Modes The modes are brilliant!

[Ziggy Stardust]

You tried stopping 100 haulers with 10 ships?

No, I meant I tried PvP, didn't enjoy it. Heck, I tried combat, didn't enjoy it.

That's what I was replying to. You definitely can mission kill them, if they are running shieldless. Because that's another thing, people hiding in PG specifically because their ships are fitted to exploit that 'god mode' while sending PvP pilots against haulers in open, forcing them to give up hauling capacity.

My point was not, is it possible to kill them, but would their time be applied more efficiently if they would also go hauling? And in a 100 vs 10 scenario, I'd say the 100 will win simply because the 10 cannot stop them all.

But since I'm not too experienced, I am asking, not telling. I could be wrong.

 

[StiTch]

Couple of questions:
Would 10 CMDRs in Open be able to stop 100 CMDRs in Open?
Would 10 CMDRs in Open be able to truck more merits than they could prevent?
My point is, 10 CMDRs could stop a small number of CMDRs, but the majority would still deliver. Maybe the 10 could be more efficient trucking themselves than trying to stop others?

Not sure if that's the case, but it seems logical.

Scenario dependent but a small number of players can have a disproportionate effect on the results. A concerted effort to barricade a station with, as an arbitrary example, a single full wing would easily cancel the efforts of more than four of the opposition.

More importantly it means "the opposition" could adapt to succeed - suddenly bulk BGS trade grinds got dynamic, and we see a purpose for coherent roles in a team trying to achieve an objectives, for instance scouts, diversion makers (a diverter? Answers on a postcard), escorts...(yes, i know you all forgot it exists. Anyone actually remember that in standard trade, a nearby wing member gets a dividend on the trade to support trade escort as a role?)

I think you know as well as me that regardless, the removal of PG/Solo in such a scenario would see a different kind of play regardless of whether 10 men can flat out stop 100, but I thought I'd bite anyway.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The current problem with PP and BGS activity being affected in PG/solo is that it turns this into a game of numbers rather than skill.

Whether that is considered to be a problem or a feature probably depends on ones preference regarding direct PvP.

A solution to solo/PGers would be to have a personal merit count for powerplay that does not affect the simulation to allow for module shopping, and with the BGS, playing in solo/PGs would only affect the sim at a heavy penalty (Maybe 25% effectiveness).

Sandro mused about an Open Play Bonus for Powerplay (for the Power only, not the player) in March'16. It was contentious then - and that was only for PowerPlay, not the BGS. In December'16 (a year ago, today, actually) he was asked if the pin had been pulled on the hand grenade - and he advised that it had not and that there were no plans to.

And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.

My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.

Hello Commanders!

A couple of clarifications:

* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.

* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.

* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.

* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.

Hope this info helps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s

The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.

In relation to the BGS, it has been clear from the very beginning, when game design information was published at the start of the Kickstarter pitch, that the intended game experience was for all players to both experience and affect the single shared galaxy state:

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?

The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.

The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).
​

Also worth noting is that the official marketing refers to this (https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/wings):

WINGS
FLY ALONE, OR WITH FRIENDS AS PART OF A WING

Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous' vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.

Whether you experience the open multi-player galaxy on your own or in a Wing where you can stay connected to a group of your buddies as you share in jointly-earned spoils, the connected galaxy delivers a constant source of new opportunities and people to play with and against.

In Solo play you can choose never meet another human player, yet the results of your actions still contribute to economy, politics and conflicts of the connected galaxy, and you experience the echoes of their activity.

 

[QBit4D]

No, I meant I tried PvP, didn't enjoy it. Heck, I tried combat, didn't enjoy it.


My point was not, is it possible to kill them, but would their time be applied more efficiently if they would also go hauling? And in a 100 vs 10 scenario, I'd say the 100 will win simply because the 10 cannot stop them all.

But since I'm not too experienced, I am asking, not telling. I could be wrong.

They'd have a fighting chance, pun intended. They'd have no chance hauling against 100. (Yes, there some exceptions, but they rely on the opposition being blindsided)

 

[ZeroAi]

Big fan of Solo, PG and Open mode design myself (but wish there was a forth, Open PvE)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Scenario dependent but a small number of players can have a disproportionate effect on the results. A concerted effort to barricade a station with, as an arbitrary example, a single full wing would easily cancel the efforts of more than four of the opposition.

Barricade a station as in blocking the entrance?

Which in my most personal of opinions is quite the underhanded tactic and enough justification for making it possible to do these things in Solo/PG.

More importantly it means "the opposition" could adapt to succeed - suddenly bulk BGS trade grinds got dynamic, and we see a purpose for coherent roles in a team trying to achieve an objectives, for instance scouts, diversion makers (a diverter? Answers on a postcard), escorts...(yes, i know you all forgot it exists. Anyone actually remember that in standard trade, a nearby wing member gets a dividend on the trade to support trade escort as a role?)

I think you know as well as me that regardless, the removal of PG/Solo in such a scenario would see a different kind of play regardless of whether 10 men can flat out stop 100, but I thought I'd bite anyway.

We'd see a different kind of play no doubt.

But now here I am. I want to partake, but I don't want to join up with diversion makers, scouts and the like. I want a quiet evening of relaxing play without being bothered by anyone. Sucks to be me? I must comply to the multiplayer machine and I must fall in line with the orders I have been given. Otherwise Ziggy can go suck an egg. And that's what I was talking about with other players creating hoops for me to jump through. For me the modes are brilliant because I don't have to subject to that if I don't feel like it.

 

[Corbin Moran]

+1 rep to the OP.

 

[StiTch]

Barricade a station as in blocking the entrance?

Which in my most personal of opinions is quite the underhanded tactic and enough justification for making it possible to do these things in Solo/PG.

It's the most straightforward example I can give. Barricade here not meaning to literally sit in front of the station 'cus people can't fly through you, but usually circling the station in SC interdicting oncoming ships, or sniping from the edges of the fire zone and making a break for it, or whatever actually creative solution one can think of at the time.

But now here I am. I want to partake, but I don't want to join up with diversion makers, scouts and the like. I want a quiet evening of relaxing play without being bothered by anyone.

Sure, and that's why I don't personally suggest we ever remove content from PG/Solo, or the game modes themselves. My ideal is purely and simply a different BGS for the two - one for yourself et al., where one can peacefully progress their power/faction, and one where ED is a full multiplayer game, complete with continuity.

It actually seems a shame the potential isn't used given ED never bowed down to full-on guild mechanics. EVE, like many others, falls into the trap of having resources to get territorial over and mass player groups/tools to get territorial over them with, meaning newer players typically have to join a large guild to succeed. ED is expansive enough to allow players to survive and do their own thing while giving them the chance to affect events with a little intuition.

 

[Cosmos]

I think this thread is about to give me an aneurysm.

 

[QBit4D]

I think this thread is about to give me an aneurysm.

As long as it's not a clog, that's even worse than hiding in PG.

 

[Eidolon]

He now hides on Reddit I think. Open forum too much for him here hehe.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sure, and that's why I don't personally suggest we ever remove content from PG/Solo, or the game modes themselves. My ideal is purely and simply a different BGS for the two - one for yourself et al., where one can peacefully progress their power/faction, and one where ED is a full multiplayer game, complete with continuity.

I have practical objections to that which I already named. Not too fond of changing realities when changing modes, and it'll be twice the work for Frontier to maintain 2 BGSs.

I realise it's your preferred situation, so I guess this is a "to each his or her own" kind of deal.

I think this thread is about to give me an aneurysm.

Result!

 

[Lucifera Danzig]

Speaking as someone who isn't into PvP at all, and quite likes the Private Group and Solo modes...I do have to say I don't feel Power Play or BGS influence should be a part of Solo. I like the idea of being able to do material farming for engineering in peace, and doing cargo or exploration activities without dealing with extra hassle, but if I'm playing in Solo, it's to avoid letting anyone else affect my game play. Why then should I be able to affect anyone else's? Solo's intent is to let someone experience Elite without having to interact with other players if they so choose, but the isolation should be in both directions, I feel.

Yes, there may be technical reasons why it isn't possible, and maybe good reasons to allow it, but it's just my (subjective) opinion, speaking as a PvE-only player.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I think this thread is about to give me an aneurysm.

Why? Nothing wrong with a positive thread once in a while. Better than these incessant whine threads we get so often. Worse than listening to British people talk about the weather!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Worse than listening to British people talk about the weather!

50 shades of rain.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes, there may be technical reasons why it isn't possible, and maybe good reasons to allow it, but it's just my (subjective) opinion, speaking as a PvE-only player.

Not technical, as such, more that Frontier decided that the intended player experience, for all players, involves both experiencing and affecting a single shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode or platform.

Then there's the fact that part of the reasoning for the cancellation of Offline Solo (not part of the Kickstarter pitch at the beginning but added about half way through) related to this intended player experience.

 

[Koenig]

Worse than listening to British people talk about the weather!

Hey! As a Brit I resemble that remark...

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

50 shades of rain.

Looks like we're about to get 50 shades of snow, soon

 

[Stigbob]

Looks like we're about to get 50 shades of snow, soon

Could be worse, my this time tomorrow it'll be raining bullets in Jerusalem.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Looks like we're about to get 50 shades of snow, soon

There can never be enough shades of Snow.