Heck ya!
And hula dancer booblehead. And why haven't we gotten the plush-dice to hang in the windshield? Maybe those things only exist in Open and that's why I've never seem them.![]()
I want the DeeBOBE bobblehead, too!
Heck ya!
And hula dancer booblehead. And why haven't we gotten the plush-dice to hang in the windshield? Maybe those things only exist in Open and that's why I've never seem them.![]()
Call me nuts, but it looks like you're building up to an argument there.
Yeah I have but I can restate it. So the premise of the suggestion is that because PvP can only exist within the greater context of the game, which is pve, the enhancement to that greater context would be beneficial to both groups.That's actually a quite interesting comment, as I was under the impression your main direction was to propose Open only in the first place. I seem to recall were you stated something about PvE enhancements, but have more like a side note. I could be wrong (again) of course. Maybe I should read again what it actually is what you propose. Is there there a single post of yours somewhere that summarise your proposal(s)?
I'm describing the current layout of our game. Security levels, economies, allegiances etc. Make them actually count for something. If it's similar to Eve so be it. One mechanism similarity is not the same as the entire game being the same. That's disingenuous at best.What you are describing is how EVE Online works.
If you really feel that system is better, you are welcome to go there.
What you haven't made a case for is why that is better.
Specifically we have a situation where people can go anywhere they want and engage with the game on their terms. You want to remove that option and shift everyone to playing on your terms. You need to outline a benefit for everyone that is worth that significant cost.
Why? You are claiming safty is based on player threat? What is your justification for that? We have a game that us up 24x7 where combat focused players can engage in combat anywhere, whenever they want. However we can't instance across platforms and not everyone plays in the same times.
The game has internal threats from the NPC for all activity. If they should be buffed or nerfed is a secondary conversation. You want players to be an additional threat, but you want to threaten people who don't want that interaction. You need to make a case for why the other player's desires should be secondary to yours. You haven't done that.
Why does that make perfect sense? I like playing with others, why should I have to buy a second copy of the game to play with my group friends and one for open to meet new friends?
If you want to argue for a restriction, which you are doing, it isn't enough to articulate a moral stance, that's your feeling. When you want to impact my game play you need an argument for how that restriction makes things better for everyone.
Right now this whole thread reads like, "I want to shoot people and its unfair that some of them don't want to be shot at and are able to push a button and avoid me."
That's a very selfish mindset. We have a pvp space, its everywhere. All the people who want to play there currently do. If you think there should be more, than you need to make it enticing, not force people to play there.
In the example given, there's no need to remove Solo or Private Groups. If the improvements stand on their merits, players would be encouraged (rather than forced) to play in Open.It's all spitballing but the point is that we have a variable system already, just give the variables values that meaningfully impacts all players, PvP and pve, decision process for where you want to do business, as well as give a whole new purpose to bgs and potentially pp.
Or in other words create gameplay loops or changes to the sandbox/decision processes players need to make in game, to address player problems. Not invisible walls or flags.
I agree, and this is something I've been arguing for. Improve the core gameplay and the things that exist within it will improve as a side effect.When in reality, what's actually needed is for the more barebone gameplay loops to actually see more improvements. Other players are not a fix for issues in the game and relying on multiplayer aspects to hide poor design is not something that should be encouraged; fix the game first before worrying about niches like PvP, and it's entirely possible that any such fixes would render PvP largely fixed as a beneficial side effect (such as appropriate NPC difficulty and behaviour, or ship/module/weapon balance which benefits both PvP and PvE).
You're right, given the changes I've proposed changing modes as they are wouldn't be necessary. My angle is that proper development can make modes irrelevant and unnecessary all together. Block feature should remain of course.In the example given, there's no need to remove Solo or Private Groups. If the improvements stand on their merits, players would be encouraged (rather than forced) to play in Open.
I doubt that Frontier would remove either Solo / Private Groups or the block feature.You're right, given the changes I've proposed changing modes as they are wouldn't be necessary. My angle is that proper development can make modes irrelevant and unnecessary all together. Block feature should remain of course.
There is one simple question whats the need to restrict mode choice even with those reforms? Other than that PVP group wants more targets. Whole idea of say, solo mode is that there are no other human players in instance. Period. No need to avoid certain systems, or build ships that can withstand some overpowered gizmo and so on. Private groups turns around limited membership and mutually accepted rules, non-fitting players can be kicked out.Yeah I have but I can restate it. So the premise of the suggestion is that because PvP can only exist within the greater context of the game, which is pve, the enhancement to that greater context would be beneficial to both groups.
My specific idea is that elite has a very useful asset, and that's volume of the Galaxy. Theres tons of systems in the bubble alone, with no chokepoints to speak of except maybe engineer systems.
Because there's a large volume of systems that each can be affected by different variables, it can be leveraged to solve the problems the player base encounters, via these variables and how they affect the system sandbox.
Examples of changes:
Population generally affects number of npc ships in sc
Security level affects ratio of security to non sec ships present in sc, as well as their reactions to interdictions in SC. Example high sec means they immediately close on you so they drop at the same time as you the moment the interdiction mini game starts. Also In high sec every npc security wing would have a Cascade torp boat, and the ai the ability to Target subsystems. As sec level lowers these layers peel off. Security could affect rebuy both negatively for wanted players and positively for clean ones. Etc. Also it'd be cool if fdev asked pvpers to help them craft badass security ships with our builds, be it meta boats or one trick ponies.
Government type obviously will mean a lot in the case of anarchy, but the other types could have creative influences as well.
Allegiance affecting general ship type, (empire, fed, alliance, etc) and even build types.
State would then affect all other variables even more. Boom increasing total ships, or lockdown increasing security ratio, or unrest increasing pirate ratios, etc.
It's all spitballing but the point is that we have a variable system already, just give the variables values that meaningfully impacts all players, PvP and pve, decision process for where you want to do business, as well as give a whole new purpose to bgs and potentially pp.
Or in other words create gameplay loops or changes to the sandbox/decision processes players need to make in game, to address player problems. Not invisible walls or flags.
Maybe so, but I think we can all agree that if problems are solved via the sandbox, gameplay loops, and then the players own decisions within those, that the game would be massively better. And if the best result is that solo and pg just become superfluous, then so be it.I doubt that Frontier would remove either Solo / Private Groups or the block feature.
Quite right. Removing the modes is dragged along kicking and screaming. It's not needed. The modes aren't the problem. They work.In the example given, there's no need to remove Solo or Private Groups. If the improvements stand on their merits, players would be encouraged (rather than forced) to play in Open.
So you'll have two sets of galaxy, current one with three modes, and special open only. How long it will take to that second part players start whining about not having enough easy targets, and campaigning to remove first set for good?theres no need to remove modalities if you host another galaxy with day one assett only open.
Every account can have 2 cmdrs: one in the actual galaxy with solo\private\open, and one in the only open galaxy where you have to start from sidewinder. easy, competitive, mmo, reasonable, so damn obviuos.
Guess which galaxy would be empty.theres no need to remove modalities if you host another galaxy with day one assett only open.
Every account can have 2 cmdrs: one in the actual galaxy with solo\private\open, and one in the only open galaxy where you have to start from sidewinder. easy, competitive, mmo, reasonable, so damn obviuos.
Maybe so, but I think we can all agree that if problems are solved via the sandbox, gameplay loops, and then the players own decisions within those, that the game would be massively better. And if the best result is that solo and pg just become superfluous, then so be it.
In an ideal situation, the improvements would be a benefit to every player's gameplay.Maybe so, but I think we can all agree that if problems are solved via the sandbox, gameplay loops, and then the players own decisions within those, that the game would be massively better. And if the best result is that solo and pg just become superfluous, then so be it.
It's all spitballing but the point is that we have a variable system already, just give the variables values that meaningfully impacts all players, PvP and pve, decision process for where you want to do business, as well as give a whole new purpose to bgs and potentially pp.
its of course a vicious circle, everybody need a sacrifice. the second galaxy is the alternative for player wanna play a competitive PvX game, where X means, i do pve with the risk another player try to stop me. (the remote risk, bubble is big)So you'll two sets of galaxy, current one with three modes, and special open only. How long it will take to that second part players start whining about not having enough easy targets, and campaigning to remove first set for good?