I think there's a fear that excluding anyone from anything would be bad, even tho exclusivity can create brand loyalty and grow a franchise. Why give just the thrill seekers a dish of spicy cajun chicken when you can serve Vegan food to literally everyone.
Another Open Only Suggestion.
- Thread starter Janette Vasquez
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hotelcalifornia
I think there's a fear that excluding anyone from anything would be bad, even tho exclusivity can create brand loyalty and grow a franchise. Why give just the thrill seekers a dish of spicy cajun chicken when you can serve Vegan food to literally everyone.
Rude. No I don't want to take it away, I want to make Powerplay and PvP a meaningful and impactful system. I wasn't aware that the purchase of a £500 single function computer required the subsequent purchase of online game access on a recurring basis. You were aware of it and you seem to think it's unfair and directed that ire at me. Perhaps you'd be better off not serving that business model?
I too dislike this, which is why unless I wanted to climb that ladder and lose over and over again, I just wouldn't involve myself in Powerplay, even in Open then you're less likely to get into conflict unless you start tinkering with a system that someone's trying to manipulate in a specific way, then you get some bitsized PvP or move onto a different system/switch playmodes.
I couldn't agree more. Especially with the idea that trying to please everyone didn't really work out.
Oddly I only get that kind of hostility from Console players.
I didn't buy a PC to be better than you, I bought a PC so I could use AutoCad, Photoshop, watch movies -and- play video games.No here what Rude having someone ask to take something away from me that rude.
That you talking about taking it away from Console users who can't afford the high cost of Pay to play model. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon. Some people Struggle to have end meet. But we both like PowerPlay and PG. But we have you asking to make it Open only.
Open only for PP/II/CG really would not work unless the entire way instancing, and balancing are handled is changed, they make it truly cross platform and not just multi platform, and reduce the effect cargo delivery has on the outcome of PP/CG/II. You generally do far more for your faction in PP/CG by delivering cargo than you do by trying, and utterly failing, to blockade.
What is the actual goal? Bringing more people into open, or just eliminating the effect Solo/PG players have on the BGS?
The very idea that open only will bring a lot more people into open rather than them simply playing another game, is likely wishful thinking. I suspect many, if not most of the Solo/PG players would simply not play anymore. If it is to eliminate their effect on CG/PP, well blockades are pretty useless in my opinion. You can't stop more cargo by killing cargo ships from other factions, (even if you could identify them when it comes to CGs), than you could have delivered yourself.
Anecdotal evidence, ignore if you like:
The last time I dealt with chain interdiction, I tied up 3 opposing ships for over 15 minutes and still managed to make my delivery. Meanwhile who knows how many slid through unopposed while they were playing with me. Even if they had toasted me on the first try, it would have been at least 5 minutes spent with me while who knows how many tonnes slipped through. A half dozen ships in super cruise does not an effective blockade make. 60 ships spread over 20 instances even less so. Those ships would do way better for their faction delivering cargo than trying to blockade.
Granted, I was in a heavily engineered Cutter, and not a Type 9 or the like. Lots of shield and fairly fast. Faster than the Annie one of them was using at least.
What is the actual goal? Bringing more people into open, or just eliminating the effect Solo/PG players have on the BGS?
The very idea that open only will bring a lot more people into open rather than them simply playing another game, is likely wishful thinking. I suspect many, if not most of the Solo/PG players would simply not play anymore. If it is to eliminate their effect on CG/PP, well blockades are pretty useless in my opinion. You can't stop more cargo by killing cargo ships from other factions, (even if you could identify them when it comes to CGs), than you could have delivered yourself.
Anecdotal evidence, ignore if you like:
The last time I dealt with chain interdiction, I tied up 3 opposing ships for over 15 minutes and still managed to make my delivery. Meanwhile who knows how many slid through unopposed while they were playing with me. Even if they had toasted me on the first try, it would have been at least 5 minutes spent with me while who knows how many tonnes slipped through. A half dozen ships in super cruise does not an effective blockade make. 60 ships spread over 20 instances even less so. Those ships would do way better for their faction delivering cargo than trying to blockade.
Granted, I was in a heavily engineered Cutter, and not a Type 9 or the like. Lots of shield and fairly fast. Faster than the Annie one of them was using at least.
Yup, I'm with you 100% OP.
Once you get the ships you want, upgraded and engineered up the ying-yang, the game gets boring as you-know-what.
What I want is open only but with other necessary changes to make it work. Off the top of my head: ability to join my PMF, declare war on other PMFs (so we can shoot at them without it being considered a crime), high security means high security (so gankers have almost no chance to gank and get away with it), separate save for solo-open, improved visibility re what territory your PMF holds, cross play, better instancing, compelling team-based PvP in the actual game world (not on a special, isolated instance), more tools enabling emergent game play and cooperation, reasons to pledge to a power and stay pledged to it, and other things that I am forgetting atm.
Add these changes to a branched version of ED and market it as a separate game so that any legal and quasi-legal requirements and "promises" that were made during kickstarter (e.g., separate modes, etc) are still honored on the original ED but new and better development can continue unhindered in the new branch.
Once you get the ships you want, upgraded and engineered up the ying-yang, the game gets boring as you-know-what.
What I want is open only but with other necessary changes to make it work. Off the top of my head: ability to join my PMF, declare war on other PMFs (so we can shoot at them without it being considered a crime), high security means high security (so gankers have almost no chance to gank and get away with it), separate save for solo-open, improved visibility re what territory your PMF holds, cross play, better instancing, compelling team-based PvP in the actual game world (not on a special, isolated instance), more tools enabling emergent game play and cooperation, reasons to pledge to a power and stay pledged to it, and other things that I am forgetting atm.
Add these changes to a branched version of ED and market it as a separate game so that any legal and quasi-legal requirements and "promises" that were made during kickstarter (e.g., separate modes, etc) are still honored on the original ED but new and better development can continue unhindered in the new branch.
"Better" being subjective and very, very loose with the definition of the word.
Sterling MH
Banned
NO.
What you want are traders PPing in Open. Benefiting anyone other than that is making it unbalanced. REMOVE the limit for vouchers in Open, so you can take 750 at a time in open for free, but if you log into another mode, you lose them (which means you lose nothing more than time, and not much of that).
Anyone doing combat is either there to PvP already OR aren't doing PvP at all, so nerfing that in solo/PG is worthless. You're not going to meet any more this way and they aren't the targets you want anyway if they aren't in there today.
In conclusion, There's been some good compromise suggestions such as making Power Play more profitable in open but still doable in solo and PG and various other good suggestions in this thread that meet in the middle. Curiously most people opposed to the idea seem quite het up about it, I can see why frontier would be reluctant to do such a big change and lose a significant percentage of their player base, tho still likely less than 25%.
All in all, I don't think Elite is the game for me and as dissenting opinions have said, this topic has been done to death. I'll keep watching the news letter for Elite: Dangerous. II
All in all, I don't think Elite is the game for me and as dissenting opinions have said, this topic has been done to death. I'll keep watching the news letter for Elite: Dangerous. II
People who knew what they were buying were aware all modes are equal and there's one shared BGS. It may even have featured in their reasons for buying in.
So you'll meet resistance to propositions for a rewrite/redesign limiting other peoples access what the game they knowingly bought offered.
If you'd read up on this stuff first you could have saved some money and effort.
The sequel will probably feature the same successful modes model since its popular and offers choice which gamers like.
So are we pretending that there aren't three entirely different platforms that don't directly interact? It comes up and people are uninterested in addressing this inconsistency in the argument, it seems.
Just because something is a "compromise" doesn't mean it's a good solution. Especially when one side is "don't change this" and the compromise is still "change this anyway".
See you in 20 years when you come back to complain about the same thing in the second game.