Simple, remove solo, pg, install some decent servers instead of this bargain budget cheapo p2p thing and you'll soon find the game improve mightily.
Remove Open and create advertised PVP PGs that would work just as well
Modes How to incentivise Open without buffing its rewards
- Thread starter Powderpanic
- Start date
Remove Open and create advertised PVP PGs that would work just as well
genius.
Simple, remove solo, pg, install some decent servers instead of this bargain budget cheapo p2p thing and you'll soon find the game improve mightily.
Ahh.. it could've been so good. Oh well, I'm sure other developers will get it right with subsequent projects.. Most of them seem to see the value in single mode, player driven mmo's even if Fdev do not.
The future looks good for the genre.
Stop with your EvE with cockpits nonsense! [arrrr]
I've never played EvE, but from what I've heard it would work much better than this split playerbase manipulating one galaxy silliness.
then go play it, enjoy it, and leave those of us who enjoy the crap out of Elite Dangerous alone to play it.
Leave mah gaem alone
From what I gather after spelunking in the many, many threads of this sort over the years, is that it isn't the regular peeps like me, enjoying solo & groups, trading & exploring and not much of a combat pilot. It seems that some groups are playing at PvP "corps" and when they get on the losing side, they flee to solo & private groups to work against their "enemies" from the other modes.
If you really analyse it, it's not a 3-mode problem; the problem is in one mode: open. So for the sake of these private little wars and expansion and grabbing PP bonuses and so on, these folks wish to force everyone, including folks who could care less about being a princeling in the Empire or whatever and spend most of their time out in the black, into their gunsights, where they'd be shot not for working against some group but because they happen to be there.
They offer so-called "friendly advice" - "just don't go to CGs or the starter systems or anywhere popular like Obsidian Orbital." Yeah, right.
The same hijinks these groups are pulling and whining about now will still go on, of course. There will just be more fish in their barrel - players without engineered-to-the-teeth-and-toenails dedicated PvP ships.
Let's take one small, current example - the rescue missions from the attacked starports. There's no "influence" to gain, no "side" to fight for; not even anti-xeno; you are evacuating people from a desparate place and getting them to the rescue ships.
I'd like one of the players who thinks attacking people at the rescue ships has some kind of ideological validity to explain it to me. These aren't "people attacking the Xenos" - it's people fleeing a hellstorm. Just folks. Pilots will most likely be unarmed and have heat sinks & passenger cabins filling them. Fish in a barrel. No ingame justification.
So I, like many others, would leave the game rather than be forced into playing a game with porkfoot locusts. I don't go in the kiddie pool because little kiddies pee in it. Fact of life.
Last edited:
Yeah, it sure is nice that private groups and solos have no risk at all, what with no NPCs and everything. Yeah, it's all smooth sailin' in solo or group. You might as well fly a shieldless T-9 for as much risk as there is in solo or private group!
Npcs are a joke in this game.
It's this "dialogue" thing that makes me chortle. If they really wanted "dialogue" and some real negotiation, that might be one thing. However, the vitriol, the swaggering, the sneering and the pouting comes out pretty quick, which makes the whole "we want some honest dialogue" into a farce; a comedy, a slapstick. I'm not here to babysit infants and give them toys and candy.
Don't cry
Don't raise your eye
It's only Open wasteland
o7
Shhhh!!! Keep that up and you'll have the BaconCats chiming in!
I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!
Oh, because you find them non-challenging in an overengineered, god-rolled testosterone twitch-craft, unlike most players, who are not purely monomaniacal combat-focused arcade shooters?
You guys really must like a tough challenge, hitting on trade ships in a CG, many of them unarmed, or a rescue mission where the only enemy is fire, a dying station and nav hazards. Perhaps you can convince some grannies to take the game up and give you a little bit of target practice, or maybe some kindergarten kids or toddlers. In the meantime, go PvP some PvPers and leave the rest of us alone.
So here's a constructive suggestion in the spirit of "dialogue" - why don't you openly name your PvP groups and identify yourself as PvP players to each other? Some trader like me comes onto "your turf" to do some trading, and guess what? He/she's not aligned with any group you are concerned with and is not "working against you." What do you do then? Allow safe conduct?
Logically, if you're concerned with opposition and many players are not at all opposing you in any way, you'd let them go. At least that's what I'd do, having been in many groups and clans and organizations over the years. You figure out who's the strongest "gang" and then take them on.
You don't waste time running over kittens in a Cadillac; not only does it get boring quickly (except to a certain type of player), but it makes a mockery of "skill" and is well-deserved of shaming laughter and contempt.
Punch in your class or above, or be a bag of hot wind.
Last edited:
More and more Devs are going down the path where players get to choose whom they interact with.
So yes, Devs are finally getting it right.
List of games I know that have full player choice;
Warframe
Star Trek Online
Shroud of the Avatar
Elite: Dangerous
Games with partial control;
Star Citizen (slider to increase / decrease player interaction)
Guild Wars 2 (when doing a dungeon, you can go with randoms or friends and has separate PvP from the main game)
WoW (as GW2)
EQ2 (as GW2)
So for some time games have been inching away from free for all.
And GSPs only have themselves to blame, it costs money to hire a GM team and CS team and keep them working 24/7/365.
Playera choosing who to play with saves money, as you don't need a full staff of GMs to deal with "griefing" / "ganking" and antisocial players, we can just block them ourselves and move on.
verminstar
Banned
More and more Devs are going down the path where players get to choose whom they interact with.
So yes, Devs are finally getting it right.
List of games I know that have full player choice;
Warframe
Star Trek Online
Shroud of the Avatar
Elite: Dangerous
Games with partial control;
Star Citizen (slider to increase / decrease player interaction)
Guild Wars 2 (when doing a dungeon, you can go with randoms or friends and has separate PvP from the main game)
WoW (as GW2)
EQ2 (as GW2)
So for some time games have been inching away from free for all.
And GSPs only have themselves to blame, it costs money to hire a GM team and CS team and keep them working 24/7/365.
Playera choosing who to play with saves money, as you don't need a full staff of GMs to deal with "griefing" / "ganking" and antisocial players, we can just block them ourselves and move on.
Ye forgot another big game that was literally designed on a fundamental level fer maximum griefage...grand theft auto 5 has a mixture of partial and total control where a private server equates to what a private group is here.
Much as Ive enjoyed pvp games in the past, its nigh on impossible to not notice the shift from games in recent years...even games like gears of war features a co op mode as does the two multiplayer mass effect games. Actually mass effect is entirely co op as were games like borderlands, Destiny etc etc...
Free fer all wont ever vanish or be diminished, but its also no longer the de facto mode of play that players want and this is reflected in a whole plethora of games over that past few years. The future does indeed look good ^
Never played GTA so didn't know you can pick who to play with, explains why it is so popular then
Free for all is a great game mode, well suited to FPS games.
But games where you have to use your imagination / role play have always been a bad fit for free for all.
verminstar
Banned
Never played GTA so didn't know you can pick who to play with, explains why it is so popular then
Free for all is a great game mode, well suited to FPS games.
But games where you have to use your imagination / role play have always been a bad fit for free for all.
In GTA, anyone can go into passive mode at anytime...subject to a timer so it cant be abused. Any passive player can still see and chat with 'open' players, but passive players appear as ghosts almost in the live game. Ghosts can be killed but only by using non conventional means that are easily avoided...meanwhile passive players cannot use weapons at all while in passive mode, not even against npcs.
Things might be different since I last played, but I seem to remember there were times it wasnt possible to go into passive mode at all like if yer on a mission or in a fight with another gang. Ye could respawn in passive if ye were being griefed or just wanted to get out of a dodgy area but again, the timer means its not impossible to abuse, but the effects are minimal. Anyone coming outta passive would flash which warns open players they are non passive in 3...2...1 sorta deal.
The system isnt perfect, but it works and does more or less what its supposed to do. Of course, the immersion crowd here wont wanna see ghosts of players in open...they dont wanna be sociable with those players, they wanna shoot them. If it was just a case of wanting a more sociable game atmosphere, that would be a very good base argument to work from...but most of these arguments barely even mention the social aspect at all. Thats not their end goal, they want fish in the barrel ^
Last edited:
I don't understand why there are so many of these threads.
As an Open only player my incentive to play exclusively in Open is me playing my own way. Who cares how other people play? I like trying (and most times succeeding) running CGs in the trusty T7 past griefers and other idiota. Others don't like it and choose a different mode. So what?
There might be a very small argument against BGS manipulation in other modes, but as the PvP diehards say, BGS manipulators should just get gud.
Here's an idea - why not challenge another PvP clan to a competition, Open only, in whatever region of space to do whatever you want? Nothing stopping you doing that.
The best reason to get people to play in Open, is to show what a good time you have in Open.
If someone doesn't want to play in Open, for whatever reason, then they won't. Simple as.
How are we still arguing about it?
As an Open only player my incentive to play exclusively in Open is me playing my own way. Who cares how other people play? I like trying (and most times succeeding) running CGs in the trusty T7 past griefers and other idiota. Others don't like it and choose a different mode. So what?
There might be a very small argument against BGS manipulation in other modes, but as the PvP diehards say, BGS manipulators should just get gud.
Here's an idea - why not challenge another PvP clan to a competition, Open only, in whatever region of space to do whatever you want? Nothing stopping you doing that.
The best reason to get people to play in Open, is to show what a good time you have in Open.
If someone doesn't want to play in Open, for whatever reason, then they won't. Simple as.
How are we still arguing about it?
Thanks for explaining that, I last played GTA2 London - didn't really get into it after that. But it sounds like a decent system they put in place.
And yes I agree with the social side of things. The real proof is how some joined a PG that bans PvP and is for folks to be sociable and the first thing GSPs did was try to wreak it.
It never has been and never will be about improving the game. No matter what those same half dozen voices say, their own actions prove it.
But you gotta admit, they do keep the forums interesting and fun.
Honestly, I'd have gotten bored of these forums 2 years ago if it had not been for GSPs trying to convince us Open mode is "special".
And building "The Wall of Information" has been great fun.