How Open-only would balance 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.

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.
 
deja_vu.jpg
 
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