You pay a monthly subscription to use windows?
Make Open Play matter - Power Play and BGS should be influenced only in open
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
- Status
Quite, says the one who never plays the feature.
I know currently what it is, its why I can see the gaping holes where AI and design simply can't fill. I can also tell that the rest of the games features cannot be easily repurposed to fit these gaps either without making a greater mess.
Please enlighten me on how outgrinding someone is 'emergent', or that in a minute by minute cargo haul of fort materials that is identical for the nth time is emergent? Do you count having an NPC interdict you once in a blue moon emergent? If you do, you don't really understand the word and what it means.
Simple, singular goals, easily identifiable pledges, an almost correct C + P mechanic separate to 'real' C + P with all the emergent possibilities from outthinking or outflying other pilots. No potential at all. None.
Well, I beg to differ, and have illustrated how it could do just that using whats available and within what was presented to us. Unless FD have a surprise and are redoing the lot, thats all we can expect so fantasy reworks are out of bounds.
Have you ever been interdicted in PP, or defected and been chased? Did you ever see what was chasing you?
Which is rubbish in an advanced feature you opt into which will paint a target on you.
Nemesis mechanics would be great- I suggested something along those lines. But that goes against what you are arguing for unless those NPCs are credible and have engineering to actually pose a threat that causes you to alter your behaviour.
In certain enterprise deployment circumstances Microsoft are trying to enforce a subscription approach, for the regular domestic and small business deployment circumstances Mircosoft are on tenuous grounds to try to enforce a comparable practice. Ultimately, on the PC no subscription for on-line game play is required but that is besides the point IMO.
Whether or not a subscription for on-line gameplay is required, ultimately neither PP nor the BGS should not be made Open only nor Open biased due to the simple fact that "all modes are equal" regardless of protestations to the contrary by the PvP crowd.
I mean, I'm pretty sure you could get results to support the opposing stance on this matter if it was, say, the Mobius Discord being polled on whether features should be open only. The opinions of a self-selected group will generally tend towards unity based on whatever that group's selection ctiteria are based on.
Open on its own is a very mild anti 5C method- it essentially allows under ideal conditions you to talk to or kill the interloper. The rest of the proposal is designed to assist- weighting good systems and voting on preps mid week will help. Open is more about opening the possibilities of real time strategy. A tight prep race on Wednesday would be nail biting if you had truckers mixed with bandits trying to slow them rather than going full on grind at it.
Like I said, a lot of the other changes are 5C related. Weighting will be most effective, however it means weaponsied expansions become a thing of the past (which might again be offset by powers being more vulnerable due to harder fortification).
PP is not a deathmatch. Plus, Power groups organise in a way that is goal orientated so bad play can be rectified.
Yes- 5C!
Then you could argue the same about factions (no lose state), superpowers, death in general (respawn) etc. ED is a game that has none.
At this point, i'm out, because if its as you say, there is no point to it and never will be. You're not looking for a truly competitive game. Go ahead, keep up the campaign for open only, maybe FD will do it, and enjoy your never ending game of Risk.
Open brings extra spice to a bland grinding race. To 'win' PP currently is to be #1, but often victory is seen from the perspective of each self made objective each week.
Nonsense. Due to the fact, its "mechanics" are a PvE grind (hauling or NPC farming) and PvP isn't rewarded or encouraged.
And we know why PvP isn't rewarded, for the same reason player bounties got capped. So you know who to blame for that, the cheaters.
Also, all activities in open are "consensual PvP" due to when you use open, you can optionally shoot at each other doing BGS work and you can optionally shoot at each other doing CGs or you can optionally not use Open to avoid PvP altogether. So adding another option to shoot at each other doing a PvE grind in Open wasn't adding anything for PvP or adding anything new to the game.
Because if you ever bother to read what I say, Open is not 'the cure' for 5C. It has anti 5C properties but these are mild based on being able to catch the person you think is 5C.
I pay MS a fee to have the privilege on my PC. Without it I can't play ED.
Again - you fail to understand all the issues in play despite things being spelled out to you. It is clear that your agenda is PvP centric in nature despite the obfuscating fluff.
Existing PP mechanics need to be maintained as multi-mode without any mode bias.
Any open only mechanics need to have zero net effect on the cross-mode shared universe state otherwise it would break the concept of "all modes being equal" and ultimately restrict player choice.
Even when it suffocates features? If FD don't redo the feature, they have to be flexible otherwise they are just perpetuating the problem.
The only thing it suffocates is a PvP centric agenda.
Frankly all these arguments are doing is offering Frontier an excuse for not properly overhauling PP mechanics to something more in-depth and meaningful. They could just be all "We made it open only, PP is good now", and then never touch it again. Rather than actually addressing the legitimate issues with the system and releasing a full rework which would actually make most of the participants in PP happy regardless of where they play.
Slightly wrong, the demand for "open only" predates Power Play.
The demands are 7 years old as they started on the kickstarter page.
Power Play is just the recent excuse being used for the demands, before Power Play, Community Goals were the excuse.
And of course, the BGS has also been used as the excuse.
It's just bitter PvP'ers who want to force PvE players out of Solo and PGs into Open mode, by any means.
You haul one type of cargo to fortify, one to prep. You require no scan to see what they are carrying to know what they are doing. Its not like the BGS where intentions are muddied, its singular tasks that sit in isolation. Since the AI don't curtail your activities, only players can fit that role, hence why PP should be Open in my view.
Open in PP forces players to assess their ship loadouts, skills, plan and communication. If you have to rely on them and they you in realtime thats where the co-op comes in and makes an A to B run much more involving. All of this is modifying the outcome of PP PvE which before was a foregone conclusion leading to stale situations that could only be outground to win.
I mean, I still say the proper solution to that is to add meaningful PvP to the game.
Agreed - but I think FD are more intelligent than you seem to be giving them credit for. I think it is clear that threads like this will probably just get ignored in the long run and the more balanced and constructive topics discussing just overall PP mechanic changes will get more attention. FD should probably put forward a new focused feedback thread with any mention of Open Only, Open Bias, or PvP Bias essentially being ruled as off-topic.
The only thing it suffocates is a PvP centric agenda.
An agenda for one feature. You are slippery sloping into hysteria.
Well FD have been silent and only provided minor fixes to isolated bonuses. They operate on the principle that unless a feature is popular it won't get extra dev time. Hence the radical measures.
- Status