General [MEGATHREAD] Rebalances and fixes for the progression system, risk/reward ratio, ingame learning curves, pvp, and more!

I am saying this: from now all the progress (engineering, ranks, weapons, ships, credits, etc) that you make in open, stays in open and all the progress that you make in solo/pg stays in solo/pg, so the people would have to decide to continue their progress interacting with people and friend or just play solo.
Ok, then what makes you think creating this situation would bring more players together? How would segregating assets increase player interaction? I think we would see pretty much what we have now.
 
It would need to be more then that, like, if you die while being a pirate, you dont get insurance to get your ship back, you pay the full price.
I always thought that the Pilots Federation would cancel a members benefits if they broke the rules. Surely killing another member of the PF would be breaking the rules. Forget about what the different governments might do, the PF wouldn't want to be paying all of these losses because of members. But, that's why I play in a PvE PG. To better reflect the way I see the notion of criminality in our galaxy.
 
Ok, then what makes you think creating this situation would bring more players together? How would segregating assets increase player interaction? I think we would see pretty much what we have now.
Because the players who only play solo, will stay in solo, but most players play both solo and open, so thinking with common sense they'll prefer to continue their progress in open because they'll want to play with their friends.
 
Because the players who only play solo, will stay in solo, but most players play both solo and open, so thinking with common sense they'll prefer to continue their progress in open because they'll want to play with their friends.
So, Private Groups have to go too? Forced to make a choice between open and solo, I'd choose solo. I bet, making people choose wouldn't work out the way you think. Open would have the population it does now.

If one of the choices available is Private Group, I'm sure that would be the most popular. It would offer the most flexibility. You could just meet up with friends in a PG. Open just has to accept that it is, what it is. Just another mode.

Bottom line... Segregation won't help open, nor us players as a whole.
 
I am saying this: from now all the progress (engineering, ranks, weapons, ships, credits, etc) that you make in open, stays in open and all the progress that you make in solo/pg stays in solo/pg, so the people would have to decide to continue their progress interacting with people and friend or just play solo.
Eh what? So I engineer up a super ship in Open, relog to Solo and explode instantly because my powerplant no longer produces enough power and I forgot to set power priorities on all the modules? Or the same Solo to Open.
 
Last edited:
I think Fdev must really split the Open and Solo modes, because it's impossible to build a "real" lore like in EVE online, because the players don't interact with each other, it would make the game more inmersive and funny.
It's interesting that you put those two words together, and it shows up how different people want incompatible things from the game. I see "immersive" and "funny" as opposites. I can have one or the other in a game, but never both.
 
This whole "BGS in Open only" nonsense would only have real meaning if the entire player base is in the same instance, at the same time. That's not going to happen.
With P2P, we have a maximum of +- 32 players in a given instance (from what I've read). If that's the case, (and correct me if I'm wrong) then from any one players
perspective, the other 20 odd thousand active players are basically in "Solo". Doing their own thing, good or bad and nothing you can do about it. BooHoo.

So I really don't see the point in pising & moaning over this. There are more important things to fix.
But that's just me being me. Plus I really don't care about BGS anyway, so there. 😛
X.
 
This whole "BGS in Open only" nonsense would only have real meaning if the entire player base is in the same instance, at the same time. That's not going to happen.
With P2P, we have a maximum of +- 32 players in a given instance (from what I've read). If that's the case, (and correct me if I'm wrong) then from any one players
perspective, the other 20 odd thousand active players are basically in "Solo". Doing their own thing, good or bad and nothing you can do about it. BooHoo.

So I really don't see the point in pising & moaning over this. There are more important things to fix.
But that's just me being me. Plus I really don't care about BGS anyway, so there. 😛
X.
The galaxy is a pretty pig place

I honestly dont get the appeal to BGS, it effects nothing meaningful in the game.
 
The galaxy is a pretty pig place

I honestly dont get the appeal to BGS, it effects nothing meaningful in the game.
The bgs stuff that is going on is like a giant game of diplomacy using the ED galaxy as it's game board. Some people love that stuff. The open/solo/pg stuff doesn't matter for the game they are playing. They make moves the other make counter moves. This is something the OP didn't or doesn't understand about the bgs it's gameplay is really being done outside of the game. There is nothing that a pvp aspect to bgs that will any real effect on how systems are won or lost.

/s
Should we limit gameplay for bgs to open only on tuesdays between 14:00 and 19:00? It would be unfair if I were to wait for you to log out to go and run my missions. Also, I guess xbox and playstation should be excluded too.
/s
 
Everyone can have fun even in an open game. Even after the loss of a ship destroyed by a pirate, a ganker/griffero. It is necessary to make an adekvatnaya police and severe punishment for the crime. Implement all this in accordance with the security level in the system. And Pandora's box will almost close.
If we consider the PP separately, now players who are not gunkers/grifers, not pirates and idiots, players who just want to protect their Power by military force within the roleplay, can not do this because the enemy is invisible! This is stupid...it seems to me. This is one example.

And here's another thing. I was attacked by a "pvp fan". For a while, I got away from the attacker because I was on a more maneuverable ship. During this time, my friend flew to my aid, but the attacker just blocked it and my friend stopped seeing the opponent. Is this correct? Is this "solo in open"?)))
 
Last edited:
The point of the thread was to start discussion about helping new players understand end-game mechanics, or involve them in the process of working towards end-game content earlier in the play cycle.

Banning the creator of this thread adds to the paranoia surrounding this game and it's development team.

Malicious intent will be assumed by most players after hearing about most of the updates and moderation actions taken by both the forums and the game development decisions.

This is unfortunate, but the most vocal parts of the community are the ones most concerned with the game and it's various sub-communities.
 

Arguendo

Volunteer Moderator
The point of the thread was to start discussion about helping new players understand end-game mechanics, or involve them in the process of working towards end-game content earlier in the play cycle.
That was a point of the thread. Unfortunately it also included one of the most contentious topics among players, which more often than not drowns out all other points being made.
Including several topics in the same post, especially when some are controversial, may not be the best approach. Separate threads for separate topics is usually a good way to go.

Malicious intent will be assumed by most players after hearing about most of the updates and moderation actions taken by both the forums and the game development decisions.
Malicious intent will be assumed by those who are looking for malicious intent.
And it's been said before, but may need repeating; Volunteer moderators here have absolutely no say in the development of the game. We are just players who have been asked to help out in the forums. No more, no less.

This is unfortunate, but the most vocal parts of the community are the ones most concerned with the game and it's various sub-communities.
That's a very absolute statement about a subject that is not very absolute.
People in general tend to be very vocal about subjects they care about and they consider to be best for their gameplay. What's good for the game and its various sub-communities is subjective and has nothing to do with the volume used to get points across.

NOTE: I don't moderate this section of the forums, and never will. Here I am just another user like everyone else, regardless of background colour on my posts.
 
Last edited:
Because the players who only play solo, will stay in solo, but most players play both solo and open, so thinking with common sense they'll prefer to continue their progress in open because they'll want to play with their friends.
That is an interesting perception. (you appear to have removed PG from the equation)
I play in any mode I wish, on any of my 3 accounts, because I can.
Removing the option to do exactly as i wish, whenever I wish, would ensure that I either remain in PG permanently or if that is not an option, would more likely give up and play something else.
I do enjoy playing along with squadron / friends equally as much as just mooching around doing my own thing. Being forced to 'interact' with a bunch of other players or none, as your suggestion puts forward would make the "none" option the solo choice the only sensible one, if I played at all.

Essentially I believe your reasoning to be incorrect, fortunately the developers appear to be sharing the same opinion currently.
 
That's a very absolute statement about a subject that is not very absolute.
People in general tend to be very vocal about subjects they care about and they consider to be best for their gameplay. What's good for the game and its various sub-communities is subjective and has nothing to do with the volume used to get points across.
Nice point made.
I get my wrist slapped on occasion for being 'vocal' in my support of modes, as I'm sure happens equally with other posters on their favourite topic.
If nothing else, the quantity of posts made on this particular bone of contention surely illustrates that the game still lives and has an active playerbase, whatever their style :)
 
That is an interesting perception. (you appear to have removed PG from the equation)
I play in any mode I wish, on any of my 3 accounts, because I can.
Removing the option to do exactly as i wish, whenever I wish, would ensure that I either remain in PG permanently or if that is not an option, would more likely give up and play something else.
I do enjoy playing along with squadron / friends equally as much as just mooching around doing my own thing. Being forced to 'interact' with a bunch of other players or none, as your suggestion puts forward would make the "none" option the solo choice the only sensible one, if I played at all.

Essentially I believe your reasoning to be incorrect, fortunately the developers appear to be sharing the same opinion currently.
That's me. I use all three modes when I think it appropriate, and I think the options I enjoy are the result of clever game design.
 
That's me. I use all three modes when I think it appropriate, and I think the options I enjoy are the result of clever game design.
Indeed it is clever, freedom to do as you wish, not as another believes you should play :)

It is curious that we often see the quote from the game's advertising "Fly in a Cut-Throat Galaxy etc." being used to illustrate the PvP 'requirement' - but oddly, nowhere in the description does it say that combat is only between 'human' players in this dystopian future, hmmm :unsure:
 
Top Bottom