That's your headcanon and I'm fine with that. I never even heard of the place. I imagine that's where the books are set?
I’d like more commanders in the Open
- Thread starter Moriarte
- Start date
indeed, moving user controlled bases with player economies makes sense if the bubble is gone. But like cheese said, it's logical and amazing so ...probably wont happen.
I'd like to see thargoids shown like a powerplay bubble (at least the parts near our bubble). Then every week for the next 6 months the war front moves with thargoids attempting to push the line forward in places and all of us humans have to decide how to push back. We could win some from them, we could lose some to them. The systems we win back would be decimated and new stations wouldn't be put into place for weeks if we continued to hold it.
Do that for like 6 months and then have a break... where both sides regroup.... and then a bit later they go back at it maybe ...or something else changes. But yea.. a full on powerplay style war with real losses and real risks to all players. regardless of mode. The bubble is too big to defend everything so we'll lose a lot before we get to the point where we can push back in numbers. Or maybe everyone is ready to just abandon the bubble and escape. Either way, that would make the game interesting again.
there could even be coordinated missions to attack key systems deep in enemy territory that would greatly impact their war effort but at considerably higher risk to the humans participating. Would require communicating and coordinating attacks, identifying targets and letting everyone know the location and all in a very limited time window before that key system intel is no longer good and we have to start over.
I'd like to see thargoids shown like a powerplay bubble (at least the parts near our bubble). Then every week for the next 6 months the war front moves with thargoids attempting to push the line forward in places and all of us humans have to decide how to push back. We could win some from them, we could lose some to them. The systems we win back would be decimated and new stations wouldn't be put into place for weeks if we continued to hold it.
Do that for like 6 months and then have a break... where both sides regroup.... and then a bit later they go back at it maybe ...or something else changes. But yea.. a full on powerplay style war with real losses and real risks to all players. regardless of mode. The bubble is too big to defend everything so we'll lose a lot before we get to the point where we can push back in numbers. Or maybe everyone is ready to just abandon the bubble and escape. Either way, that would make the game interesting again.
there could even be coordinated missions to attack key systems deep in enemy territory that would greatly impact their war effort but at considerably higher risk to the humans participating. Would require communicating and coordinating attacks, identifying targets and letting everyone know the location and all in a very limited time window before that key system intel is no longer good and we have to start over.
Last edited:
The second one, yes. The first one revolved around the in-game events of the Gnosis, followed up by the battle against the Thargoid incursion in Atroco.
This is exactly what I'd hoped 2.4 would be.
Yeah, most games suck like that. Sandboxes in particular never seem to have enough tools. But it's like I've always told people: We can sit around and wait for someone else to do it, and probably be waiting a while, or we can get up and do it ourselves and have it done quicker and also possibly demonstrate a reason to further support and develop a particular feature. I think Fleet Carriers were an attempt to do something like that. The results may be mixed, but they're trying.
Sweet. Mine's gonna be around a memestar. Location's important!
Best of luck with your writing endeavors!
The difference between other sandboxes and elite is that elite has a mechanic that tracks control of the system.
In POPULATED space. In unpopulated space, we have quite a bit more artistic freedom. A literal mob star. Casino planets. Whole systems devoted to whatever we can manage to pop out of our imaginations. Some people are building space relays. Many more will be going into providing mining mats others can't provide. Either provides opportunities for long-term combat RP, even ganking opportunities, with the right planning. Look at what large groups have already done in-game.
It's also a chance for those without PMFs to make a place of their own and create opportunities for others. Sure, it's a clumsy implementation in a game that isn't perfect made by a company that has arguably puzzling design and communication practices, but nothing's perfect and we wouldn't know perfection anyway, being imperfect beings.
We don't have to wait for someone in England to flip the right switches in a lot of cases, and time's a finite commodity. So why wait if we don't have to?
Because for some people (me) imagination alone don’t cut it slick. More power to the people that it does though.
Allow me to clarify. The "imagination" component is tied to the portion where the rules for such an endeavor would be set up. In past experience, things of this nature would include agreements on how to, say, transfer control of territory in the absence of mechanics that allow us to flip a switch and say "ok this group now owns System X" and have it show up on the game. So the imagination takes the place of the mechanics. We imagine that switch exists, and gets flipped when, say, the group that owns System X loses a sanctioned battle (or series of battles) for control. And then we abide by that because we're adults and we're not sore losers and emergent gameplay is the priority. It may not happen the way a group likes. It may even throw a serious wrench into an ongoing storyline that everyone likes.
Because of that we wouldn't strictly need the mechanic. We have our imaginations, and we use those to craft the environments for our emergent stories to take place, esp. if the environment doesn't provide for required mechanics. We don't have to limit ourselves to someone else's interpretations and incapacities.
If I have to create my own gameplay mechanics what am I paying fdev for.
If you are going to paint a portrait you still have to buy the paint and brushes.
The sandbox. Also, creating gameplay mechanics that are popular can lead to the inclusion of said mechanics, or the expansion of existing mechanics to further facilitate content creation. Repair limpets are probably a good example of this, as their inclusion in the game can be very strongly argued to be a product of groups like the Fuel Rats doing their best within the mechanics of the game to do what they wanted to do -- rescue commanders in trouble. (Didn't the Hull Seals come into existence as a result of that inclusion as well?)
So instead of using the provided BGS and all the impartial mechanics and assets under its purview, all one would have to do to make your alternative workable is:
1) find a bunch of players who are interested in one's vision of an imaginary asset.
2) Convince them to agree on some kind of arbitrary, setpiece, self-enforced contest for "possession" of the imaginary asset.
3) Smile as everything goes off without a hitch where the losing side gracefully accepts defeat.
4) "Interact" with your newly-won imaginary asset in a system with nothing except maybe a fleet carrier in it.
Do you see why this might be a hard sell for people who aren't Calteru?
Last edited:
That's obviously a fault in people not named Calteru.
I see a lot of other groups that have already done similar things. And, actually, I did do this. I've actually been doing these things quite a bit over the past 20 years or so. You'd be surprised what a simple dice rolling command can facilitate. But this isn't about me, because I have what I want. I went out there, found the group, secured their participation by pitching the idea, structured a whole story around existing mechanics (mostly exploration, given the lore we're using) except there is no "losing" side -- it's PvE -- but it certainly was more commonplace on SWTOR where we didn't have overmap territory capture mechanics. We had to agree on what constituted takeover and control, and Taris in particular was super fun as a result.
If the content and story are what matter most, this is certainly achievable. Several large groups in this game are proof that a concept can be sold to a large group of people that cooperate to make it happen in-game. Warring factions among unpopulated stars can certainly be worked in, and might prove attractive to not just Open players looking for the full player-driven experience but also people in PG/Solo who may stumble upon the area in their versions of space and decide to maintain them. Or maybe a group can be convinced of that, with the right services offered at the right prices in the right places.
Lots of room to work with, provided one's willing to incorporate one's imagination. A creative mind and talented group can work around a lot of perceived limitations -- and have. But it's not for everyone, and for those, I guess it's at the mercy of the developer.
That's... working out really great right now? I mean, the place isn't actively on fire anyway. Yet.
In Elite? Name one.
In this example you're at least tethered to existing mechanics. In Elite, not so much. Unless I've misunderstood your proposition.
The large groups in this game have sold themselves because there's something of substance in the game to pursue and the mechanics by which one can pursue it. Your proposal jettisons all that in favor of Caleru's Imaginary Elite Alternative Where Everyone Plays Nice for Things That Don't Exist.
When I engage my imagination to enhance my gameplay experience, it's because I have something solid upon which to build, not because I'm totally in fantasyland.
Look, I can't stop you from playing Elite your way. But honestly... I doubt if your proposal to ignore a vast swath of game mechanics and assets in favor of Cal's Imagination is going to get a single taker. And I seem to recall you placing a great deal of importance on popularity when weighing whether or not one's "content" is good.
Last edited:
Yes you can. See Eve Online.
There are 40 billion star systems. You dont have to play with anyone if don't want to
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... and three game modes to, subject to selecting the right one, guarantee that no-one can choose to spoil ones game session with unwanted PvP in the more "popular" locations.
Put differently: there's no need to avoid places in the galaxy where players may congregate just because one does not enjoy PvP. Look at Borann....
DBOBE commented (peripherally) on freedom of movement in the galaxy here:
Last edited: