The issue with that is the definition of what constitutes "meaningful", it is a highly subjective phrase that arguably is already satisfied with the current mechanics. What is not truely implemented is "truely competitive PvP" (at least in the main environment - CQC is ultimately FD's response to the desire for competitive PvP).
Make Open Play matter - Power Play and BGS should be influenced only in open
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
- Status
And what if adding Open PP was that meaningful PvP?
Nope - but it does not matter how many "existing" cross-mode features it affects the end-result is still the same. Thank you for finally admitting your bias and true motives though.
How about proper team v team co-operative battles stretched over a week sound? You then have a way to test your skills and ships in the 'real' world.
Its taken you this long to realise my 'agenda' is to have PP Open only? Or are you inventing things again?
Arguably, you can already do that - it is just not explicitly facilitated by FD and nor should it be IMO.
Its a bit hard to test your skills when your opponent is a bar chart...especially in a game about flying spaceships.
Nope - your ultimate goal of forcing PvP on others. No inventing required, your true motives are crystal clear despite your attempts to obfuscate them.
"obfuscate them" by explaining what they are using tens of thousands of words. I see the logic there.
You know this is a bogus statement, there are people are playing ED on Linux, so you do not need to pay anything to Microsoft.. but this is just you using bad logic to avoid the issue, you do not need to pay any monthly fee to Microsoft to be able to play online game on your PC (atleast not yet).
Console players also by comparison have to pay for the console OS that equals your Windows license.. and if you buy a pre-built computer, you Windows license is in most cases included in the price of the computer, just like consoles includes the console specific OS...
What is next, trying to arguments about needing a internet connection? a computer? Well guess what, console players also need an internet connection and a console... but it is a fact that to play in any mode other than solo on consoles, they need to have an extra service on the console, that they pay extra for.
You can hold orchestrated competitive PvP contests all you like, using a Private/Public Group as a means to help ensure instancing rules spawn opponents together. No need for bar charts as such though leader boards are little different on-balance whether facilitated or not.
Your claims that enforcing PvP will somehow fix PP is ultimately flawed logic - it does not matter how you dress the farm animal, it is still a farm animal.
Bla bla, bla bla, bla bla.
PvE hauling. Not PvP, PvE hauling is what you've described - which no different to moving rares or carting expensive cargo about.
You said the mechanics were suited to Open - but the mechanics you pointed out are PvE hauling.
Which is no different to any other PvE hauling in-game. So it isn't any more suited to Open than A-B-A trading.
As you brought it up. All my haulers are well-armed regardless of what I'm moving.
Which is why the AI needs fixing, because un-shield, un-armed, no escort haulers shouldn't be a thing, ever.
(and I don't even Engineer my ships and they can kill any AI in-game currently)
So the AI could fix the issue if Frontier let Sarah lose with it again.
Heck, I remember a tweak she did back when I was in a T9 and I was scared half to death to undock for my 1 jump A-B-A trade run.
It was the most fun I've ever had in Elite. I was gutted when people complained and she had to nerf them.
But it can be done, with the AI if Frontier wants to address that issue.
I completely agree.
CQC nor PP was the answer and never was going to be the answer.
Can you play Horizons on Linux and at full speed?- plus, FD 'discourage' Linux use.
But how does that translate into situational and irregular player encounters? Open PP is about chance encounters rather than having more rules that make things ever more rigid.
My consistent argument is that what FD presented 'as is', is better than what we have now. It has problems, but it also adds a whole new dimension to how people approach and engage with the feature. FD want a cheap shot at making something of a failed feature, they have one.
Since when does Frontier "discourage" using Linux. Please show me.
They've said they don't offer support, which isn't the same thing.
And yes, Elite runs fine on Linux if you know what you're doing, including Horizons.
Technically you can get it to run on Mac, but it's not worth the trouble imo, you're just better off dual booting.
Quite.
Indeed, as I've stated PP is split into two phases of actual play- gathering and delivering. Gathering is PvE because its you grinding as many weak NPCs as you can. After that, you deliver them. Its here where there is no AI that challenges players once they have finished this phase- but its where players come in and alter how that delivery is done, if at all.
And as I've illustrated, the PvP part comes in when the PvE ends, although in combat expansions they can overlap (destruction or drive rival grinders away).
Excellent! Now see how another player can try and stop you.
In a mode where AI provides zero threat (unengineered, low grade, small ships) they are easy to get away with. PP as it is, is all about one metric: efficiency. If you can max out your cargo because nothing can stop you it will become normal.
Unless AI are more cunning the only way to make them a threat is for them to drop in where you drop in and disobey NFZs or use LR weapons, extend station dropouts, in very large wings.
Which was dialled back because it was too challenging for the general game. If they had that as a PP only feature along with more brutal ships, it would help along with the new CZ designs.
I was addressing the "competitive PvP" tournament proposition that you put forward. If you want chance PvP encounters, Open currently provides that - the thing is the instancing/spawning rules mean that you are not guaranteed to spawn with PvP opposition.
Just as the Mobius groups assure a PvE gameplay style, a (for example) Rubbernuke group could assure a PvP centric gameplay style if the current loose mixed PvX nature of Open does not fit your criteria. Ultimately, that is why FD introduced the concept of modes (and groups) in the first place - to allow individuals to set their own rules for multiplayer and play how they prefer to play. Doing so may not address the desire to impose PvP on those that do not wish it but it should at least ensure spawning with like-minded individuals.
Setting up a private group for your desired PvP-centric gameplay style would be a better option than your own "rigid" desire to impose PvP on others.
Last edited:
- Status