We're a cartel now? Are there benefits? Do we get dental? Is there a secret handshake?
- Status
We're a cartel now? Are there benefits? Do we get dental? Is there a secret handshake?
It's more than that. It was explicitly stated by Frontier, from the start, that they wanted Solo players to influence how the galaxy develops, including having their contribution to dev-created events counted in the result. Heck, at the start of the Kickstart they didn't want to promise an offline mode because Frontier preferred the players that wanted to play on their own to be instead in Solo, influencing the galaxy simulation.
I'm not sure it's feasible. I don't think faster than light networking will be developed in my lifetime, and without that some kind of instancing will always be needed in fast paced games where the players come from all around the world, otherwise lag will ruin the experience.
One of the aspects of mastering the instancing is that, with a bit of knowledge, players are easily able to prevent anyone else from joining their instances, and thus can force Open to behave like Solo
I'm sorry but anyone who thinks that game wide actions should be restricted to OPEN ONLY is wrong and incredibly selfish. The only difference in the modes is the level ability to see and interact with others, that is IT...end of differences. ALL MODES (excluding CQC as it is arena and separate from the BGS) can and do affect the background simulation in the same way. Those in open don't magically influence it better than others. Can they alter the way someone else effects? Yes it is possible, but it is even possible for an NPC in solo or group. That doesn't make Open "special". The ability to shoot another player should IN NO WAY be a requirement for having the ability to effect the BSG. Those in Solo or in group have as much right to effect the BSG as someone in Open.
I am frankly sick and flippin tired of people thinking they are entitled to effect the BSG over others just because of the mode of play they chose to play. It is elitism and is beyond stupid. Your ability to shoot others does not make you superior than others, just means you can shoot others. In truth I feel that if you think playing in open gives you any entitlement at all that you're being egotistical and again incredibly selfish. And the suggestion that a PVE group cannot even influence their own in game faction because they don't play in open and you cannot shoot them is frankly asinine. You can counter them the same way they influence.. PVP is NOT nor has it EVER been a requirement for influencing.
Play the game and quit getting all twisted up in how others play and trying to nerf/curtail playstyles different than your own. You are a part of the community NOT the ruling class or above others. Quit acting like you are.
I am frankly sick and flippin tired of people thinking they are entitled to effect the BSG over others just because of the mode of play they chose to play. It is elitism and is beyond stupid. Your ability to shoot others does not make you superior than others, just means you can shoot others. In truth I feel that if you think playing in open gives you any entitlement at all that you're being egotistical and again incredibly selfish. And the suggestion that a PVE group cannot even influence their own in game faction because they don't play in open and you cannot shoot them is frankly asinine. You can counter them the same way they influence.. PVP is NOT nor has it EVER been a requirement for influencing.
Play the game and quit getting all twisted up in how others play and trying to nerf/curtail playstyles different than your own. You are a part of the community NOT the ruling class or above others. Quit acting like you are.
I'm not sure it's feasible. I don't think faster than light networking will be developed in my lifetime, and without that some kind of instancing will always be needed in fast paced games where the players come from all around the world, otherwise lag will ruin the experience.
One of the aspects of mastering the instancing is that, with a bit of knowledge, players are easily able to prevent anyone else from joining their instances, and thus can force Open to behave like Solo
As I've explained (suggested?) before, there are a lot of reasons thrown around here as to why instancing invalidates any argument for mode disparity which I believe aren't really that much of an issue. At least they can be justified as things that can be 'lived with'. The problem where players cannot (or will not due to network manipulation) join an instance with others is the remaining problem.
A potential solution to that would be for the servers to make a determination on a client based on network performance and ability to join instances. If instance connections are required/attempted (i.e. there are other pilots in the area) and the client continually fails (for whatever reason), then that clients actions would not affect the BGS (but would still have to affect the player where appropriate).
DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting/requesting this or promoting it in any way. Just floating ideas.
We should have a birthday party! I like chocolate cake, or white cake with chocolate frosting!
- - - Updated - - -
I missed this... is it in AppConfig.xml or where?
Yes. It's in AppConfig.xml.
You can override the setting using AppConfigLocal.xml too. But since this file gets deleted with updates
mad it may just be easier to change the base file. I put my network settings into an AppConfigLocal.xml file now... but I keep a backup of it.
Last edited:
You can override the setting using AppConfigLocal.xml too. But since this file gets deleted with updates
So the original settings get overriden? is this already opened as a bug?
I have to check my port settings, maybe that would explain the instancing issues I have in Group mode (missing port definitions etc.).
I start wondering why change management is so complicated for FD that they accidently override the settings and fail to inform the users. Everyone else seems to get it right.
Thanks all for the info re: AppConfig settings. I know some people are still having horrible length or nonending jumpspace tunnels. I know it frustrated the heck out of me for the 10 days I had it (til I made a private group of one) but that workaround doesn't work for maybe 5% of people. So, info to pass on; thanks
I had another post regarding instancing but I've not only been ninja'd, I've been overwhelmed by an army of ninjas!
"SHI-NE, KUDASAI!!!!!"
I had another post regarding instancing but I've not only been ninja'd, I've been overwhelmed by an army of ninjas!
"SHI-NE, KUDASAI!!!!!"
Last edited:
Yes. AppConfig.xml gets redeployed (overwritten) with every upgrade I have seen so far. I'm pretty sure the whole point of having the AppConfigLocal.xml file was to have a workaround for that. But in the last update, that was simply deleted. Given that the schema technically changed (they added the new attribute to the Network element), the delete may have been a little justified. But it's still annoying. Will have to see if it happens again.
I mentioned it in a suggestion a little while ago but haven't heard anything. I don't know if anyone has logged it as a bug. Perhaps it should be.
Incredible to think that some people want others to play a game where everything they do... does nothing.
Decided to try delivering some PowerPlay bits yesterday. Man alive, the NPCs are mean in Solo. They hang around Gateway's sun and have A powered Interdiction and run in packs. If anything, running PP loads in Solo needs rewarding...
Decided to try delivering some PowerPlay bits yesterday. Man alive, the NPCs are mean in Solo. They hang around Gateway's sun and have A powered Interdiction and run in packs. If anything, running PP loads in Solo needs rewarding...
And without explaining why the game should be that way beside "reasons" and "feelings".
Unfortunately it's not that simple. At its heart the BGS is primarily a PvE mechanism with *some* chance of PvP having an effect - players affect it by running missions (PvE), trading (PvE), handing in bounties (mixed PvE/PvP) and CZ farming where applicable (mixed PvE/PvP). The principle method of countering one player's impact on a given faction is to do what they're doing but do it better - a player supporting faction A undertakes a mission that generates a +1% influence for their faction (reducing all other factions' influence accordingly) - to counter that a player supporting faction B needs to undertake their own mission, hand in combat bonds or bounties, or buy up and export enough high supply commodities to raise their own faction's influence. Essentially, regardless of which mode you're playing in players are already '...coming into conflict with each other, and competing via the influence system and the BGS...' There is no special case of circumvention inherent in the use of Solo/Group modes, as whatever a player does in Solo/Group can just as easily be circumvented by the actions of players in Open.
On top of that, if you find an unknown CMDR flying around in your favourite faction's system there's currently no way of knowing what exactly that CMDR is doing there. They *could* be there trying to raise another faction's influence, or the *could* be there working for your faction, or they *could* just be passing through doing their own thing. You could send them a Comm asking what they're up to, but there's no guarantee that they'll answer honestly, if at all. You could just hunt them down and kill them for being there, but at the end of the day if you did that then you could just as easily be harming your faction's support base as helping it. So saying that only players in Open are allowed to affect the BGS with relation to minor factions doesn't make it easier to control your faction's influence, it just makes one mode (Open) superior to the others for no intrinsic benefit, and once again we come back to FDev's stance that all modes are considered valid and equal. From what I've seen that's especially true of how the BGS works.
Last edited:
The reason for that request is simple, currently pvp is pointless when it can and is easily circumvented. There's no way to influence, and prevent influence with pvp. For however many you kill in open there's probably an equal number in Solo or group. Players would like it changed to allow for a more pvp style of play.
There's also the psychological whiplash of players being able to effect you without being able to confront them, that runs contrary to every video game ever.
Selfish? Perhaps, but it's probably seen to some as a necessary evil to help shift the balance towards pvp.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - it would serve to promote PvP.
However the game as designed does not revolve around PvP - it's more of a PvE game with the option to PvP for those who wish to partake in it.
It still wouldn't revolve around pvp, IMO pve will still obviously be the vocal point, even with the change.
PvP is not pointless at all, the point is to enjoy it for what it is - a fun "optional" way to kill time in game between PvE grinds.
It breaks up the monotony of trading, mining etc....
It also highlights things PvE does not, like the broken SCB stacking mechanic - without PvP that would just be accepted as fine, when it clearly is not.
NPCs cannot complain when something is over powered or broken, PvPers however will... WILL make the Devs listen over broken toys.
So to recap, the point to PvP;
1) To have fun and enjoy yourself.
2) To make sure things are not over powered/ broken.
As for "the psychological whiplash of players being able to effect you without being able to confront them" - you can use the same systems to counter whatever people are doing to you.
So there is a way to defend yourself - if you refuse to use it, that is your own problem. The tools to attack / defend are there.
The problem isn't that modes affect the BGS equally, the "problem" is that the game is not designed in a way that allows PvP to influence the BGS.
Don't forget Xbox One players. Even if they play in Open Mode you can't see them if you play on PC or Mac.
You can confront them by working against their actions. PvE vs PvE resulting in "PvP" (not PvP combat).
Very selfish since this game is obviously designed to be primarily PvE (BGS influence, PP, CG for example) and has been from the start and the developers constantly telling everybody that they want it to be that way.
From what I gather, open advocates are fine with XB1 as they say players counter each other in the Open Mode there.
There is not much mention of XB1 Solo Mode - but the few times I've seen them mentioned, it is with the same disdain PC/Mac Solo players get.
And of course, XB1 does not get private groups.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The change would break the player's relationship with the galaxy state (i.e. make it read only) for players in two of the three game modes.
A simple and effective way of putting it.
- Status