How Open-only would balance ED

As a PvP pirate I’d love open only. However, on the other hand, I don’t wish to tell others how to play the game so I couldn’t really support doing away with solo/pg. BUT, one thing that is ridiculous is being able to attack the bgs in solo. I think if players in open are in a bgs fight with solo/pg players, the open players should have an influence boost for equal effort.
It's undeniable that's a problem, although I suspect it's one of those things where the solution might be more convoluted than it first appears.

Clearly(?), FDev created the BGS to influence the status of the galaxy in all modes, simply to make it appear more "alive", so it stands to reason that it should be possible to influence the BGS in all modes.
It seems like the real issue isn't so much the fact that players in Solo/PGs can influence the BGS but more the problems that start when a faction operating in Solo/PG comes into conflict with a faction operating in Open.

So, the first problem, there, is identifying and regulating when that's happening.
I mean, if you're part of a PF that's operating in Open, I don't really see why it should be easier for you to influence an "NPC system" than a PF who's attempting to influence another "NPC system" in a PG or Solo.

But then, added to that, if a PF is attempting to influence the BGS, in Open or a PG/Solo, and I rock up and happen to take a couple of missions that'll also impact the BGS, does that suddenly turn the conflict into a "PvP" scenario, thus changing the criteria for victory?

Also, I suspect there'd also be the likelihood of shenanigans if there was some imbalance between the amount of influence possible in Open vs Solo/PG.
Basically, I foresee the possibility that a PF could make use of buddies to earn PvP kills in Open and, thus, artificially boost their influence on the BGS.


Honestly, I suspect the BGS is beyond regulating in any way that'd allow it to work reasonably for players in both Solo/PG and Open.
The next candidate is, of course, PP but then you'll get people wailing (justifiably, I suppose) that they enjoy doing that in Solo/PG too.

Maybe what's needed is some kind of new alternative to PP - something that provides decent rewards as incentives to get involved - that is created from the outset to be a PvP environment?
Perhaps make use of the existing PP figureheads, have them set up "Fleets" and then PFs and individuals could join a fleet and take part, in Open, in conflicts where various chunks of the Bubble (perhaps based on territory ruled by factions loyal to each PP figurehead) are up for grabs?

You join a Fleet, vote to attack, say, Deciat and if you win then your Fleet takes control of every system/asset controlled by the Deciat Green Party.
As a result of that, every player in the Fleet would get benefits such as using fewer mat's when getting engineering done at Auntie Felicity's and they'd also get better prices at the shipyards and markets in every station run by the Deciat Green party as well as reduced costs for repairs, refuelling and rearming.

Overall, the idea would be to leave the BGS as the tangled mess that it is, let PP become some kind of "political" thing and set up the new thing as a "military" operation.
 
Disclaimer - I am NOT advocating for Open-Only, I'm just making an observation.

Today I decided to join the Tritium Truckers, in hopes to make some meager credits to help me slowly progress to my goal of someday owning a fleet carrier. The best prices were between two outposts, so I configured my Python for cargo running and started my trucking - in a private group. Was I worried about gankers? A little, but not terribly so. No, what I wanted to avoid was an insane line of CMDRs all competing for that one medium pad. And that's when it dawned on me - everyone lining up for a great deal is realistic, and I'm basically "cheating" (figuratively, not literally) by creating my own parallel universe Walmart on Black Friday where there are no lines.

If the game was Open-only, these lines would force players to spread out and accept less than the perfect exchange rates in trade, thus bringing balance to the game. It would also bring legitimate PvP piracy (something I enjoy), and yes, ganking, which would also balance the game. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, heck it's not a solution at all (modes are here to stay), but I do think that a large contributor to the success of all these gold rushes is that we can create our own private realities where we don't have to deal with long lines, criminals, and other realistic challenges. And because of this, I do think the game is less than what it could be.

And yet, here I am trading in the safety of a PG / Solo, so I guess I want a FC more than I want realism at the moment, LOL.

EDIT - I just found a route between two large stations, but the theory still applies I believe. Just consider some of the traffic jams we used to see during community goals.
I don't think you should be able to effect the shared elements of the game, e.g. the BGS, if you're not playing in the shared mode of the game.

It would be the ideal compromise - ok play in solo or PG and make as much money as you want, but if you're not willing to share the galaxy with other commanders, then you can't impact shared features such as power play, BGS, trade supply/demand, etc.
 
It would be the ideal compromise - ok play in solo or PG and make as much money as you want, but if you're not willing to share the galaxy with other commanders, then you can't impact shared features such as power play, BGS, trade supply/demand, etc.
Along that line of thinking, nor should assets cross over (no earning a Cutter in Solo and then bringing over into Open). Again, with your line of thinking in mind, modes should be chosen when you first start your "save" - what starts in Solo stays in Solo (and the same with Open). This limitation should be balanced by offering multiple CMDR "slots" per single purchase of ED.

Along your line of thinking, of course.. As others have said, the boat left the harbor and the docks set on fire long ago.
 
Maybe what's needed is some kind of new alternative to PP - something that provides decent rewards as incentives to get involved - that is created from the outset to be a PvP environment?
Perhaps make use of the existing PP figureheads, have them set up "Fleets" and then PFs and individuals could join a fleet and take part, in Open, in conflicts where various chunks of the Bubble (perhaps based on territory ruled by factions loyal to each PP figurehead) are up for grabs?

You join a Fleet, vote to attack, say, Deciat and if you win then your Fleet takes control of every system/asset controlled by the Deciat Green Party.
As a result of that, every player in the Fleet would get benefits such as using fewer mat's when getting engineering done at Auntie Felicity's and they'd also get better prices at the shipyards and markets in every station run by the Deciat Green party as well as reduced costs for repairs, refuelling and rearming.

Overall, the idea would be to leave the BGS as the tangled mess that it is, let PP become some kind of "political" thing and set up the new thing as a "military" operation.
That's pretty much the main suggestion I make whenever someone suggests open-only PP. Copy+Paste the current powerplay mechanics, rename things to something like "Shadow Conflict" to represent that it is a disagreement between Pilot's Federation splinters rather than a larger-scope engagement, remove the rewards from it, and voila, you have a (somewhat, PP is still extremely barebones) working open-only set of gameplay mechanics. Players who want PvP have their special Pilot's Federation Shadow Conflict, while those that want to influence the story, get modules or other perks can still stick with PowerPlay even in Solo.
 
Along your line of thinking, of course.. As others have said, the boat left the harbor and the docks set on fire long ago.
Yes, it was the result of the first Community Entitle-o-Strop wasn't it? Moaners demanding an offline mode, with FDev then compromising their original design principles in order to placate them.
 
I don't think you should be able to effect the shared elements of the game, e.g. the BGS, if you're not playing in the shared mode of the game.

It would be the ideal compromise - ok play in solo or PG and make as much money as you want, but if you're not willing to share the galaxy with other commanders, then you can't impact shared features such as power play, BGS, trade supply/demand, etc.
Frankly, that's a ridiculous notion due to one clear factor that you obviously haven't considered as an exploit yet.

We all know that supply and demand are affected by market activity. Can you see where I'm going yet, something that if you got what you wanted would be handing PG players an exploit on a golden platter...?

No?

Consider a large player group collectively using PG mode to buy at low prices and sell at high prices, but that not then affecting the supply/demand quantities and prices?

Can you work it out yet?

If they're the only ones working at those locations, particularly now that we have fleet carriers, they could simply keep on smashing away at the static prices and supply quantities and just keep going, retaining the static profit margins....

... In stark contrast to another collective group doing the same thing in Open and affecting supply and price factors and facing a rapidly dwindling supply and/or profit margin.

If that's what you want, then that's the opposite of what you say you want, us it not?
 
Frankly, that's a ridiculous notion due to one clear factor that you obviously haven't considered as an exploit yet.

We all know that supply and demand are affected by market activity. Can you see where I'm going yet, something that if you got what you wanted would be handing PG players an exploit on a golden platter...?

No?

Consider a large player group collectively using PG mode to buy at low prices and sell at high prices, but that not then affecting the supply/demand quantities and prices?

Can you work it out yet?

If they're the only ones working at those locations, particularly now that we have fleet carriers, they could simply keep on smashing away at the static prices and supply quantities and just keep going, retaining the static profit margins....

... In stark contrast to another collective group doing the same thing in Open and affecting supply and price factors and facing a rapidly dwindling supply and/or profit margin.

If that's what you want, then that's the opposite of what you say you want, us it not?
I find your tone ridiculous, and therefore am unwilling to participate in a discussion with you, despite having a burning desire to point out the holes in your understanding of how supply and demand actually work in this game.

And so I bid you good day sir. Good day..!
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Yes, it was the result of the first Community Entitle-o-Strop wasn't it? Moaners demanding an offline mode, with FDev then compromising their original design principles in order to placate them.
Not really - as the three online game modes and shared galaxy were part of the original pitch with Offline mode being added about halfway through (and cancelled about a month before launch). The addition and subsequent cancellation of Offline mode did not affect the three game modes or the shared galaxy, nor did it compromise Frontier's original design principles - as those included the three game modes and shared galaxy....
 
I don't think you should be able to effect the shared elements of the game, e.g. the BGS, if you're not playing in the shared mode of the game.
So you take things that ARE shared elements of the game, make them into Open-Only elements of the game and then say "you shouldn't be able to influence shared elements of the game unless you're playing in open". :unsure:

Sounds legit'.
 
Not really - as the three online game modes and shared galaxy were part of the original pitch with Offline mode being added about halfway through (and cancelled about a month before launch). The addition and subsequent cancellation of Offline mode did not affect the three game modes or the shared galaxy, nor did it compromise Frontier's original design principles - as those included the three game modes and shared galaxy....
Righto, I had heard tell of a different story, but wasn't around at the time... being a console peasant for the first half of the decade. Thanks.
 
Offline mode being added and subsequently removed from the scope had no apparent effect on the existence of the three online game modes that were announced at the outset, developed and released as part of the game - except to very likely make removal of Solo even less likely as its existence was used in partial mitigation of the removal of Offline mode.
Technically offline content in the form of scripted tutorials were developped last year, combat training missions also comes to mind. As a consumer wich appreciates what the initial designers created for this game, I cant but wish for more than those tutorials to be left over when they stop the service.

Who knows, maybe at some point they'll realise they cant put permit locks on every noob system to "balance" the sandbox MMO... I'd be perfectly fine with open only anything AND my own offline universe with private groups.
 
I find your tone ridiculous, and therefore am unwilling to participate in a discussion with you, despite having a burning desire to point out the holes in your understanding of how supply and demand actually work in this game.

And so I bid you good day sir. Good day..!
I apologise.

It was supposed to be sarcasm/irony, but you're right - it doesn't come across that well.
 
You guys are turning this into PvP vs PvE (of which we have endless threads), but the main premise of my thread is about player congestion around busy stations as a "regulator" to dissuade everyone from using the same get rich routes at the same time. It would force players to spread out to other markets, thus theoretically reducing the effects of these over-the-top gold rushes.
Seems like a "rich get richer" sort of balance mechanism. It doesn't stop abuses or over the top income, but restricts the number that can reasonable gain access to it. And I'd be willing to bet those that would be poised to gain the most are those that need it the least. All in all not sold since it's also an obstruction for those not in certain places for the sake of the gold rush.
 
Last edited:
You guys are turning this into PvP vs PvE (of which we have endless threads), but the main premise of my thread is about player congestion around busy stations as a "regulator" to dissuade everyone from using the same get rich routes at the same time. It would force players to spread out to other markets, thus theoretically reducing the effects of these over-the-top gold rushes.
Honestly, the simplest way to prevent everybody doing the same poop over and over would be.... and this probably isn't some great epiphane.... to provide a variety of stuff that's (almost) equally lucrative.
I'd much rather just spend an hour doing, say, cargo runs at whatever station I happen to be at for Cr50m a pop instead of shlepping back to Borann once a week.

The trick, I guess, would be for FDev to find a way to avoid the whole "mission generator meltdown" thing that happened with passenger missions.

Maybe chained missions would solve that?
Set up chained missions that require the player to collect three or four things and deliver them somewhere and then some stuff gets built and you have to deliver that stuff to two or three destinations.
It'll take you, perhaps, an hour and it'd pay a couple of hundred million credits.

Also, I can't believe I'm writing that.
I used to spend my time doing cargo missions in my AspX which paid something like Cr750. 😕
 
Top Bottom