Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
More or less game breaking than removing the BGS and Powerplay from Solo and Private Groups, and why?
General [MEGATHREAD] Rebalances and fixes for the progression system, risk/reward ratio, ingame learning curves, pvp, and more!
- Thread starter KazumiH
- Start date
That assertion is simply not true. There is no basis in fact for this post. Plus, a Mod who participates in a thread, does not Moderate that thread. That's why you see an impartial Ian, pop up and take care of business.
No more game breaking than the normal suggestions put forward...
Depends which side of the line you choose I suppose
It's not your territory though. You don't own it.
@captain kitty
ok a little more explanation on this.
if there would be a live tracking and a mission to hunt high grade criminals of course this would be and must be open only gameplay. how should a bounty hunter find a target otherwise.
and yes when a player did such serious crimes then he shouldnt be able to hide in solo or PG as long his crimestat is not cleared.
You don't know they have a mission. If they have a mission, you don't know who for. If they are clean, you are killing law abiding pilots, giving yourself a bounty and damaging your own faction rep.
PvP is literally the worst way to deal with the BGS.
I dont get this idea that BGS is only a pvp thing, there is so many things that effect BGS to say its only effected by pvp is just...false. At the end of the day Fdevs are the real ones that control it. BGS is just the scafolding used to build the story and game.
I'm sorry, but after reading nearly 15 pages of people throwing mud on each other's ideas, and making unverified claims about what FDev does and doesn't want, or how systems should vs actually interact.
That issue aside, I think many of the things that were discussed in this thread were useful to the discussion as a whole to find a compromise that a vocal majority might be able to rally behind to persuade FDev to take it into consideration. However, not questioning FDev on the development of the game means that mistakes made in direction and design could lead to the overall collapse of a game that many people find enjoyment in. This is why I made suggestions that I did about the first FC Beta about owners being able to store their modules and ships on their FC without the need for outfitting/shipyard services on the FC. FDev listened because a vocal majority made the suggestion openly and repeatedly.
My opinions on the original intent of this discussion are thus:
If Elite Dangerous is a risk vs reward game, then the highest risk exists in Open Play, then Player Groups, and finally Solo Play. Thus it stands to reason that the greatest reward potential should reside in Open Play, then Player Groups, then Solo play. With that logic established, Game Systems that affect that risk/reward ratio should be weighted on that risk/reward matrix. So things like Faction Influence gains and losses, BGS, Power Play, System state influences should all have less impact when performed outside of Open Play. Not "zero" effect, but not equal to. This would keep the overall intent of a one persistent galaxy intact while allowing player choice, with the possibility of rewards given in Open to be increased to offer players to choose if the reward for them fits the risks they take.
However, if this idea were to be adopted by FDev, changes would need to be made with some systems, which include the blocking system that they currently employ. Though if FDev would be kind enough to explain how they believe their blocking system is intended to work, that would go a long way into fixing instancing issues that some players even within this thread have reported to have experienced.
TLDR; Please stop throwing mud on each other's ideas. Let's get this discussion back on track. Risk/Reward Matrix, Not Only Open Play, Player Choice Please!
That issue aside, I think many of the things that were discussed in this thread were useful to the discussion as a whole to find a compromise that a vocal majority might be able to rally behind to persuade FDev to take it into consideration. However, not questioning FDev on the development of the game means that mistakes made in direction and design could lead to the overall collapse of a game that many people find enjoyment in. This is why I made suggestions that I did about the first FC Beta about owners being able to store their modules and ships on their FC without the need for outfitting/shipyard services on the FC. FDev listened because a vocal majority made the suggestion openly and repeatedly.
My opinions on the original intent of this discussion are thus:
If Elite Dangerous is a risk vs reward game, then the highest risk exists in Open Play, then Player Groups, and finally Solo Play. Thus it stands to reason that the greatest reward potential should reside in Open Play, then Player Groups, then Solo play. With that logic established, Game Systems that affect that risk/reward ratio should be weighted on that risk/reward matrix. So things like Faction Influence gains and losses, BGS, Power Play, System state influences should all have less impact when performed outside of Open Play. Not "zero" effect, but not equal to. This would keep the overall intent of a one persistent galaxy intact while allowing player choice, with the possibility of rewards given in Open to be increased to offer players to choose if the reward for them fits the risks they take.
However, if this idea were to be adopted by FDev, changes would need to be made with some systems, which include the blocking system that they currently employ. Though if FDev would be kind enough to explain how they believe their blocking system is intended to work, that would go a long way into fixing instancing issues that some players even within this thread have reported to have experienced.
TLDR; Please stop throwing mud on each other's ideas. Let's get this discussion back on track. Risk/Reward Matrix, Not Only Open Play, Player Choice Please!
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim Smith
Lead Community Manager
Hi all,
Thanks to Sir.Tj for locking the thread temporarily.
We've reviewed the posts and reports involved and we've decided to open up the thread again, but with a reminder to please keep discussion friendly and constructive. Sharing of views and opinions even if they are counter to each other is allowed and encouraged, with lively debate being great but fighting and flaming being the line where we need to take action again.
Be respectful of each other and happy discussion!
Tim
Thanks to Sir.Tj for locking the thread temporarily.
We've reviewed the posts and reports involved and we've decided to open up the thread again, but with a reminder to please keep discussion friendly and constructive. Sharing of views and opinions even if they are counter to each other is allowed and encouraged, with lively debate being great but fighting and flaming being the line where we need to take action again.
Be respectful of each other and happy discussion!
Tim
Thanks Tim.
Next time you have to blame TJ, not thank him though!
I agree with the principle, but I dont recognise the distinction between Private Groups and Solo. Private Groups provide at least a balanced risk versus Solo, since any risk from other players is offset by the added safety & efficiency of being in a cooperative wing. Nevermind that anyone can create a Private Group of their own and accept no other players within it, or just have Alt accounts of their own to benefit from Wing mission rewards, multicrew pip benefits etc. If anything, the risk/reward balance of Solo and Private group is if anything favourable to Private Groups, not the other way round, but the net effect can balance so they may as well be both treated as the same minimal risk category.
The way ED is set up makes balancing the modes impossible, so don't try to. Instead, make features that fit that 'experience'.
So rather than try to make one 'way' fit horizontally across modes (which will always have problem areas) you instead split things vertically and have parts to suit modes better.
In game terms this sounds drastic but its not. It would look like:
1:1 PvP - CQC
Multi mode - BGS, normal generic play
Group v group PvP - Powerplay (either in whole as Sandro proposed, or split like I suggested here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...es-on-sandros-last-ideas.526335/#post-8079411)
In this way the BGS is the mirror of Powerplay- one is turn based, slower and multi mode- the other, real time (or as near as possible) and via Open. It also makes sense in that you stop Powerplay being an inferior BGS / CG clone.
So rather than try to make one 'way' fit horizontally across modes (which will always have problem areas) you instead split things vertically and have parts to suit modes better.
In game terms this sounds drastic but its not. It would look like:
1:1 PvP - CQC
Multi mode - BGS, normal generic play
Group v group PvP - Powerplay (either in whole as Sandro proposed, or split like I suggested here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...es-on-sandros-last-ideas.526335/#post-8079411)
In this way the BGS is the mirror of Powerplay- one is turn based, slower and multi mode- the other, real time (or as near as possible) and via Open. It also makes sense in that you stop Powerplay being an inferior BGS / CG clone.
That doesn't work. As someone can take the mission/cargo/whatever in open; swap to solo; relog into open; turn in for the full 'open' amount.
Not if you do it so the missions are instantly deleted when you swap open to PG and Solo as that would stop people doing it that way or do it so you can only hand in that mission in the game mode you chose originally when you picked it up
Unless they can't do that. ie: 'Mission cargo is lost if you switch modes with it on-board'. Its a tiny issue to implement, not a game-ender. However, balancing isnt the way, since there would always be circumstances where a solo/pg mission would be more efficient than an Open mission (such as when the basing system is under blockade) at which point people can vanish the opposition, and youre right back where we are now. Which is why ...
.. ^ this is the explanation & the solution. It really does make more sense and is more balanced and respectful of all extremes in the modes argument, than any other individual proposal ive seen. It cuts straight to the issue without prejudice, and just deals with the problems & imbalances as they exist.
What I would like to see though, is a consolidated proposal based on this which itemises both the additions, and the referenced 'parts of Sandro's proposals' so it can be seen in its entirety in one document, not relying on cross-referencing.
I am working on my Ultimate Version™ that deals with 5C, and makes everything just peachy.
Um, no. What generally happens is more like this (addressing only the BGS part):
"Unfortunately this feature is currently heavily borked to the point where a large group of players IN OPEN can affect and potentially ruin a minor groups or even one single players experience and progress in SOLO Play."
Solo players are generally at a disadvantage against Open players in BGS conflicts. The reason for this is that the Solo player is more likely to be a "lone wolf" just trying to do his own thing, whereas Open players are more likely to be part of a large group. As previously mentioned, manipulating the BGS is an exercise in competitive bucket-filling, where the advantage goes to the larger group. A lone-wolf needs to struggle VERY hard to compete with that.
Victory should go to whichever side can fill its buckets better, whether through superior numbers, or superior determination. If a group in Open can't do that, they deserve to lose.
Also addressing the idea that open/pg/solo have vastly different risk reward. This is mostly false. You can spend all day running missions or doing trade hops and only run into the odd cmdr hear and there. Usually all you get from them is an O7 and you carry on doing what you were doing. The only time there is a risk is going to a 'hot' spot and the risk is only there due to the pathetic security that the npc cops give in the systems. Fix the c&p and you will see lots more coming back into open. If you want more people in open you need more positive interactions between players. OP and others have only been using a stick, try a carrot.