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

Indeed it is clever, freedom to do as you wish, not as another believes you should play :)
This is the thing you run into a lot in this game. People that think you should only play it as they are playing it.

I for one would like open only, but I am aware enough that the game is not just for me. There is a large community that sees the game in a different way and the developers must balance the wants of everyone and not cater to just small group of players.
 
This is the thing you run into a lot in this game. People that think you should only play it as they are playing it.

I for one would like open only, but I am aware enough that the game is not just for me. There is a large community that sees the game in a different way and the developers must balance the wants of everyone and not cater to just small group of players.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/so-open-is-the-most-popular-mode-according-to-fdev.434279/ with this video linked in a post there.
Keeping powerplay and other BGS activities available in non-open modes is catering to the smaller group of players at the expense of players who play in open.
 
Even Anarchy is a political system, a system with rules and restrictions. All these statements "do what you want", "I like to do what I want" lead to all these ganks, grifters, blocking and many criminal, senseless actions of some players because of which some other players went solo and PG continue to "do what you want")))
 
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/so-open-is-the-most-popular-mode-according-to-fdev.434279/ with this video linked in a post there.
Keeping powerplay and other BGS activities available in non-open modes is catering to the smaller group of players at the expense of players who play in open.
But weren't those comments made 2 years ago?

Things change, a fresh influx of players over that time may have changed this radically - which potentially provides an explanation for the current resurgence of "Open Only" demands...

I find it curious that folk will quote 'ancient' statistics to support their stance, particularly in a game which is not static in its playerbase, if just feels as if someone would insist that a game that 'topped the charts' in 2018 (then invariably slid off to oblivion) was the greatest game today :)
 
Last edited:
Whether it should, or should not, remains a matter of opinion. Frontier's stance seems to be very clear, however.
No, it isnt clear at all, but it seems to be getting clearer.

BGS being open only was a long discussion and most agree on it being open only.

Affecting the bgs of powerplay through solo literally prevents anyone from preventing you undermining them, let alone messsing with someones system states , or steam rolling it from an invisible mode no one can reach, why should that stay a thing? How is that fair?

Its a shame alot of these "opinions" are considered so controversial just because some people cant live with the danger of their ship being destroyed, consensual or non consensual, its called elite dangerous, not elite solo mode ez mode, its also marketed as an MMO, which is arguable with how you can bypass any player interaction with aforementioned methods.

If anything im very proud and happy with one of our new cms.
 

Attachments

must be true if you disagree, clearly.
Ive been here during the original discussionss when it was first mentioned, it was pretty much unanimously pro.
regardless, its still unfair to affect someones hard work and determination , from a mode no one can catch you in.
BackGround Simulation is all too fickle, the effect of a single player should be lessened by a factor of 1000 at least.
It is ridiculous how system allegiances can be changed on a whim of a few.

But even then the BGS affects all players - no matter the mode or platform, all players experience the effects and can have an effect on it.
Also, if you want to make BGS effect 'open only', maybe you're willing to pay all console players' multiplayer fees they have to pay for their respective manufacturers.
 
1) Open only.
2) Player driven economy.
3) Perma noterity.
4) Higher combat payouts balanced with risk.
5) crime & punishment overhaul.
6) nerf mining.
7) increase price of ships 200% hehe.
8) stop stacking missions wing or solo.
9) Pvpers harassed by spec ops.
10) grappling hooks.
11) fix smuggling.
12) bridge on my fc !!@
13) unlucky for some.
14) cross platform one world.
15) please! Another way to refuel carriers...it's daft!@
 
1) Open only.
No.

 
Affecting the bgs of powerplay through solo literally prevents anyone from preventing you undermining them, let alone messsing with someones system states , or steam rolling it from an invisible mode no one can reach, why should that stay a thing?
Even if the BGS and/or powerplay were open only, there are still ways for me to oppose you such that you can't directly counter my actions:
  • I could be playing on a different platform than you, and you would never be able to interact with me because crossplay does not exist for ED
  • I could be in a different time zone or playing at a different time of day than you, and you would never be able to interact with me unless you changed your daily schedule
  • I could block you and everyone else I see in-game, and you would never be able to get into an instance with me
Honestly, you're probably not going to get what you want here. Part of this is due to factors that are outside of FDev's control, part of it is because FDev's vision for the game includes mechanics that can legitimately allow players to avoid players to choose who they don't want to play with (both through blocking and through mode choices).
How is that fair?
My understanding is that the BGS is not supposed to be a dedicated competitive gameplay loop, but rather a means for players to interact with the game world in their day-to-day gameplay. It does not need to be "fair" because it is not meant as a way for players to directly interact with each other.
 
BGS being open only was a long discussion and most agree on it being open only.
Hmm, I think what he actually meant was, everyone who agrees it should be open only agrees it should be open only.

It's a curious fact that when a select group of people all agree with something they all agree with something and as long as they don't include anyone who doesn't agree there won't be anyone who doesn't agree!

I think that's a bit clearer now!
 
must be true if you disagree, clearly.
Ive been here during the original discussionss when it was first mentioned, it was pretty much unanimously pro.
regardless, its still unfair to affect someones hard work and determination , from a mode no one can catch you in.
You're thinking of PowerPlay and not the BGS, surely? I don't think there ever was a major dev-sponsored discussion of Open BGS. Yes a lot of people piggybacked on that discussion and tried to bring the BGS into it, but inasmuch as there was anything resembling a consensus, it was around PowerPlay and not the BGS.
 
No, it isnt clear at all, but it seems to be getting clearer.

BGS being open only was a long discussion and most agree on it being open only.

Affecting the bgs of powerplay through solo literally prevents anyone from preventing you undermining them, let alone messsing with someones system states , or steam rolling it from an invisible mode no one can reach, why should that stay a thing? How is that fair?

Its a shame alot of these "opinions" are considered so controversial just because some people cant live with the danger of their ship being destroyed, consensual or non consensual, its called elite dangerous, not elite solo mode ez mode, its also marketed as an MMO, which is arguable with how you can bypass any player interaction with aforementioned methods.

If anything im very proud and happy with one of our new cms.
Talking about "the bgs of powerplay" as if they are closely connected just shows ignorance of both.

As I've said before, I'm convinced by the arguments for OOPP even though I don't PP. I would support OOPP if I could see the people who want it saying, "OOPP is what we want, don't bring the BGS into it". As it is, though, they seem to be happy to let ignorant people conflate the two, which makes me suspect that OOPP might be intended as the thin end of a wedge; then I don't want to support it.
 
Talking about "the bgs of powerplay" as if they are closely connected just shows ignorance of both.
Favourable government types for fortification triggers make this pretty inescapable. When a huge powerplay group is mobilised to faceroll some small BGS group's faction out of power in a system because they want their government type in place for their command capital spreadsheet, it's pretty hard to pretend they're wholly distinct entities.

You can't deal with power play without talking about BGS at the same time. There are gameplay loops that are power play only, but while you can do BGS without doing power play, you can't do power play and totally ignore BGS. It's a very abrasive integration between the two types of gameplay, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.
 
Favourable government types for fortification triggers make this pretty inescapable. When a huge powerplay group is mobilised to faceroll some small BGS group's faction out of power in a system because they want their government type in place for their command capital spreadsheet, it's pretty hard to pretend they're wholly distinct entities.

You can't deal with power play without talking about BGS at the same time. There are gameplay loops that are power play only, but while you can do BGS without doing power play, you can't do power play and totally ignore BGS. It's a very abrasive integration between the two types of gameplay, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.
Oh. Well, I was in favour of OOPP but if all PPers think the above is true, I'm back to being against it. I'd like Rubbernuke's comment before I flipflop again.
 
In either PP or BGS operations, player killing is generally the least efficient way to help your side of the BGS, or PP conflict. You can't stop as many cargo/pp material deliveries as you could of delivered yourself instead of prowling around looking for someone to shoot. Even if you are going for anarchy and are in operations to decrease system security/stability, killing clean NPC's is far more efficient.
Open only anything, tend to only ever be about one thing in the end. To increase available players to kill. Players that promptly block you making it a moot point.
Which then inevitably leads to demands that "block should only effect comms."
Then perhaps the demand to do away with solo/pg altogether.
They never even take the fact that the consoles have to pay for open and pg, making it a non starter from the beginning.

The rest of the first post comes off as filler. A request to gut the game of people that prefer solo or pg, in the hopes that it will drive more people to open to shoot at.
"You can't read minds, you don't know their intent". I can infer intent based on the suggestion of gutting solo/pg in favor of open.


PKers need victims, the salt must flow.
Will we make it to page 69?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom