Open only story arcs please

[Stigbob]

The problem is for Open to work it can't be optional. I get a blanket "open for everything" is not right (I support a multi mode BGS with a solo / open dual role in Powerplay). Sometimes limitations and restrictions make situations different than if they were multi mode, and how you approach them.

What difference does it make in a game where you can just wake out ?.

So while I want open things, I don't want it all over. But for open to work you can't make it optional so I'd like to see it employed in ways that are contained- hence some CGs and parts of Powerplay. There is nothing to stop FD making a parallel CG for solo / pg players either- in fact it would be nice as then you can have the experience you want but in ways that work to the mode.

Over the years a few open only proponent players have got annoyed with me for being pro-choice (and block) and said they were coming to blow me up to prove their manliness or something, I explain how it's all optional (and a big galaxy) then send them a friend invite to make it a bit easier for them to find me so I can prove PVP is optional by waking out on them.

The thing is once they are in your friends list you can see what mode they are in and every single one of them without exception spent less time in open than I do. They did all their money making, engineering and BGS running in solo. Open (for them) was a quick fraught hunt only when and if they felt prepared to do it.

Whereas I just like playing in open. Not pointing the finger at you, just a recurring theme.

None of them got close either.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Ere, nope.

Well if you had a mix of parallel CGs (an open one + solo) you could make the combined outcome pivotal- you might win the PvP but lose the logistics, or take out enough high ranking pilots but not enough footsoldiers. So both have to be done well to win or that the outcome determines the ongoing story.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What difference does it make in a game where you can just wake out ?.

It depends what the objective is. If you are running away all the time it might not be the best thing to win. For example, if you have to deliver something but can't, HW is not an answer.

Over the years a few open only proponent players have got annoyed with me for being pro-choice (and block) and said they were coming to blow me up to prove their manliness or something, I explain how it's all optional (and a big galaxy) then send them a friend invite to make it a bit easier for them to find me so I can prove PVP is optional by waking out on them. The thing is once they are in your friends list you can see what mode they are in and every single one of them without exception spent less time in open than I do. They did all their money making, engineering and BGS running in solo. Open (for them) was a quick fraught hunt only when and if they felt prepared to do it.

Whereas I just like playing in open. Not pointing the finger at you, just a recurring theme.

None of them got close either.

Which in non specific play is how it should be. Its when you mix an objective in that things get fun (IMO for me). Powerplay is like that- having to work as a team in real time to support each other. If you have the option for solo the need to work together is lessened in this case. I get and support ED needs to have gameplay in all modes- what I want to see is gameplay that suits that mode. An Open segment of Powerplay for example- unless you deliver you are not 'winning'- if you are stopping rivals that week you are 'winning'. HW in both cases is a 'loss' for the person doing it.

 

[JosiahD]

I'm probably ambivalent about a PvP focused CG but worth noting that would not in fact render it open only. PvP can equally occur in any private group apart from solo. To propose anything as open only would just be farcical given this game actually isn't just open and solo - there's a whole range of private groups with a plethora of playstyle preferences just as valid as open and solo.

 

[aRJay]

At least the ones with pivotal decisions.

How selfish. If open was as desirable as the open-only crowd claim they wouldn't need to be calling for open-only.

Some people like their stories to come to an end.

 

[varonica]

I guess if they have open only CG's they would have to even it out by making solo only CG's, hmm I can imagine the salt.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I guess if they have open only CG's they would have to even it out by making solo only CG's, hmm I can imagine the salt.

They are all solo by default.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They are all solo by default.

They offer optional PvP for those inclined to participate in them in a multi-player game mode.

 

[rootsrat]

They are all solo by default.

As they are Open and Group.

They are not "only" for all 3 modes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As they are Open and Group.

No- the 'unit' of work you do is solo by default (say, with BH CGs). The reason why a lot found them dull was because it was the same underlying thing each time, with the route to grinding them never changing. Its always farming lots of little things rather than a larger action.

 

[amigacooke]

At least the OP said ‘please’

 

[Rubbernuke]

They offer optional PvP for those inclined to participate in them in a multi-player game mode.

Currently there is no incentive or reason for that though, which is shame as it adds complications and strategic considerations. Its grind object x over and over which does not scale beyond solo.

Now, if a player who holds bonds for the opposition had a large bounty for carrying them (which is the equivalent of bounties held- e.g. pilot a has 10 million in bonds and is killed is worth 10 million- to avoid gaming the system). You could scale this up and provide an incentive to hunt others opportunistically.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Currently there is no incentive or reason for that though, which is shame as it adds complications and strategic considerations. Its grind object x over and over which does not scale beyond solo.

Why would / should there be any incentive to engage in a completely optional play-style?

Now, if a player who holds bonds for the opposition had a large bounty for carrying them (which is the equivalent of bounties held- e.g. pilot a has 10 million in bonds and is killed is worth 10 million- to avoid gaming the system). You could scale this up and provide an incentive to hunt others opportunistically.

Anything designed to reward contested PvP engagements is likely to be able to be gamed by those intent on receiving any reward in non-contested encounters. Frontier learned lessons on player collusion relatively early on....

 

[Rubbernuke]

Why would / should there be any incentive to engage in a completely optional play-style?

Well, if the objective for the CG was to kill other players doing something then it would not be optional, would it? Salome used PvP well and without it being in open it would not be possible.

Anything designed to reward contested PvP engagements is likely to be able to be gamed by those intent on receiving any reward in non-contested encounters. Frontier learned lessons on player collusion relatively early on....

And I just solved it for you- if you have a bounty equivalent to the bonds held by the destroyed ship you can't really be 'gaming' anything. The losing party has to have done work to gain a value. Plus it could also be done a number of ways based on ship, wanted levels etc or even superpower rep.

Plus, its hypocritical to wheel this out when you have rampant exploitation in mining which results in billions of credits.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, if the objective for the CG was to kill other players doing something then it would not be optional, would it? Salome used PvP well and without it being in open it would not be possible.

That's quite the "if" - given Sandro's rather short list of game features considered to be suitable for even investigating treating differently in Open. In other threads there have been those who have suggested that anyone concerned that CGs might be made Open only were engaging in the "slippery slope" fallacy.

And I just solved it for you- if you have a bounty equivalent to the bonds held by the destroyed ship you can't really be 'gaming' anything. The losing party has to have done work to gain a value. Plus it could also be done a number of ways based on ship, wanted levels etc or even superpower rep.

Credits are easy to accrue. Bounties can be accrued against colluding targets.

Plus, its hypocritical to wheel this out when you have rampant exploitation in mining which results in billions of credits.

Frontier seem to be working on stamping out issues relating to asteroid respawn - that needs fixing too.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's quite the "if" - given Sandro's rather short list of game features considered to be suitable for even investigating treating differently in Open. In other threads there have been those who have suggested that anyone concerned that CGs might be made Open only were engaging in the "slippery slope" fallacy.

PvP / direct interaction requires an objective to make that interaction worthwhile. Powerplay has this potential, and so does certain events in a CG (Titan, Salome) as well as 1:1 stuff in CQC.

Credits are easy to accrue. Bounties can be accrued against colluding targets.

You misunderstand. To get 10 million CZ bonds takes work- getting bounties takes work- getting hostile with factions / superpowers takes work. Its this effort required that means you can't fly a sidewinder and get popped.

Frontier seem to be working on stamping out issues relating to asteroid respawn - that needs fixing too.

I'm talking about just mining in general. If FD want PvP to be meaningful, then the worth of a player kill has to be higher. This can be done in numerous ways and limited to areas of CGs so its not a blanket thing and temporal. If you had a high stakes Open CG set in CZs with spec ops and other PvP players but players were worth much more, you set up a PvP situation thats worth the time- and this could be done as an Open bonus for that CG or you could have a separate 'normal' CG for people who wish to farm lower value targets.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

They are all solo by default.

They are open to all modes be default.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

I do like the idea of having two types of CG running in parallel. For example, a combat PvP based CG where players have to fight is specific CZ , where only kills scored in open count and anybody on the opposing side is a target. In addition that runs along side a PVE CG, where everything is counted regardless of which play mode it's in.

It's like the observation I've had for power-play. The idea is that for Expansion and Control activities, they only count if you do them in open but Preparation can be done in any mode. That way, minimal changes, everyone still has a way to earn merits and there are two specific legitimate PvP activities for people to really go at each other. As I've been finding out in Powerplay, PvP has a place and adds a little more spice to the experience and puts the Dangerous back into Elite: Dangerous.

However, at the same time, you do want an escape from always looking over your shoulder all of the time.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

We discussing them in the open right here.

 

[Rubbernuke]

They are open to all modes be default.

No, like I said the unit of work is solo- BH, cargo etc replies on solo PvE mechanics and gets dull since the NPCs are not doing anything new, its just you trying to do the same things faster than someone else (which I find dull, I'd rather have more uncertainty and teamwork).