Make Elite an MMO again !!

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Then what's the issue with everyone playing in Open? If the risk is negligible? I don't get it.
Some players find PvP to be a tedious and predictable waste of valuable game time - regardless of how rarely it is encountered.

This game gives the choice of each player as to who to play among precedence over any desire that other players may have to play with them - whether that be by game mode selection or use of the block feature as it applies to both multi-player game modes.
 
If you look at population on other similar games like EVE you know this game could do X10
And they are paying a sub !!
So very wrong decission IMO.

well, eve is one of its kind, pioneer and rock solid success for decades, so it doesn't compare well to others.

and after all ... wrong decision? for who? elite dangerous and frontier have done spectacularly well financially. elite no doubt has a lot of appeal, else we would not be here talking about it. those are wrong decisions for pvp, but it turns out they just don't care about pvp and the game works well enough without. what i do hold up to frontier is being ambiguous about it, and marketing the game as including proper pvp, simply to widen the audience. which makes them either incompetents or liars.

the game is what it is and good enough, though. just get your pvp fix elsewhere.
 
I understand you can be afraid of gankers, I saw it in many games.. but man, its a game, sometimes you need to lose as in all games...

Also the price of ships compared to the money you easily win in this game... Why that fear? I just cant understand...
Yeah I find it quite absurd players in PG and Solo have as much influence on BGS as players in Open. I think Open should be AT LEAST 2~3 times more influence.
Then what's the issue with everyone playing in Open? If the risk is negligible? I don't get it.
If you force people to play in Open, then you'll ruin my game, because I don't enjoy running into certain immature players that ruin my immersion - it has nothing to do with winning or loosing. Not to mention that I would be forced into someone else's gameplay style (combat). People who do PvP can easily impose their gameplay on others, while I can't force them to roleplay.
Changing balance to favour Open would be wrong, because people would simply use it when it would suit them best. I can run missions or gather materials in regions that rarely see any other player. It would not change number of people you encounter in Open, but it would ruin balance.

Elite has really unique approach to Multiplayer - actually it's way ahead of it's time with it's system of affecting game world without direct player interaction - look at Death Stranding: it uses similiar approach, where you play alone, but you encounter things left by other players, also playing alone. This is the reason I like and play Elite for so long. I don't want it ruined, because I don't want to play regular boring MMO.
 
If you force people to play in Open, then you'll ruin my game
Some players find PvP to be a tedious and predictable waste of valuable game time
Nobody would be forcing you to play in Open. There's nothing more stupid then a BGS conflict where one team decides suddenly to go 100% Solo and you can't do anything about it. Players wanna engage in "war" between factions? Well war means killing and being killed, also by players, aka PvP.

There should be a cost for being able to freely influence BGS without any risk whatsoever, that could be translated in double influence for playing on Open. You can still freely play safe in Solo, but there should be a downside to that!
 
Nobody would be forcing you to play in Open. There's nothing more stupid then a BGS conflict where one team decides suddenly to go 100% Solo and you can't do anything about it. Players wanna engage in "war" between factions? Well war means killing and being killed, also by players, aka PvP.

There should be a cost for being able to freely influence BGS without any risk whatsoever, that could be translated in double influence for playing on Open. You can still freely play safe in Solo, but there should be a downside to that!

What if they’re on console? Or in another time zone? Or you just never get instanced with them? They could be opposing you in Open the whole time and you still might never encounter them.
 
What if they’re on console? Or in another time zone? Or you just never get instanced with them? They could be opposing you in Open the whole time and you still might never encounter them.
That would be an incentive for squadrons to have people in different time-zones and different platforms!
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Nobody would be forcing you to play in Open.
Some players can only play in Solo.
There's nothing more stupid then a BGS conflict where one team decides suddenly to go 100% Solo and you can't do anything about it. Players wanna engage in "war" between factions? Well war means killing and being killed, also by players, aka PvP.
No-one can force another player to play with them - by design.

If another player does not wish to engage in PvP that is their choice - and their choice alone.

BGS conflict does not require any player to engage in PvP.
There should be a cost for being able to freely influence BGS without any risk whatsoever, that could be translated in double influence for playing on Open. You can still freely play safe in Solo, but there should be a downside to that!
As soon as there is a tangible benefit to playing in Open there'll be a reason for players who don't want to play there to do so - and make extensive use of the block feature to remove players who attack them - and I don't expect that Frontier will remove the block feature from either of the multi-player game modes (as they have only ever strengthened it and made it easier to use over the years).

In a game where other players have always been optional, why should there be a penalty for playing alone or among selected others just because players who wish to engage in an optional game activity can't attack them?
 
In a game where other players have always been optional, why should there be a penalty for playing alone or among selected others just because players who wish to engage in an optional game activity can't attack them?
There's a difference between incentive to play in open and penalty for playing solo/pg. It's more of the former what I'm talking about.
 
Nobody would be forcing you to play in Open. There's nothing more stupid then a BGS conflict where one team decides suddenly to go 100% Solo and you can't do anything about it. Players wanna engage in "war" between factions? Well war means killing and being killed, also by players, aka PvP.

There should be a cost for being able to freely influence BGS without any risk whatsoever, that could be translated in double influence for playing on Open. You can still freely play safe in Solo, but there should be a downside to that!
That's the game. You fight war by killing NPCs in conflict zones. It's a numbers game - who killed more NPCs. You influence the BGS by your actions, not fighting other players. If you don't accept that, then maybe some other game would suit you better.

This also simulates how big the space is, because you would not be able to control whole solar system on your own.
 
When you play open, you get X2 in all rewards, including missions, mining and every loot you can get in game including engineering materials and so...

To avoid exploits (you do the mission and log in open to claim the reward), if you log in in solo/priv while doing a mission (or accept it in solo/priv) or entering a signal source, that mission or signal source will give normal rewards. So any Login in sol/priv will turn all your missions or instances into normal loot.
x2 bonus will never offset time lost to griefers and murderhobos. There is a reason why strict PvE groups like Mobius exist. No thank you. PKing is only fun for the killer.
Also, with the way how blocking works, you simply can block every commander you (coincidentially or not) encounter and subsequently drop into normal space to break instance consistency.
 
You influence the BGS by your actions, not fighting other players. If you don't accept that, then maybe some other game would suit you better.
So let's say a War in a system between two PMF, with active players on both sides should not involve "fighting other players"? Maybe you're the one for whom the game's not made.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
So let's say a War in a system between two PMF, with active players on both sides should not involve "fighting other players"? Maybe you're the one for whom the game's not made.
In-the-same-instance PvP in relation to Faction conflicts can involve as many players as are able to instance together - if they want to. It's not a requirement, just as having a PMF inserted into the game does not require that the player group requesting it to have any interest at all in PvP.

Given that BGS conflicts don't require PvP, they are perfectly suited to those who have no interest in PvP - even if it is a form of indirect asynchronous competition between players.
 
I think this gets back to the game being too easy and repetitive and/or role optimized meta builds being too effective. Offer optional challenges that are actually challenging and rewarding, and ways for players to help each other, and the problem (assuming there is one) will sort itself out.

Seems a lot better than something like pip bonuses to me, for example. Have it game-play based and not bonus based.
 
Last edited:
So let's say a War in a system between two PMF, with active players on both sides should not involve "fighting other players"? Maybe you're the one for whom the game's not made.
That's the great thing about Frontier's system. It doesn't matter what mode or platform, or even if you can play at the same time as them, you can still fight against them in that war.

You're limiting your concept of PvP to direct ship on ship combat, there is a much broader and deeper PvP going on as well.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom