Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Got a link to that, please?
Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle
- Thread starter Hans_Oktane
- Start date
Welp at least I now know you're just interested in being contrarian and not discussion.
But if these new missions are so good and completely nullify any desire to perform the existing powerplay activities, then why not simply replace the existing PP activities with these new ones entirely and remove the old barebones methods?
The real issue with PP, as I mentioned in that very thread, is not that it limited by those who don't play in open, but that the actual mechanics behind it are minimalistic barebones that barely constitute gameplay.
The game currently provides tools to play in the sandbox. More tools would be great.
But that has nothing to do with modes, as the tools apply to all modes equally. Forcing a single open only mode is forcing me to either play your way or quit the game. BTW, you still haven’t told me how many paying customers you’re willing to drive out of the game? Open only, I’m out. That’s one.
See the UpIsNotJump review of Elite Dangerous for a pretty clear discussion on the topic. You'll like ED if you're looking for the type of game it is.
Too many people pick it up and then scoff "Where is my ability to kill a lot of enemy players? This is a PvP game!". They may as well be asking why they can't manage a baseball team with Horizons.
I'm admitting the game would require further development to provide it, which is the entire purpose of the he suggestion.
Once again, the extra development required is the entire point of the suggestion. And a third time, extra development required is the entire point of the suggestion. If you cannot grasp this, you cannot grasp my proposal or it's purpose.
You haven't told me how many paying customers you're willing to keep losing by keeping the game the same. See how that works?
The tools have everything to do with modes. The existence of modes elimnates the need for tools that would address that gameplay niche instead.
Obviously, from the ongoing "interesting" debate, we have different interpretations of what the game as a sandbox is.
The majority of us recognise that sharing the galaxy with every other player doesn't imply that we wish to share our leisure time with all of them, rather have the freedom to choose how and when we make our 'social life' in the game.
I have bought 3 accounts, but had the game not offered me the choice to play however I wished I'd have none (and be short of quite a few in-game friends, all of whom have enhanced my game playing time) and be playing something else, so you are not alone in your observation.
My take on it is simple, those who wish to 'remove' modes all hail from a minority of the player base - how many "Remove Open" topics pop up here? Same old debate, same reasons behind them
The idea I posted elaborates on what Sandro posted- nothing is really new in it- I just take it to its natural conclusion.
Lets break it down:
Solo PG- you still can vote, you still generate merits, still have access to the module, you earn them via missions and can haul / shoot in a way that is suited to those modes- you can grind them to your hearts content and help those in open.
Open- you move prep / expand / fort in open. The experience is being in open, and directly opposable.
Both styes get a look in that at least tries to untangle Powerplay from uneven modes.
As I said and keep on saying- FD have used the same mechanic- i.e. an open cargo mission / wing massacre and applied it to everything. Missions, CGs, IIs, Powerplay- the whole lot.
Open Powerplay takes those bare bones and lets players become uber NPCs- NPCs that can go anywhere, do anything and pose a threat. At the same time, you can have PP themed missions as well for those who don't want that...but both help the power in ways that a) don't break powerplay and b) work to the strengths of modes.
Elite Dangerous on Steam
Take control of your own starship in a cutthroat galaxy. Elite Dangerous is the definitive massively multiplayer space epic.
Lets look at the negative reviews on the first page.
1- first one is a well written post that does hit quite a few negative points on ED.
2 and 3- complaining about fleet carriers.
4- is well written; fair number of valid issues.
5-10: All complaining about "grind".
11: fleet carriers.
So out of the first 11, we have 2 well thought out posts, 3 angry about fleet carriers and 6 angry about a grind, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Sandbox games work. What are you "grind"ing for? Endgame? Sandboxes don't have endgames! lol
This is my point. Out of 11 posts, 2 are people who actually dislike the game for reasons other than fundamental misunderstanding about what the game is about or aren't simply angry that a literal capital ship costs credits.
Yeah, it's a great idea, as long as you solve all the problems with "other changes" and ignore the people who don't want it.
Otherwise, no problems.
For your idea to just break even, it requires a lot of things to change in undefined ways, just to make it work. That's not an improvement. Somewhat similar to the cake analogy, where you wanted to "add a layer" to the cake. That wouldn't improve the cake, it would just require a lot of work, ruin the existing design, and require the entire thing to be be put back together. A somewhat accurate representation of your idea, though unintentional.
Are we going to ignore that some of those reviews are complaining about content that isn't even OUT yet?Elite Dangerous on Steam
Take control of your own starship in a cutthroat galaxy. Elite Dangerous is the definitive massively multiplayer space epic.store.steampowered.com
Lets look at the negative reviews on the first page.
1- first one is a well written post that does hit quite a few negative points on ED.
2 and 3- complaining about fleet carriers.
4- is well written; fair number of valid issues.
5-10: All complaining about "grind".
11: fleet carriers.
So out of the first 11, we have 2 well thought out posts, 3 angry about fleet carriers and 6 angry about a grind, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Sandbox games work. What are you "grind"ing for? Endgame? Sandboxes don't have endgames! lol
This is my point. Out of 11 posts, 2 are people who actually dislike the game for reasons other than fundamental misunderstanding about what the game is about or aren't simply angry that a literal capital ship costs credits.
Oh, I grasp it completely - you want the game changed to reflect what you consider would be a better model, a laudable stance to take indeed... Of course the changes would affect a bunch of players in which you have no interest, but that is just too bad as you will be happy... Summed up pretty accurately I think.
Me, I think things work very well as they are, although crossplay between consoles and PC would be a bonus in the future
This debate is going spiffingly well, isn't it?
Unwilling to answer. Figures.
Unspecified tools, no clue or appreciation for the many different play styles and approaches people take to this game, just a single mode would somehow make it all great. For you.
Unspecified tools, no clue or appreciation for the many different play styles and approaches people take to this game, just a single mode would somehow make it all great. For you.
I see a growing sense in you, that you know everything. I mean you attempt to speak for all of the players, and you appear to suggest that you can read my mind. I have continuously advised you to bring suggestions that don't remove choice, or disenfranchise players. That is not contrarian.
What kind of "tool" say I'd need to visit for example Deciat without becoming someones unwanting "emergent content"? Currently I have pretty effective tool to do that. If you are suggesting something as effective and easy to use as current one, well whats the point. Yeah, lets make 100% effective interdiction blocker, and beef up station security to say 100 km no fire-zone radius from station, plus automatic weapon shutdown. Now you can have open only.
You haven't answered the question I posited though - if the new PP mission system is so good, why bother keeping the original PP system? Surely even open players would enjoy being free from the grind of delivering cargo in the same way hour after hour, and by playing in open they still get to enjoy the human contact.
In terms of the barebones mechanics being prevalent throughout ED, they are pretty much pandemic across the entire game. Which is why a solid combination of extensions, balancing and fixes (such as making NPC pirates have more IQ than a concussed snail) to these core activities will fix a lot of issues, including improving PP indirectly. It's been pointed out time and time again that NPCs are toothless against even a moderately experienced player outside of ATR and freak occurrences of entire groups of spec ops spawning around you. If the game is relying on the other players to provide challenge, then the game has failed at providing the challenge.
I answered your question: Powerplay for many is the thrill of being in Open fighting over 100% player generated objectives. But not everyone, hence splitting it between missions and Open.
I have a saying- either NPCs behave like players, or players behave like NPCs.
With very little you can have a mode that provides the latter without the former in the form of Powerplay as I suggest.
For Powerplay to effectively be PvP-focused the objectives would need to be specifically PvP-related, not PvE objectives with the option to interfere using PvP.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
No merits for the "support role" for players in Solo and PGs - that's a gate.