- Status
But this is the point I'm trying to make. How do you even *know* that Commander A is doing missions? He may be trading. He may be bounty farming (which is good for the controlling faction). He may just be using your system as a refuelling point between two other distant systems if he's on a long trade route. He may be running missions for a faction in another system and those missions just happen to terminate in your system. There are so many *other* reasons for a given Commander to make regular visits to a given station that simply don't have any bearing on the health and influence of the faction controlling that station. And that all ignores the possibility that he might just be taking any and all missions he can get his hands on to progress his Major Faction rank - if your faction is aligned to one of those Major Factions then he's going to be cancelling out his own negative influence by doing missions for your faction alongside those he does for enemy factions. The point is, the only person who truly *knows* why Commander A is at that station on a regular basis is Commander A himself.
Last edited:
If there are other ways that you're aware of (in the context of the game naturally) I would love to hear them. At this stage I can't even give someone else money outside of dumping cargo for them to pick up.
I wouldn't have a problem with you feeling that way. You're entitled to your opinion and would be justified in feeling that way due to your situation. That said it wouldn't change my stance on the matter and I disagree with your argument.
Oh good, so it wouldn't be difficult for Frontier to implement it on a larger scale. That's fantastic.
Well there's the thing... Once you fundamentally redefine the framework of the game to satisfy one element of your audience, you might as well take up more of your development time to serve them up what they want on a plate. After all, perish the thought they would actually have to work to find the fish in the barrel!
(English isn't my native language. Explaining abstract concepts in a foreign language is difficult for me.)
It does matter to me in this discussion because it is based on an assumption that I think is wrong and because it is conceptually* wrong.
The assumption is that someone playing in Open Mode has a higher chance of losing credits because of player interactions. To compensate that loss that player should get more credits.
I think that a player in Open Mode can play the game without ever losing credits because of something that can only happen in Open Mode. (Even getting blown up is something that can happen in Private Group Mode.) It is very easy to avoid any player interaction in Open Mode.
Because of this the additional risk from player interaction is just a theoretical possibility, an abstract danger.
A reward is a concrete* advantage.
Rewarding players for playing in Open mode would give them a real advantage (even if very, very small) for something that is just the theoretical possibility of an abstract danger. The reward is not on the same conceptual level as the risk. A theoretical risk should be rewarded with a theoretical reward.
A CMDR can destroy the ship of another CMDR. This is a theoretical risk as it would require other things to happen before the ship destruction can happen. For example both CMDRs have to be at the same time in the same instance within shooting range.
If both CMDRs are in the same instance and within shooting range the theoretical risk turns into the potential risk of ship destruction. There is the possibility that one of the CMDRs attack the other one and this attack could result in ship destruction. At this point there is a real danger of something happening that could result in ship destruction. This is the point where a real risk of ship destruction exists and that could be rewarded with a real advantage - for example extra credits or lower repair costs or lower ammo cost.
It doesn't matter to me from a game play point of view as I don't care how much credits another CMDR has or is able to earn in a certain amount of time.
*) Correct use of that word?
It's not a question of intent, it's a question of ability. Everything you've brought up about not knowing the impact of what that Commander does is true and valid, and is something Frontier should evaluated and address. That said your scenario doesn't invalidate my idea. I never said my solution was perfect. But as I see it an imperfect solution is better than what we have now, especially when combined with other approaches to address problems like the ones you bring up.
Just as you are entitled to yours. And so long as your self-entitlement does not impinge upon mine (which is as it is at the moment) then that's fine. And seeing the assertion of your self-entitlement cannot be reasoned with, why do you even on a forum with other people, other than to p them off?
So your suggestion is still nothing more than pie in the sky, as it effectively means shadowbanning a mighty large population of players, including Mr DBOBE who is known to play off a phone tether whilst on a train.
You're really on a hiding to nothing but being ridiculed, sadly. Which is a shame, seeing how much you would love us all to come in to open to meet you.
I wouldn't have guessed. You do a lot better than some other posts I have seen.
I guess this is the crux of it. And I generally feel the same way as you do. So apart from principle (that higher reward may not be justified), I don't really see why there would be an issue.
- - - Updated - - -
Only with regard to player faction influence.
Last edited:
Because the Devs have stated all mode are currently equal.
Changing rewards in one mode, therefore is giving one mode an advantage over another and sends the message that all modes are not equal and there is a "right" and "wrong" way to play the game.
From and interview with DBOBE;
Last edited:
I spent some time as part of the AEDC. During that time, I was part of a community that turned Alliance factions around. As such I was able to play in Solo and be part of the community.
Today I work on the fringes of occupied space, lighting up economies that no-one cares for.
What you suggest is to isolate me (and people like me) from the community, and give me a reason not to play the game, because my tiny influences, which have absolutely zilch to do with you in any measly fashion, you suggest should not be allowed to affect the BGS.
I am at the point now where I want to tell you to stuff your ideas where the sun don't shine, because you seriously don't see how selfish and ignorant your suggestion is... and how crippling it would be to other players and therefore to the Game as a whole. Less players, less income, less seasons and development. You're suggestion FDev cut off their nose to spite their face and you think that's a reasonable suggestion?
And your preference impinges on mine, since there's nothing I can do about your actions in solo. I don't see how I'm being unreasonable. I've expressed my opinion, people have argued against it, and I have provided arguments in response. That I don't agree with you does not make me unreasonable. Your arguments have simply failed to convince me, as my arguments have clearly failed to do for you. It's disappointing to hear that this community would ridicule someone for disagreeing with them. I certainly haven't done anything to justify it.
Here's the thing though, if FD decide to reward some players for something even though it may very well not be justified, then they have completely thrown out the assertion that all modes are equal. What will potentially happen next, once they do that?
Will the Open crowd be happy with that? I very much doubt it. Even today on this thread, there is a poster arguing strongly that non Open players be relegated to second class citizens / gamers, not being allowed to influence the BGS, and what about those Open Only advocates, who insist that everybody should be playing in Open? Once FD indicate that one mode is 'special', how do they counter the demands from that mode to force everyone to play it.
Sadly, I think that would be the issue.
No. Surely not. You only suggested that a good percentage should be cut out of the BGS just because they don't give you a chance to to stop them (despite the fact that even in Open you would only ever have a 0.% of meeting them and then you'd never know if they where the person you needed to counter.) So give them no reason to play the game at all. You've made a totally wonderful and enlightening suggestion. It's amazing that DBOBE doesn't give up his seat for you at his desk, it's inspired. Offend the playerbase. Wonderful. <claps hands>
I might as well suggest that they concentrate on making Kangaroos instead of all this Horizon's nonsense. What do we need landing on planets for? Let's have mushroom instead.
I sincerely doubt I've offended the playerbase. Clearly I've offended you.
Your statement here makes a lot of assertions that are unsupportable without actual evidence. For starters there's the argument of the "good percentage" that's being "cut out" of the BGS, and that those players have "no reason to play the game at all". That implies that you're aware of the percentage of players who only play Elite for the BGS, only do so in solo/private group mode, and would never play in open. I'd love to know that number since it's clearly significant enough that you feel compelled enough to bring it up. If it's as large as you imply then I could see a compelling reason for why this suggestion would be a non-starter.
I'm not convinced kangaroos would be appropriate for a space sim, but you're welcome to pose that suggestion if you want.
Incorrect. Whatever they are doing that affects the BGS, you can work against it. For example, if he is increasing security in the system by bounty hunting, you can pirate in the system to lower security.
What you mean is you can't do anything directly about their actions. But that also applies if you are on other sides of the world, if instancing means you never meet due to your connectivity not matching theirs, if they are on xbox, or you just happen never to be in the same area at the same time. And even if you did meet them, there is no guarantee you would win anyway, they could be flying in a wing with 3 very experienced PvPers who you will end up running from with your tail between your legs.
Perhaps stop focusing on the problems due to not being able to personally meet certain players, but play the game and work to achieve what you want without worrying about what indivuduals are doing.
Oh, and one last though. For every player sitting in group/solo that you would like to oppose, there might be players in group/solo opposing what they are doing (accepting this doesn't apply to most community goals unless they are paired opposing ones or something). The BGS works both ways.
Last edited:
Okay, one last question regarding this matter: Where do you draw the line?
Let's assume for a moment that FDev decide to abandon the modes and make everybody play in Open only. Let's further assume that this doesn't cause all the Solo and Group only players to run for the hills and they willingly all take part in Open play, bringing everybody together in one single game mode. At this point almost every action that every player takes will have an effect on the BGS. Traders will be raising and lowering influence in the stations they trade with. Bounty hunters will be raising and lowering the influence in the systems they hunt in. Pirates and PKers will be lowering the influence in the systems they prey on. Mission hunters will be ... you get the point.
So at this point, you essentially have your imperfect solution to the imperfect situation: players can no longer 'hide' in Solo or Group mode and you have every available opportunity to do whatever you feel you have to do to stop other players affecting the influence of your favourite faction, but what do you use as your criteria for determining how you counter those other players? After all, a lot of those players won't be *deliberately* affecting your faction's influence - they'll just be doing what they normally do and the effect on the faction's influence will simply be a secondary side-effect of their everyday actions.
Yes, FDev *could* introduce a new flag that players carry, identifying their allegiance to the world, but it doesn't take long for a player to pick up tens, if not hundreds of minor faction allegiances. This is made all the more complicated when you consider that becoming friendly or allied to a major faction automatically applies the same level of rep to *all* minor factions within that major faction. So going back to our hypothetical Commander A, if he's allied to the same major faction as you then he's also going to be automatically allied to *your* minor faction. Once again, it all comes down to the question of how do you identify those commanders who are *deliberately* working against your faction?
In the end it would appear that the most effective way to counter an aggressive player's actions against your faction of choice is simply to play the BGS yourself, exporting commodities from your home system, running faction-specific missions, farming bounties in your local system and where possible fighting for your faction in conflict zones. This is going to generate much bigger and much faster results than flying around hunting down every Commander who could be doing things that are bad for your faction. If this really is how it works (and I strongly believe it is) then what difference does it make which mode your opponents are in?
Why thank you. Ask No Man's Sky...
In that case... Look up offline-gate. There is some suggestion that the original base target for KickStarter was only achieved after an Offline Mode was suggested. During this time it was suggested that around a third of the original backers were only there because they thought that Off Line play was available. Instead, what they got was a Solo mode that allowed for minimal connection to the servers and no interaction.
If you want actually numbers, check out the size of the Mobius group, because you would be cutting them off. I think the last time I heard about their group size it was a five figure number - out of a six figure player base.
So yes, a good percentage of players are members of the PvE only group Mobius and a good percentage of the backers are Soloist.
I'd find a system a long way away from where all the PvP hungry players hang out and make it my home. I'd invite other PvEers to come and play there and make it their home. We would be called the super friends and there would be parties with cake.
Should the PvPers find our hideout, we would move and found a second foundation, far from the first, and the super friends would party on, while the PvPers would still remain hungry for targets, and there would be no cake for them!
I'd find a system a long way away from where all the PvP hungry players hang out and make it my home. I'd invite other PvEers to come and play there and make it their home. We would be called the super friends and there would be parties with cake.
Should the PvPers find our hideout, we would move and found a second foundation, far from the first, and the super friends would party on, while the PvPers would still remain hungry for targets, and there would be no cake for them!
Hmmm. Reminiscent of the Rebellion being chased by the Evil Empire. There's a certain March going through my head now.
Yes, you're right, I meant do something directly about their actions. Regardless of the circumstances involved I consider it better to have the opportunity.
As I said previously I draw the line at the opportunity to stop them. Arguments about the effectiveness of that opportunity, while valid in the context of discussing things Frontier could do differently, do not invalidate the benefit of having that opportunity in the first place.
- - - Updated - - -
As, so you don't have an actual percentage of the players who only play for the BGS and would refuse to play in open. Just some vague numbers. I'm disappointed. For a second I thought you had a compelling argument.
- Status