CG Format needs to change or be tweaked to make it more of a challenge.

[tomeagles]

For context Following on from This thread among many other similar types.

At the moment the only risk in a CG is pretty much if your playing in open and the odd NPC interdiction, CG's are pretty much guaranteed to complete, there is no way to really oppose them other than in Open Mode by attacking, or disrupting game play through whatever creative method players come up with at the time.

CG's need a way for both sides to have a meaningful chance of succeeding, at the moment bcs of the three different game modes (PG SOLO OPEN) A delivery CG can be completed without even any chance for opposition to have an impact as we can drop in to PG or Solo.

What I would personally love to see is the Risk from NPC's in a delivery CG increase dramatically, with a balanced increase in rewards this way there is a chance there will be an impact on the deliveries coming to a CG, and will allow for smuggling tactics etc to come into play. At the moment the only challenge is who has the biggest cargo capacity and free time to get as many credits as possible from the CG Bonuses.

IF FDEV cant tweak the NPC ship numbers, then have a delivery goal on the same station that offers the same chance to block the other one completing, this will make for more of a challenge, maybe a smuggling one much higher risk but needs a % less delivery tonnage wise to succeed, and offers better rewards this way the risk and potential payout would be worth it.

Imagine this type of scenario, a local faction wants to upgrade their station so asks for X,Y,Z to be delivered. The Opposing one wants to subvert that in someway and asks for battle weapons, or some other illegal goods to be delivered so that they can fight the local faction.

If the local faction wins they get the upgrade, if the opposing one wins then there is no upgrade and the station goes into lockdown and a civil war state. Now you can have a follow on with a combat based CG and have some form of meaningful Storyline attached to a CG and a way that both sides can interact in someway to have an impact.

Just my humble 0.2c

 

[Ralph Vargr]

For context Following on from This thread among many other similar types.

At the moment the only risk in a CG is pretty much if your playing in open and the odd NPC interdiction, CG's are pretty much guaranteed to complete, there is no way to really oppose them other than in Open Mode by attacking, or disrupting game play through whatever creative method players come up with at the time.

CG's need a way for both sides to have a meaningful chance of succeeding, at the moment bcs of the three different game modes (PG SOLO OPEN) A delivery CG can be completed without even any chance for opposition to have an impact as we can drop in to PG or Solo.

What I would personally love to see is the Risk from NPC's in a delivery CG increase dramatically, with a balanced increase in rewards this way there is a chance there will be an impact on the deliveries coming to a CG, and will allow for smuggling tactics etc to come into play. At the moment the only challenge is who has the biggest cargo capacity and free time to get as many credits as possible from the CG Bonuses.

IF FDEV cant tweak the NPC ship numbers, then have a delivery goal on the same station that offers the same chance to block the other one completing, this will make for more of a challenge, maybe a smuggling one much higher risk but needs a % less delivery tonnage wise to succeed, and offers better rewards this way the risk and potential payout would be worth it.

Imagine this type of scenario, a local faction wants to upgrade their station so asks for X,Y,Z to be delivered. The Opposing one wants to subvert that in someway and asks for battle weapons, or some other illegal goods to be delivered so that they can fight the local faction.

If the local faction wins they get the upgrade, if the opposing one wins then there is no upgrade and the station goes into lockdown and a civil war state. Now you can have a follow on with a combat based CG and have some form of meaningful Storyline attached to a CG and a way that both sides can interact in someway to have an impact.

Just my humble 0.2c

Mining landing pads, inside starports.

I remember World Of Warplanes, where the seal-clubbers would drop bombs (!!) on lower flying aircraft.

Same kind of behavior, same kind of players.

So that makes CG's better?

 

[tomeagles]

Mining landing pads, inside starports.

I remember World Of Warplanes, where the seal-clubbers would drop bombs (!!) on lower flying aircraft.

Same kind of behavior, same kind of players.

So that makes CG's better?

I didnt say it made it better, I said that at the moment there are very limited choices that cmdr's have to oppose a CG which leads them to get creative and use whatever exists in the current game play options. What I said if you read properly is that there needs to be other ways to oppose CG's so that there is less of this type of game play. Stop putting words in to peoples mouths that arent there and maybe come up with ideas yourself.

 

[Marshall...]

I don't understand why the Lugh war template has not been repeated.....

Also, we did used to get multiple CG with the chance of all of them being completed as nill - the Cerberus Virus CGs are the ones that stick in my mind.

 

[FoxTwo]

When the idea of CGs was first raised, I was half expecting it to be available only in Open mode. I was surprised it's also available for Solo and private groups too. I thought it was a weird decision, but whatever.

Anyway the point is, I agree with the OP. I play in Solo and I seldom ever take part in CGs actually. Maybe the odd 1 or 2 in the past, but I don't follow CGs around.

 

[Mohrgan]

If foreknowledge of a CG were sure to bring more criminals, that same foreknowledge would bring more authorities. The change would simply be a denser population, not more threat. And, one thing CG instances don't really need is more population density.

 

[texasp8]

Well, there is already a way to create CGs with sides.... they create two CGs, and have only one win. I think the CGs like the one in the linked thread are not meant to have an opposite side. Aren't they there as a way for CMDRs to make extra credits, with the challenge being the targets set by FDev? (I'm not sure it's true to say that CGs are pretty much guaranteed to complete. The 3 trade one's before this week's did not).

 

[IamNickMan]

Well it's fairly easy to lock a faction down with BGS Lockdown state. Additionally it's also possible to UA bombing a station hosting a CG with some coordination.
For player groups An enormous amount of effort goes into hosting a CG. Getting everything prepared properly to avoid these two outcomes is a great challenge that can still fail in the end. Just two weeks ago a Fed CG was out into lockdown. CGs aren't even really about x, y &z as much as they are about the community engaging and building lore. Overall, knowing what it takes to get it done and put together, The way it is now allows any group to host, or any super power to support. Making it harder would damage fringe groups and only allow larger or superpowers to really make a difference.

Making that effort harder with harder pirates or some other challenge? Well I don't think that'd hurt veteran pilots with bigger ships. I think that'd hurt the medium ships. The new commanders in T-6s, asps, and Haulers....


Just my 0.2¢

 

[Drelthar]

They just don't seem to be using the "Mechanics" they have for them.

The tech is already there, they can have opposing CG's, they can even make them more interesting than pretty much all of them since Lugh have been too (because Lugh) and that was a super early one.

It's kind of befuddling.

But, yep, just make them all have a competing side.

 

[Robert Maynard]

When the idea of CGs was first raised, I was half expecting it to be available only in Open mode. I was surprised it's also available for Solo and private groups too. I thought it was a weird decision, but whatever.

.... not at all surprising given that the intended game experience has been for all players to affect and experience a single shared galaxy state since the first design information for the game was published over four and a half years ago. Nor is it surprising in a game where direct PvP is entirely optional.

Powerplay was also implemented according to this principle.

If Frontier wanted all CGs to be able to be opposed then there'd be CGs opposing them that opposing players could also participate in.

 

[Mohrgan]

When they had competing CG's the Imperials out there, damn their eyes, complained that they never could beat the Feds, woot, so why bother? It is never ending, someone will always be put out about something.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

A long time ago, I made a suggestion :

- take a rough snapshot of key events (Player actions, general Traffic) in Open Play
- tweak all other Modes to mirror that to some extent via NPCs

Result :
- in a System where in Open Play nothing spectacular happens, all other Modes also see a completely normal System
- in a System where in Open Play Bounty Hunter Players outnumber Wanted/Criminal Players, all other Modes see a similar picture (BH NPCs hopping in quickly after an Interdiction to assist, as well as in RES Sites etc.)
- in a System where in Open Play Pirates are very successful, all other Modes are being more frequently interdicted and often by Wings of NPC Pirates instead of the usual oddball random single Interdiction
- in a System where in Open Play Criminals/Terrorist run rampage unabated, all other Modes also see a significant increase of attacking NPCs

Data could be collated daily or in 12/8/4 hr cycles and be used to automatically (Server-side only) tweak all relevant NPC numbers and interdictions.
For ease of purpose and minimal implementation efforts needed, such an Event Mirror System could be limited to active CG Systems.

That way, a busy hotspot with alot of Action in Open Play would (to an extent as desired by Frontier's desired Balancing) be mirrored into all other Modes.
Hence, a hotspot would be a hotspot regardless of Mode and the differences felt everywhere - while at its core still being driven by Players.

Arguably, this suggestion is very Open-focused, allowing Players there to affect the experience all Modes by their actions.
However, that'd go both ways. Make a System more dangeorus (Criminals killing more Clean Players) or make it safer (Bounty Hunters killing more Criminals).
In any way, I think it'd make such Systems more interesting, since it's one way to break the monotony and "same as everywhere" that's otherwise seen.
(would also encourage i.e. Group Modes to i.e. Wing up, as it can now provide more PvE challenges)

So in a nutshell, debatable, but I think that'd work quite well, all while costing only minimal effort to implement.

 

[Mohrgan]

A long time ago, I made a suggestion :

- take a rough snapshot of key events (Player actions, general Traffic) in Open Play
- tweak all other Modes to mirror that to some extent via NPCs

Result :
- in a System where in Open Play nothing spectacular happens, all other Modes also see a completely normal System
- in a System where in Open Play Bounty Hunter Players outnumber Wanted/Criminal Players, all other Modes see a similar picture (BH NPCs hopping in quickly after an Interdiction to assist, as well as in RES Sites etc.)
- in a System where in Open Play Pirates are very successful, all other Modes are being more frequently interdicted and often by Wings of NPC Pirates instead of the usual oddball random single Interdiction
- in a System where in Open Play Criminals/Terrorist run rampage unabated, all other Modes also see a significant increase of attacking NPCs

Data could be collated daily or in 12/8/4 hr cycles and be used to automatically (Server-side only) tweak all relevant NPC numbers and interdictions.
For ease of purpose and minimal implementation efforts needed, such an Event Mirror System could be limited to active CG Systems.

That way, a busy hotspot with alot of Action in Open Play would (to an extent as desired by Frontier's desired Balancing) be mirrored into all other Modes.
Hence, a hotspot would be a hotspot regardless of Mode and the differences felt everywhere - while at its core still being driven by Players.

Arguably, this suggestion is very Open-focused, allowing Players there to affect the experience all Modes by their actions.
However, that'd go both ways. Make a System more dangeorus (Criminals killing more Clean Players) or make it safer (Bounty Hunters killing more Criminals).
In any way, I think it'd make such Systems more interesting, since it's one way to break the monotony and "same as everywhere" that's otherwise seen.
(would also encourage i.e. Group Modes to i.e. Wing up, as it can now provide more PvE challenges)

So in a nutshell, debatable, but I think that'd work quite well, all while costing only minimal effort to implement.

This can't be done. The differences between Solo/PG/open are in matchmaking, not with instancing. What is done to those in Solo, would only increase what was happening to the busier open instances.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

This can't be done. The differences between Solo/PG/open are in matchmaking, not with instancing. What is done to those in Solo, would only increase what was happening to the busier open instances.

You misunderstood.

The difference is what Picture and Action (risk) is presented to all other Modes via NPC actions. Thus, it can be very easily done.

It's not a "live mirror" where actual (happening) Interdictions in Open were somehow to be mirrored into other modes, as this is indeed not possible nor desired.

NPC actions in Solo/Group modes would simply reflect the general condition in the respective System(s), as benchmarked by the statistical data gained from Open Play (number and frequency of Interdictions, number of Wings, strength of NPC Wings etc.).

 

[Mohrgan]

You misunderstood.

The difference is what Picture and Action (risk) is presented to all other Modes via NPC actions. Thus, it can be very easily done.

It's not a "live mirror" where actual (happening) Interdictions in Open were somehow to be mirrored into other modes, as this is indeed not possible nor desired.

NPC actions in Solo/Group modes would simply reflect the general condition in the respective System(s), as benchmarked by the statistical data gained from Open Play (number and frequency of Interdictions, number of Wings, strength of NPC Wings etc.).

That is a bit of a stretch with our system. Wouldn't the 'risk' level just boil over into open, and just pitch the scales again? In the end, I'm not in favor of tying the modes together. Open doesn't have some claim over the other modes, open is just another choice you get to make as you play.

 

[tomeagles]

That is a bit of a stretch with our system. Wouldn't the 'risk' level just boil over into open, and just pitch the scales again? In the end, I'm not in favor of tying the modes together. Open doesn't have some claim over the other modes, open is just another choice you get to make as you play.

The sane could be said about pg and solo, if you look at it that way, why should actions in them have an impact on players who choose to play in open.

With competitive cg's happening simultaneously it no longer matters what mode you play in, just the side you choose that way someone in Open can do the cg that would block the other that players in pg or solo were trying to complete and vice versa.

 

[askavir]

There are no sides in a CG.

 

[Drelthar]

There are no sides in a CG.

I would personally find them a lot more engaging if there often was though.

 

[Mohrgan]

The sane could be said about pg and solo, if you look at it that way, why should actions in them have an impact on players who choose to play in open.

With competitive cg's happening simultaneously it no longer matters what mode you play in, just the side you choose that way someone in Open can do the cg that would block the other that players in pg or solo were trying to complete and vice versa.

In this context, with E|D and all, it's because it was designed to have one central BGS, and many ways to access it. There was/is no indication that this was a mistake. We all share the same game. Those in Solo paid the same price of admission. So, yeah, no. It's not the same. You knew, and everyone else knew, what the deal was. Any resentment for Solo/PG is on those that have it, not us that use it.

 

[askavir]

I would personally find them a lot more engaging if there often was though.

Me too. I also find the target for a CG to be considered "successful" (reaching tier 1) is too easily achievable.