It's still good enough to offer an indication that something is brewing.
See Cutters and T9, hauling is happening
See Vettes, FDL and Kraits, combat is happening
more than that, and it gets into TMI neighborhood
Expose more info about solo/pg player actions in station info
- Thread starter Disemboweled Ego
- Start date
It's still good enough to offer an indication that something is brewing.
See Cutters and T9, hauling is happening
See Vettes, FDL and Kraits, combat is happening
more than that, and it gets into TMI neighborhood
Yes, why I said "if were like Powerplay" and how I explained that in a previous post, because Powerplay (and its way of doing things) shows things differently (and in some ways is more instructive).
I do not quite understand the OP's intend. You always have to deal with random players that run missions or cargo in your systems without knowing about BGS or PMF at all. If another PMF opposes you, it is mostly open knowledge and quit clear. BGS Operations undercover (independent from solo or open mode) that you should not instantly be aware of are difficult to conduct... and should be hard to uncover as this is a "realistic" and challenging game mechanic.
Or just me going backwards and forwards, or a high traffic system. While its better than nothing, its like counting shopping trolleys going into a supermarket and not what they are doing with the trolleys.
The exemption for open is there for several reasons:
- In open you could theoretically just instance with the players working the system and see them in-game (maybe actual scouting/recon required? :O ).
- Having perfect information might expose too much of the BGS' inner workings that FDev doesn't want to reveal.
- Doing sneaky stuff should be a possibility, but require extra thought/effort (or some slight risk of extreme trauma via PvP if most of this thread is to be believed).
- I actually am a bit biased too.
This is normally hidden with fleet carrier hauls though. You can shovel a lot of goods using fleet carriers without being picked up on traffic reports.
More data would be useful, open/solo agnostic though.
Per minute data is useful once you know an attack is happening. You can then guage the scale of attack pre tick and scale your response. Otherwise you're fighting an unknown assailant each day.
This applied as much to inf in peace-time as CSs on war-days .
You have more faith in networking than I do.
Although the FCs themselves aren't hidden... If my 4 appeared in your system, you might question my motives...
(I used to park 3 in one system, got a message from the PMF chief asking what was up, which was rapidly sorted when I explained we supported them, and it was just a convenient spot!)
In fact if he picked all players that agreed with him to survey then he would 100% unanimous agreement, maybe there's a bit of bias there!
It's quite simple. Forcing an open only approach on this game will make the vast majority of players who play either in solo or private groups simply leave. Playing in open in the thargoid czs at the moment just underlines that players don't want their time wasted by gankers who want to spoil their gameplay.
DB-OBE quoted studies done into Ultima Online (the original MMO which turned into an absolute PvP gankfest), showed that every PVP ganker caused on average 50 account cancellations (i.e. players leaving the game) and then you look at Jumpgate, a space MMO with Newtonian physics, once the sealclubbers started smashing the noobs, the noobs just cancelled their free trials and the game died a death because there were no new players.
Open Only has it's place. for example, I always wanted it in Powerplay and for some community goals, it would add extra player agency. However, both of those game-play elements you're signing up for it and you should know what your getting into. But for general day to day play, lets keep it as it is.
DB-OBE quoted studies done into Ultima Online (the original MMO which turned into an absolute PvP gankfest), showed that every PVP ganker caused on average 50 account cancellations (i.e. players leaving the game) and then you look at Jumpgate, a space MMO with Newtonian physics, once the sealclubbers started smashing the noobs, the noobs just cancelled their free trials and the game died a death because there were no new players.
Open Only has it's place. for example, I always wanted it in Powerplay and for some community goals, it would add extra player agency. However, both of those game-play elements you're signing up for it and you should know what your getting into. But for general day to day play, lets keep it as it is.
BGS and how it can be impacted (most of the cases it just results in some kind of "disruption" ) by PvP activity is very depending on contingent reasons, that's true even assuming the parties involved play solely in open mode (i.e. platform, game type as we have still the EDO/EDH divide, timezone) but... when confrontation happens, it's usually brings out nice stories, lore and fun. Don't forget that the core PvPer's with their meta-FDLs do have very little interest in BGS or powerplay, so there's commonly a more levelled playground.
Powerplay is a bit different, because merits can be "stored" in a PvP ship and destroying enemy haulers is way more effective in terms of game impact vs destroying a BGS hoarder. That's so relevant to the point that "hiding" in solo/PG looks really close to be "cheesy" from a certain extent.
Those who died in open are not forgotten lol... that's why we do like to add those nice kabooms to our YT clips
everyone featured there deserved kudos (and Kumo Burgers of course 
) and they will be rememberd furevahhhhhh.Yes, and that's why we do play solely in open.
Yes, this is exactly why I proposed a different, more nuanced, solution that doesn't affect normal gameplay. Everyone (I asked them) knows that open-only or forcing anyone into open isn't on the table and never will be. There are good reasons for this, but also the frustrations this sometimes causes can be somewhat mitigated in a way that enhances other aspects of the game.
If more people will less malicious intent play in open the overall vibe indeed gets better and this suggestion is a way to get there. With that said it's probably pretty good already compared to other games despite what people say in threads like this.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Theoretically, yes - if one had 24/7 coverage in each of the four versions of Open - plus sufficient players to be able to instance with players all over the globe.
Yet perfect information of what is happening in Solo and Private Groups is seen as an advantage to be given to those in Open.
.... or just keeping ones block list up to date, if one is so inclined. Doing sneaky stuff, in this game, still doesn't require PvP - only CQC does.
Indeed.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not necessarily leave - they might just get busy with the block feature and engage in the feature anyway.
Hence the three game modes, no requirement to engage in PvP when engaging in any game feature (except CQC, of course - a no-consequence out-of-game feature), and the block feature. He also opined that large player groups who try to blockade areas of space, attempting to deny other players access, aren't much fun (ref. EGX 2014).
Not all players consider that Open Only has a place in this game - as not all players enjoy PvP in a game sold to all where other players are an optional extra and where all players experience and affect all aspects of the shared galaxy state.
While Open Only content might, if ever implemented, offer "extra player agency" to those who took part in any such content, it'd be unlikely to see participation from a significant portion of the player-base - as the form of player agency, i.e. direct opposition from other players in the form of PvP, is something that it seems (from one Dev quote some years ago and supported by recent Inara information covering a 30 day period of tens of thousands of CMDRs) only a small minority of the player-base engages in.
In the face of proposals to gate gameplay so that some players are specifically excluded from affecting it due to mode choice a quite reasonable response is to propose that those who don't actually want to share the galaxy with players who don't play with them should be given a galaxy of their own that only they can affect - leaving the tri-modal shared galaxy for those who don't feel that players should arbitrarily shut out of gameplay due to their choice of game mode.
Last edited:
Yes, but perfect information isn't the goal so this is fine and as other people pointed out, if you dedicate BGS resources to this instead of actually doing BGS you're going to lose. Coming at it from this angle it also undermines the prevalent myth that open is a 24/7 gankfest.
People playing in solo would get the information about other solo players too. The only advantage Open players would have would be the ability to sometimes do what solo players are currently already doing from their perspective.
I addressed this in my original post, it's intentionally the weakest possible "advantage" for open so it shouldn't really matter too much if it's bypassed unless people do it on a large scale. How many people would actually bother to pre-emptively do that if they didn't have bad experiences with open players in the area? Not a rhetorical question - would the sentiment towards doing this be the same as relogging or would it be considered more malicious?
Yeah but have you considered that your arguments are invalid too because you're biased towards solo.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The Inara stats indicate that a small minority of players engage in PvP - so Open, on average, is not a 24/7 gankfest. PvP is, however, an unwelcome waste of game time for some players.
Still not seeing any defendable reason why the actions of players in Open should be exempt.
There's no limit on the use of the block feature, just as there's no limit on the ability to shoot at anything one instances with.
Arguing from a position of what the game is, i.e. what has been sold to all players with no requirement to either play among other players or engage in PvP, is quite different from proposals to change it into something that it is not and disregarding the opinions of those who may be adversely affected by such proposals.Yeah but have you considered that your arguments are invalid too because you're biased towards solo.
If extra info on BGS activities was added, it would be cool (maybe even neccessary, but I'd want other people's input on this) if you could somehow escape the tracking and this is what I came up for that, because it ties into other aspects of the game. Do you have any other suggestions on other ways on how that could be done?
Does this mean it's ok for solo/pg to have an advantage by being lower risk as people claim and that it should never be adressed or even mentioned? If so it's disregarding the opinions of one group entirely in favor of the other, which is fine because the Open community is smaller and the advantage of Solo is actually intangible and minimal. This is why I proposed a conceptually similarly intangible and proportionally small balance change.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If such activity tracking information were to be offered to players then it should reasonably cover players in all game modes. Open isn't a special case - it's just one of the three game modes the game was designed around.
That players in Solo and Private Groups don't need to play among those who want to shoot at them is a feature of the game - it's mentioned all the time even though Frontier clearly designed their game that way.
Some players bought the game accepting of what it is, in terms of how other players can choose to play the game - some players rather obviously bought (or backed for that matter) the game for what it is not and have been making proposals to change the game for all players to suit their play-style for years.
OK, I'll bite. Who claims Solo/PG is lower risk? That has been said in the past, but it's never been backed up by any data. In a previous thread where we tried to quantify extra risk in Open, it was agreed IIRC that a suitable "Open bonus" would be less than 1%, because the extra risk was too small to put a figure on.
That's extra risk of going to rebuy. There's admittedly greater risk of being annoyed or inconvenienced by inconsiderate players, but I don't think that's the risk in view here and Block deals with them well.
Anyway, I'm not against the OP proposal, but I'd want it to apply to all modes. When doing BGS stuff in Solo I'd like to be able to see how many players are working against me in Open!
Last edited: