The important thing you are missing, (as usual), is that this risk you love bleating about at every goddam opportunity is your choice because you want it and seek it. Why on earth should you be rewarded for a choice you make?, you have chosen to hold your stag party in downtown Damascus instead of Amsterdam, you've got a bloody cheek complaining about more risk and expecting your white wine spritzers to be half price.
Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place
- Thread starter StiTch
- Start date
The important thing you are missing, (as usual), is that this risk you love bleating about at every goddam opportunity is your choice because you want it and seek it. Why on earth should you be rewarded for a choice you make?, you have chosen to hold your stag party in downtown Damascus instead of Amsterdam, you've got a bloody cheek complaining about more risk and expecting your white wine spritzers to be half price.
Well, I wonder why you would buy a product that you deem as a “sad joke”. Maybe next time read the description.
Goose4291
Banned
Except those drones can be shot down by the OPFOR.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
With absolutely no risk to the pilot.
Goose4291
Banned
Much like Elite then, seen as we magically respawn back at the place we took off from and oddly, both incurring financial loss.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not personal financial loss in the case of the drone pilot though.
Goose4291
Banned
You want to go private contractor, you gotta be prepared to shoulder the loss.
But....that's not how I want to play to blaze my own playstyle
Ultimately while any player can use solo to not just manipulate the BGS but achieve any change in game, there is not a single instance a player can achieve change by affecting/engineering other players. Cries that "all modes are equal" should really stop, because they are not-fluff aside Solo and PG have every advantage, and Open has none. There is no additional reward nor ability to affect change.
I've always said that "additional reward" in a straightforward context seems a little...je ne sais quoi, weak? It seems silly to suggest players should get a handwavium-induced 10% credit bonus because the odd ship that interdicts them is a hollow square, not filled.
What I'd really appreciate is - what was the term...ah yeah, the ability to blaze my own trail. I want to affect the galaxy in some form by doing something more inspiring than hauling poo from A -> B all evening. And it's asinine to suggest all player should enjoy the exact same content - it's absolutely okay to have different content for different players - but when we got PP, which (paraphrasing) even Sandy commented was meant to provide a vector for PvP, what we get then? Ah yeah, leaflet hauling from A -> B all evening, because despite the fact it's a conglomeration of existing PvE activities for less reward, players go into nuclear meltdown when we suggest it actually becomes what it was intended to be.
An issue reinforced by PvE as much as anything else. I am genuinely flabbergasted when I see a complaint their 532T cargo T9 got show down by another player, and it "broke their immershun". Sorry but if I were transporing millions of credits in imperial slaves through potentially shark infested waters IRL, I can guarantee y'all my T9 would resemble a flying fortress. How's that for immershun?
If NPCs could mete out half the punishment appropriate for ridiculous builds, the player base here might have a little more sense.
You can open up the "block" function from great distance
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
But....that's not how I want to play to blaze my own playstyle
When a play-style relies on others to share it then it is vulnerable to those other players not joining in.
All players in every mode have the same tools available to them to affect the BGS, PowerPlay, Factions, etc..
That some would prefer to use direct PvP to influence these game features is obvious - however that requires other players to wish to play along by providing opposition.
That's a good point actually. I am crap at combat. My risk is many times greater than those who practised and engineered for that.
I'd like a 30% increase in everything please.
edit: don't you dare go there!
Last edited:
No we don't. I don't have the tools required to stop other players making changes, as a rudimentary example.
BGS manipulation is the only valid tool. Anything else is roleplay and nought else. As I previously explained: not all modes are equal.
I don't expect FD will create another BGS nor remove Solo/PG, but the introduction of any content with continuity, or the fixing of PP, would go a long way. It's entirely acceptable to have content that caters to crowds separately.
It isn't just about PvP per se, and I see no reason there shouldn't be some content that allows it to happen. Content for all, all playstyles are valid, etc. etc. etc.
I've mentioned it previously: give open players something to actually do, and you balance Open/PvP massively. Even the strengthening of PvP bounty hunting would be useful, though not enough. It baffles me that people think kneejerk reactions that kick down proposals to improve PvP actually benefit the game/state of Open.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
No player has the tools to stop other players making changes, other than optional direct PvP. We all have the same tools to affect the BGS, etc. though, in every mode - the modes are equal in that respect.
I'd expect that Frontier's seeming reluctance to have direct PvP affect the game (other than stopping players completing PvE actions) relates to the fact that players can collude to exploit.
It rather depends on how Frontier would view PvP content affecting the population of Open - as presumably the players that prefer PvP already play there - so attempting to attract players out of Solo / Private Groups to play in Open, through the changes to C&P, potential karma system, etc. might be undermined if those players became targets for PvP related features.
Ah of course; PvE players have of course proven themselves incapable of exploits.
It doesn't need to attract players out of PG/Solo at all; I don't know where you took that from.
Even Ziggy has made great proposals for PvE/Open alternatives to a given objective - i.e. the objective to complete for, say, a power, is split across Open and Solo/PG. Both are important, but neither can be ignored, and cannot be interfered with by players for the "other" objective; Open players cannot hamper the BGS enthusiasts, and no matter how much the BGS enthusiasts haul the Open objective is untouched.
That is equal play across game modes.
Last edited:
Even Ziggy? [mad]
Oh I'm sorry baby, I didn't mean it like that <3
I meant only that as a PvE player, you have made some of the best suggestions for Open gameplay that might tick the right boxes for the right people enough to make it in game...were said proposals to gain enough traction.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We are all PvE players, to some extent, as Sandro reminded us not that long ago.
Frontier can (and do) close down PvE exploits. What they would find more challenging is to implement any content designed for adversarial PvP in such a way that players could not collude such that the rewards weer achieved with no contest.
Frontier have indicated that they'd like more players to play in Open.
PvP players are generally the first to profess this, and allows us at least a well-rounded perspective of the game. For instance when we offer balance analyses of modifications, we don't just attempt to balance it to PvP, as many seem to believe.
EDIT: Something more poignant is that PvP players also DO fight for a better PvE game, which only gets buried under the vaporous poo-flinging. Many of us have helped look at base mechanics, asked for more varied PvE combat, more engaging missions...hell, I have spent the last year joining in with calls to improve exploration. The base game itself isn't abhorrent, but it DOES fail to meet a tiny fraction of its potential, and the inability to have an effect on the universe itself in any form feels entirely against the grain of what ED was meant to stand for.
Eventually at best. Look how long it took to close down the exploit with PvP connotations (the 5/1 engineering bug) though.
It's a bit of a dryly comic notion because most players that are at the stage of PvP couldn't care less about credits, and I bet you that even a mid-way PvP exploit would be out-earned by many of the haulage hotspots out there. FD's perspective on credit balance is bonkers.
But it really, really isn't that difficult to have any relevant Open play that's not abusable, especially with so many PvPers happy to do it for a cause rather than monetary reward.
It's good to see you have a comment pertaining to Open that isn't slating it, but that statement is like reading "All Trump wants is to create a peaceful loving atmosphere in a unified nation".
FD haven't given players an iota of reason to do anything but avoid Open unless for their own personal reasons (very much the opposite of attracting players there) and every comment on the topic from yourself among others has indicated you don't want there to be an iota of reason.
It all then gets topped off by a number of changes that damage pretty much all PvP apart from mindless murder; I get the feeling they need a PvP player on the dev team to give some perspective, because I am not sure whether it's intentional or not. You wanna see more players in Open? Promote PvP bounty hunting, piracy, trade escorting; don't hamstring it all "becuz players think all PvP is griefor things".
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I'd expect that most players want to see the PvE game improved.
Eventually, indeed.
I was not referring solely to credit making opportunities - I was also referring to BGS exploits.
I don't find PvP to be fun - I have no issue with Open as such, other than the fact that it is the only game mode that enjoys an unlimited population and the gate to access that unlimited population is that one must accept that PvP may be encountered in that mode. Parity for Private Groups with regard to population limit would be appreciated by many, I expect.
Frontier have chosen not to coerce players into Open through direct incentives to play there, i.e. bonuses. Open is simply a setting for the matchmaking system to permit it to instance a player with any other player that has also chosen to play in Open (on that platform) - with potential for player interaction (both good and not so much) being the reward of choosing that game mode. If the only way to "encourage" players to play in Open is to bribe them then it would seem that there's something awry. Open is ultimately the game mode where all play-styles should be able to co-exist - however, given the diversity of opinions and preferences of players, it would seem that significant compromises may need to be made to encourage those not playing in Open to play there.
What Frontier would seem to be doing with revised C&P and the potential karma system would be to introduce features in the hope that there will be less of a disincentive to play in Open.
What upcoming changes "damage pretty much all PvP"?
Last edited:
But....that's not how I want to play to blaze my own playstyle
Ultimately while any player can use solo to not just manipulate the BGS but achieve any change in game, there is not a single instance a player can achieve change by affecting/engineering other players. Cries that "all modes are equal" should really stop, because they are not-fluff aside Solo and PG have every advantage, and Open has none. There is no additional reward nor ability to affect change.
Complete freedom is a great idea, but Elite's current network architecture will make getting there hard. The current situation (affecting the BGS is more efficient from solo) isn't best for PvP focused players. Any changes which made PvP non-avoidable would affect anyone who loathes PvP. Frontier have realised they can't make a game which will please everyone - they've created a mostly PvE system with PvP on the side. Their current accounts suggest their decision is the right one. Existing PvP only games would be serious competitors to a PvP only Elite; having a different focus allows Frontier to establish a strategic space between them and the competition.
Ultimately players need to pick a game which suits their personality. Some games won't suit certain personalities - I don't complain about the lack of veggie options in my local butchers.
I'd be happy for new PvP activities to be added to the game, or for PP to be buffed - even if these affected the BGS. I want to influence the game from solo, not control it.
Agreed - my T9 has shields even though I never play in Open. My disability means I need help in combat, even against NPCs.
You deserve praise for that statement. It's miles away from your previous opinions expressed here.
And that's exactly what the majority of PvPers have advocated for in these forums: a system that allows PvP to have meaning and consequences, influencing the state of the galaxy, in equal grounds with the PvE BGS manipulating from the three modes. No one wants to hinder your ability to play the numbers/systems from Solo… at least that's not what we see in the comments, what we want is have additional PvP features that do so, too.
I comprehend that the big fear at hand is that it could become a nasty territory war during which the Solo player would be susceptible to lose territory to PvP groups… but I even nowadays we already have BGS groups doing exactly that in PG. And we have groups such as AEDC who can (and sometimes do) steamroll whoever they find in their wake.
Also as StiTch said, we are more than happy to support positive PvE additions to the game, we'd also gladly wait until some long awaited, much needed exploration features were added… it's not like we don't PvE either.
Edit: "you have given too much rep", "24h" yadda yadda