It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[Robert Maynard]

So? Would be more honest according to the overall design anyway. You can't cover up that Open isn't FFA with narration when the players opt to not play nicely.

Just an observation.

It'd be at odds with Frontier's apparent desire to encourage more players to play in Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Would have been awesome if they had these players in Thargoid Scout ships dropping in on the fleet when they got close to Thargoid space. Would certainly have been a new challenge compared to fighting the fairly easy thargoid AI, and wouldn't have required AX weapons.

And best of all, it would have actually made sense.

Teleporting CMDRs? Sounds like a different game.

Would it make sense to offer antagonists unlimited free ships and fast travel to provide "danger" to players who have to make the effort to travel to where they are in the galaxy? Sounds a bit unbalanced, in my opinion.

.... especially as any defenders would require to use normal travel to catch up with the fleet if they were faced with the rebuy screen.

 

[deleteduser]

This *should* provide the epiphany that every single player needs to realise that BGS can't realistically be split and that "Open Only" content is a dead request with no future or realistic expectation to be implemented.

None of the objections to the proposed changes @Robert Maynard is responding to, are sustainable. Each are easily solved, or were not actual problems in the first place.

The only reasonable objection, is that FDev is unlikley to go along. They will instead keep waving their unique Balance Hammer around wildly every time they bother to identify an issue.

That aside, this is still a forum for discussing ideas, identifying problems and finding solutions... in this regard, the proposals made are indisputably positive, or at worst neutral, for everyone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

None of the objections to the proposed changes @Robert Maynard is responding to, are sustainable. Each are easily solved, or were not actual problems in the first place.

Indeed - all players having a choice of three game modes which permit them to both experience and affect the single shared BGS is a fundamental feature of the game's design, not a problem to be solved.... - in my opinion, of course. Other opinions vary, naturally.

The only reasonable objection, is that FDev is unlikley to go along. They will instead keep waving their unique Balance Hammer around wildly every time they bother to identify an issue.

That aside, this is still a forum for discussing ideas, identifying problems and finding solutions... in this regard, the proposals made are indisputably positive, or at worst neutral, for everyone.

Who decides which objections are "reasonable" or not? That would seem to be firmly in the realm of "that's a matter of opinion".

As is the contention that the proposals are "indisputably positive" for everyone. (simply because all it takes is one player to disagree and it's not "everyone").

 

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

That's why open only powerplay is such a beautiful thing. The people interested in player interactions finally get the metagame they were promised by FD, while the solo cattle keeps on doing what they are doing now, except in BGS, which offers the same gameplay (if not better and more developed, in terms of PVE). Win win.

 

[Lazuras Poe]

No and you could have determined this by 20 seconds of editing the build I posted rather than making an untrue assumption.

I will quote "~doubles my raw shield, and ~quintuples my thermal resists [...]My DPS is boosted by much less than this". To be specific, my DPS is boosted by ~38.5%. Not "slightly more than double".






Every assumption you've made about my build so far has turned out to not be the case, so stop trying to quote me to support your point. I immediately concede, it is perfectly rational to avoid open and grinding just because you want to. There is no need to search for engineering / build related reasons, which is good, because there aren't any.

Regarding grind willingness, you did choose to grind out G5 DD thrusters - showing a willingness to grind for certain things that are useful in solo, but not for different things that are less useful in solo. That is a fair choice, but belies the assertion you made a (well guided) "try" of open.

The primary reason I would destroy your ship has nothing to do with shields and is in an edit to my quote. Choosing to downsize those highly engineered thrusters sacrificed the ability to keep distance and better evade my fsd reset dumbfires. This sacrifice saved you ~3% fewer jumps.

I believe without this downsizing choice, and with good piloting/situational awareness, you could probably survive an encounter with me even with modestly engineered defense.

I can't blame someone for avoiding the engineering grind and have been vocal about how much I hate the grindwall every time it comes up. However it is hard to support a claim of build imbalance when you choose to do one set of grinds, but not another.

I did say assume, and it was a bad assumption on my part, but that's ok. I like your thoughts on the thrusters. But it just highlights our differences. It's the metagame. I can barely work out my shopping bill, and you're firing off percentages and numbers , I don't even know half the abbreviations people use.
I just like flying my spaceship around. Once you start the pvp metagame, its a whole different ballgame, a whole different investment in gameplay and time played. I mean, your build is for close range, I have to be able figure that out on the fly, what if somebody else is built for long range sniping? That's the problem with this kind of metagame PvP. You have to intimately know all kinds of possibilities.
A lot of players just don't want that kind of gameplay, so there is never going to be any agreement.
You're smarter than me when it comes to that, and I just can't engage with it. You say numbers I hear blah blah blah.
Still, I have learned something and that's good.
When it comes to the I've tried bit, that's more about time. I've spent a week back in the bubble, playing around with the anaconda build. That also includes, making the money to buy and fit, I have enough for a couple of rebuys and all I want to do is get out of the bubble and back on the expedition.
So please, don't think that I'm trying to troll you or be a numpty, I was just trying to get a clearer picture on pvp builds compared to pve and non combat builds.
From all that, I know, even after a few years of playing ED, I'm not good enough for Open, maybe to pop in and out occasionally, but certainly not on a permanent basis.
If anything, in my mind, I'm now more keen on an Open PvE server, we are never going to force what is essentially two polarised groups of players into one gamestyle.
More power to PG admins or Open PvE. It's time to separate.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's why open only powerplay is such a beautiful thing. The people interested in player interactions finally get the metagame they were promised by FD, while the solo cattle keeps on doing what they are doing now, except in BGS, which offers the same gameplay (if not better and more developed, in terms of PVE). Win win.

Whether Open only Powerplay will ever be anything more than one possibility in the first investigative Flash Topic on Powerplay, started in March last year, is as yet unknown.

 

[deleteduser]

As is the contention that the proposals are "indisputably positive" for everyone. (simply because all it takes is one player to disagree and it's not "everyone").

People can disagree if they like. It's not about opinions. It's about the effect on any player's gameplay, and that result will be measurable and found to be "at worst", neutral.

 

[Robert Maynard]

People can disagree if they like. It's not about opinions. It's about the effect on any player's gameplay, and that result will be measurable and found to be "at worst", neutral.

None of which makes a fact of an opinion.

 

[deleteduser]

None of which makes a fact of an opinion.

What?

 

[babelfisch]

Add reasons for killing explorers and it's likely that fewer of them will engage in that activity in Open.

Just like they should. There is little reason to go exploring in Open unless you want to meet other players. Could be a fellow CMDR or someone who wants to destroy them, such is the nature of Open. I would just prefer if there would be some meaning to destruction, the whole ganking for fun is kind of immersion breaking for me. That applies to all areas of Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What?

"that result will be measurable and found to be "at worst", neutral" is an opinion based on no data, it's not a fact.

 

[deleteduser]

"that result will be measurable and found to be "at worst", neutral" is an opinion based on no data, it's not a fact.

No, it will be based on data.

The objections are opinions based on no data.

Infact, the only objections (FDev aside) at this point seem to be "there will be objections". Each of the 'reasonable' objections that can or have been made, have been countered. None are sustainable.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

That's why open only powerplay is such a beautiful thing. The people interested in player interactions finally get the metagame they were promised by FD, while the solo cattle keeps on doing what they are doing now, except in BGS, which offers the same gameplay (if not better and more developed, in terms of PVE). Win win.

Completely agree that power-play only makes sense in an open only environment. The main issue is how do you make the same rewards available to players who would not be able to access Open mode. I'm thinking of console players who don't pay Sony or Microsoft for access to multiplayer, or where their internet connection is so bad that solo is their only option. It's not as simple as just flipping a flag and making sure cargo carried only counts in open.

There's even an argument that the same open only should apply to Community Goals as well but I think that's too far for the community to accept.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No, it will be based on data.

The objections are opinions based on no data.

If the data does not yet exist, and would only exist in a possible future where the changes had been made, how can the contention be presented as anything more than an personal opinion as to a potential outcome?

Infact, the only objections (FDev aside) at this point seem to be "there will be objections". Each of the 'reasonable' objections that can or have been made, have been countered. None are sustainable.

In your opinion. Other opinions naturally vary.

 

[deleteduser]

In your opinion. Other opinions naturally vary.

As I said, you're merely stating "objections will be made", as it's own objection. It's a circular and unsustainable argument.

You've raised objections further up the thread. I've countered those. If you'd like to disagree with my counters, please do so...

 

[Robert Maynard]

As, I said, you're merely stating "objections will be made", as it's own objection. It's a circular and unsustainable argument.

As is the "these changes will be acceptable to everyone - and the data will show it" argument.

You've raised objections further up the thread. I've countered those. If you'd like to disagree with my counters, please do so...

Whether the counters offered actually counter any of the objections raised is also a matter of opinion.

 

[deleteduser]

As is the "these changes will be acceptable to everyone - and the data will show it" argument.

I've not said 'acceptable', I've said "positive, at worst neutral" effect on any given individual's gameplay. Opinions...

Whether the counters offered actually counter any of the objections raised is also a matter of opinion.

Opinions I'm happy to persuade with argument and debate, so actual objections below, not "people will object", will be appreciated...

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've not said 'acceptable', I've said "positive, at worst neutral" effect on any given individual's gameplay. Opinions...

True - some may indeed find the proposed changes unacceptable.

Opinions I'm happy to persuade with argument and debate, so actual objections below, not "people will object", will be appreciated...

Some opinions won't be persuaded. The most important opinion belongs to Frontier as only they are in a position to change the game - players cannot *force* them to do anything. Having recently reaffirmed their stance on the game's design regarding the BGS and who it is for, I very much doubt that the discussion relating to the proposed changes will be anything more than a way to pass the time on the forums. This debate has been running for over six years, after all.

Objections, like the proposals, are scattered throughout the thread. Which is a shame - as it makes reviewing them time consuming. Maybe restate the entire proposal?

 

[sollisb]

As is the "these changes will be acceptable to everyone - and the data will show it" argument.



Whether the counters offered actually counter any of the objections raised is also a matter of opinion.

I need an abacus for all the counters at this stage