Mobius suggests how to get 50,000 players back into Open
- Thread starter Mobius
- Start date
The flaw I see is removing the BGS from Independent (PvE) players. Why bother to play the PvE side of the game, when it's taken away? I don't think that playing in open, should afford you anything more than open world PvP.
I don't even see why FD should care, in the least, what mode we choose individually to game in. Pacifying the open-only crowd is the single last thing that should be done. One Player's choice to engage in PvP doesn't override my choice not to, especially when all of the game's mechanics require PvE actions alone, with actions and direct counters included.
Improving and making PvP impactful requires that PvP become improved and impactful. It doesn't require sequestering some PvE mechanics to make it feel better about itself, or forcing unwilling players to become content. Integrate PvP with the basic mechanics of the game. Make the rewards for PvP encounters worth the participants time. Winner and loser. Doing this will offer meaning to PvP, and preserve the content players have become accustomed to. There is nothing wrong with having an environment that rewards and encourages PvP for those that enjoy it, while not punishing players for opting out.
I don't even see why FD should care, in the least, what mode we choose individually to game in. Pacifying the open-only crowd is the single last thing that should be done. One Player's choice to engage in PvP doesn't override my choice not to, especially when all of the game's mechanics require PvE actions alone, with actions and direct counters included.
Improving and making PvP impactful requires that PvP become improved and impactful. It doesn't require sequestering some PvE mechanics to make it feel better about itself, or forcing unwilling players to become content. Integrate PvP with the basic mechanics of the game. Make the rewards for PvP encounters worth the participants time. Winner and loser. Doing this will offer meaning to PvP, and preserve the content players have become accustomed to. There is nothing wrong with having an environment that rewards and encourages PvP for those that enjoy it, while not punishing players for opting out.
*Googles Celestia*
Well.. to his own I suppose.
Celestia:
Not my first result, but funny none the less.
Anyway, more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestia Looks like they fairly recently overhauled their website too. https://celestia.space/
Pretty solid ideas I think.
Clearly a lot of thinking was put in those and I can't see a major flaw / issue in them.
I think something in those line would make open a bit less senseless.
Clearly a lot of thinking was put in those and I can't see a major flaw / issue in them.
I think something in those line would make open a bit less senseless.
While I do occasionally play in your group, Mobius, your proposal would not get me "back" into Open. I've simply had my fill of PvP in other games and I want none of it from Elite. In fact, for the most part, I do not want to meet any people at all, regardless of their disposition, the only thing I was ever interested in was a single player game and solo provides me with that experience.
So, kudos for the ideas, but please understand that not everyone who plays in one of your groups would pick open.
So, kudos for the ideas, but please understand that not everyone who plays in one of your groups would pick open.
Federation/alliance/Independents are not on an all out war everywhere, so why should their ships be attackable in each other's territory? What kind of security force should allow foreign vessel warfare to take place in their system?
Not all criminals are wanted everywhere, it depends on the severity of their crime (notoriety). It makes sense for a wanted person in one world (state/country), not to be wanted in another.
I like some of your ideas, like choosing a major power having repercussions, but I think the current games system is better in many ways.
I think no matter the game or system, nothing would entice someone who doesn't like pvp to play in a way they don't enjoy. One simple way to bring many players to pvp and more to open, would be almost eliminating the rebuy cost if a player is destroyed by another player.
Not all criminals are wanted everywhere, it depends on the severity of their crime (notoriety). It makes sense for a wanted person in one world (state/country), not to be wanted in another.
I like some of your ideas, like choosing a major power having repercussions, but I think the current games system is better in many ways.
I think no matter the game or system, nothing would entice someone who doesn't like pvp to play in a way they don't enjoy. One simple way to bring many players to pvp and more to open, would be almost eliminating the rebuy cost if a player is destroyed by another player.
Last edited:
I have never seen this community so divided ...it seems everyone has different opinions and suggestions to resolve it.
I think FDev needs to look closer at the roots of what it’s trying to achieve.
Originally the ideas were all about protecting new players from ganking , ( seal clubbing) . This evolved into a poor solution for these players along with everyone else as the C&P system effects everybody. We have no choice in the matter.
New players are still being ganked, PvP is still alive and kicking, YouTube is full of such examples . The bounty system and ATR System doesn’t phase PvP players , it never has, it never will in its current format.
Personally I don’t want anything that divides or splits the community any further we can implement subtle things that are far less complicated.
I can protect myself, as 99.9% of others can, my suggestions go only to protecting new players, as I don’t really want ED to get less dangerous or easier.
These can be as simple as providing a new player with a no friendly fire option, they won’t be able to be fired opon , or fire on other human contacts for a set period or until said new player unlocks PvP ability as some kind of achievement. This may be able to be expanded on to everyone in some way.
The C&P system is meant to be consequences for actions considered illegal ..it’s not working
I’ll finish by stating I support every kind of gameplay, with the exception of seal clubbing. it’s just at bullying.
I want evolution not delvolution
I think FDev needs to look closer at the roots of what it’s trying to achieve.
Originally the ideas were all about protecting new players from ganking , ( seal clubbing) . This evolved into a poor solution for these players along with everyone else as the C&P system effects everybody. We have no choice in the matter.
New players are still being ganked, PvP is still alive and kicking, YouTube is full of such examples . The bounty system and ATR System doesn’t phase PvP players , it never has, it never will in its current format.
Personally I don’t want anything that divides or splits the community any further we can implement subtle things that are far less complicated.
I can protect myself, as 99.9% of others can, my suggestions go only to protecting new players, as I don’t really want ED to get less dangerous or easier.
These can be as simple as providing a new player with a no friendly fire option, they won’t be able to be fired opon , or fire on other human contacts for a set period or until said new player unlocks PvP ability as some kind of achievement. This may be able to be expanded on to everyone in some way.
The C&P system is meant to be consequences for actions considered illegal ..it’s not working
I’ll finish by stating I support every kind of gameplay, with the exception of seal clubbing. it’s just at bullying.
I want evolution not delvolution
Last edited:
Much better than open PVE mode with weird invulnerable players.
In game reasons for in game battles.
In game reasons to not be a murder hobo.
There's a lot of details missing here though, like exactly how the law enforcement works, and is effective enough, without being just annoying and restrictive.
In game reasons for in game battles.
In game reasons to not be a murder hobo.
There's a lot of details missing here though, like exactly how the law enforcement works, and is effective enough, without being just annoying and restrictive.
I would have stayed in open if as said in the OP the game had a decent CP system from the off, and not one tacked on four years later.
Id love ED to be a living and breathing place and even though I dont play the game to be soical but if had been open only from the start with a system in place, and yeah Im going to say the S word S A F E, as in parts of the bubble would be S A F E ,I would still be playing in open.
I like to chose when to get my pants down and get spanked I dont want it forced onto me.
Id love ED to be a living and breathing place and even though I dont play the game to be soical but if had been open only from the start with a system in place, and yeah Im going to say the S word S A F E, as in parts of the bubble would be S A F E ,I would still be playing in open.
I like to chose when to get my pants down and get spanked I dont want it forced onto me.
I suppose the real question here is, why do you have to be a "murder hobo" to begin with?
That's not a real question, it's a prelude to armchair psychology.
Doesn't make it any less relevant.
It's an eventuality of any game that allows it. I don't pretend to know the psychology behind it, but regardless, it's something you can count on in gaming. It's up to the developers to put in systems to minimize it as a problem, if they don't want that sort of behavior in their game.
Meh. Armchair video game forums, armchair psychology. Seems rather apt.
I would not have picked you as a MLP (my little pony) stalwart. My my, this forum is just chock full of surprises, init?
Back on topic, Frontier have a broad player base; most of which does not frequent this forum. They seem to be have been quietly connecting in that space and perhaps have a different perspective now. If anything, Frontier may have moved on a little from the forums - and I don't have a problem with that.
The realisation, has to be though, that there is a broad player base with a number of differing goals, and Frontier's challenge will be to incorporate as many as possible, in a wholistic fashion.
Rather than hijack the topic, did you want to also add a "Yes, but.." and join the same conga-line of people adjusting their glasses to tut-tut people on the internet, or actually address Mobius' concerns vis-a-vis their comments?
Last edited:
Nice set of ideas, but they don't work for pmfs that are independent but play the bgs. Some, like Canonn, are deliberately unaligned, so members will be independent ... but also play the bgs.
Indeed, at least until they're the ones on the couch, that is.
Then it's, "OMG you're trying to judge me!!!!!!!!!!!"
I'm sure the OP will be delighted with the discussion going down that route.