don't attach rewards to difficulty or risk per see; they instead attach rewards to content that most or all the intended player base will enjoy, in order to get the players to try it, while avoiding over-rewarding any piece of content that only a part of the player base will enjoy in order to not cause burn-out. It's why in so many games the greatest challenges merely award some bragging rights, in the shape of an achievement or trophy of some kind, neat but ultimately useless. And given that ED explicitly aimed to attract players that don't want to have anything to do with PvP too...)
Instances are only created when the players are somewhere because, well, the "instance server" is actually the players' computers. It's what the game's networking being peer to peer means. And what allows Solo to work on a crappy tethered mobile connection inside a moving train (actually used by DB as a selling point for the game, for those that did their research).
So, there is not a permanent instance for a building to exist in. Instances are destroyed as soon as every player has left. Thus, if a player's building could only exist in the same instance as the player, it would only exist while the player is actually in or around the building.
Last edited:
- Status