A friend gave a good point today, that open play could receive a multiplier for inf background simulation to incentivize more people to play in open, I came from ps4 to pc and actually being able to fly regularly in a wing is great... Don't know if something like this already exists but everyone I play with likes this idea.
General Open bgs vs solo bgs
- Thread starter Cmdr Sapphrice
- Start date
- Status
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It would certainly encourage players to weaponise the block feature if a bonus for Open were implemented for any game feature....
.... then there's the question of which Open, as there are two which affect the live game.
.... then there's the question of which Open, as there are two which affect the live game.
I've never blocked anyone cause of being blown up 
, part of the dangerous bit which makes it fun
But good point, makes me think open 1.5x inf pg&solo 1xinf...
And I thought I remembered you can report specifically on a ticket combat loggers? But that might be my memory failing me from 2018
, part of the dangerous bit which makes it funBut good point, makes me think open 1.5x inf pg&solo 1xinf...
And I thought I remembered you can report specifically on a ticket combat loggers? But that might be my memory failing me from 2018
Essentially, no it couldn't.
Almost all BGS influence is actually applied from things done when safely docked at a station (handing in missions, selling trade goods, cashing bounties, etc.) so the things done to prepare that influence can be done in Solo, dock, switch to Open, hand in, switch back to Solo.
The proportion of players who know or care what BGS effect their actions have is probably fairly low to start with; the proportion of players who want to maximise it is lower than that. Even for actual BGS manipulators it'd only incentivise it to any extent in and around their own systems, so you still might not see them when they're passing through yours on the way to an engineer or similar.
(e.g. if you've found a nice Odyssey settlement to massacre-farm, you want the BGS effect of your actions to be as low as possible so that it doesn't change state ; if you've found a nice trade route, you want your impact on the market quantities and states to be as low as possible so it lasts longer)
"Switch to Solo for this bit, you absolutely don't want amplified BGS effects" would become a really common recommendation in all sorts of gameplay guides (whether or not the amplification was actually large enough to care about, it'd become a "just to be safe" assumption pretty quickly)
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some enjoy PvP, or the possibility of it, some don't. No game feature (apart from CQC) as yet requires PvP, so no player who bought the game needs to like, or even tolerate, PvP as part of their game.I've never blocked anyone cause of being blown up
But good point, makes me think open 1.5x inf pg&solo 1xinf...
And I thought I remembered you can report specifically on a ticket combat loggers? But that might be my memory failing me from 2018
Players can indeed be reported for combat logging, but it's worth noting that menu exit is not combat logging (and can be used at any time, according to Frontier [and they acknowledged at the time that not all players would agree with their stance]) - so a player choosing to leave an instance with another player may be doing so within the rules of the game.
Why ?? Is Open more "dangerous " than PG or Solo , it's only a chance of player interaction depending on instancing etc. I play exclusively open I have had 1 player interaction in the bubble this week apart from my friends. So do we then have to put 1.5 if you see players ? And 1 if you don't ? And then if that interaction is friends does that count or do we then need to have what type of interaction ?? The list can continue, as many have said Dangerous was the average rank of the pilots nothing to do do with it being "dangerous" game.I've never blocked anyone cause of being blown up
But good point, makes me think open 1.5x inf pg&solo 1xinf...
And I thought I remembered you can report specifically on a ticket combat loggers? But that might be my memory failing me from 2018
Until it's a fully integrated universe ( it's bad enough trying to wing up with friends lately) the Open ,PG and Solo argument will just be that something which is brought up with arguments from Both sides .
The purpose of the background simulation is to bring life to the galaxy. It’s in the name. The fact that some players use this feature as a proxy for territorial warfare, or all the other reasons why players may intentionally manipulate the BGS, does not obviate its true purpose.
The players who are already in Open, which makes up a significant majority of players according to Frontier, don’t need to be bribed to play in Open. We’re already here for one simple reason: to play with other players in an open PvP environment. We find that kind of thing fun.
There are two cohorts of players who don’t play in Open.
The first is the type of player who simply does not find that kind of thing fun. Whether it’s because they have no interest in PvP at all and prefer a solo game, their internet is too poor for a good Open experience, or they feel such an environment is too frustrating to enjoy, is immaterial. The point is, they don’t find Open to be fun.
The second is the type of player who simply isn’t fun to play with, and preferentially targets the first cohort. Deprived of their soft targets, they find the player base in Open too difficult to mess with, and so moved to Solo/PG to mess with other players indirectly… or quit the game altogether.
Bribing players into Open will not result in an Open with more players who are fun to play with. It results in an Open with more players who are not fun to play in, and a smaller player base in general.
The first cohort, assuming they care about BGS manipulation in the first place, will do everything in their power, both fair and foul, to preserve the gameplay they lost… or they’ll quit playing the game entirely. On other words: they won’t be fun to play with.
The second cohort will follow the first back into Open, and they will still do everything in their power, often foul, not to get killed by the current population in Open. They still won’t be fun to play with. There’ll just be more of them there are currently, and each one has an outsized impact on the entertainment of other players.
And that is simply a recipe for frustration.
Welcome to PC. It’s a pity that Frontier didn’t think upgrading their Cobra game development engine to work with latest generation consoles to be worth their while. It would’ve saved them from a lot of bad PR.
I’m not surprised. This bad idea has been around since players first discovered that the BGS could be intentionally manipulated. Nobody never considers what the side effects will be, which is why the conversation is called the “Hotel California.” The Eagles are currently warming up backstage.
tl;dr this.
The fact that people gamble on the outcome of elections, does not mean elections are for gambling, and should be balanced to support gambling.
The BGS is not meant to be fair or played competitively by-design, that much is apparent from, well, the entire way it works. Open/Solo differentiation is not needed.
Last edited:
When I first heard about BGS, it seemed so fun to me. You have a huge galaxy, you have stations all over it, you can join other players and take these systems to build something big.
I joined a Squadron that brings players from my country to play together. They have a Minor Faction so I would do missions for the faction just because it was fun for me to see it grow, to have a place in this huge space that feels like it is yours. I would even do things that I wasn't considering doing like Mining or Transport missions because doing them for the Squadron was fun for me. The fun was doing things with other players.
When I noticed that people could just play Solo and still be influential in BGS, it was such a cold shower for me. I just can't comprehend this. It is like playing a game with ghosts. There is so much potential being thrown away and I just don't know why. It's so simple: people who play on Open changes the world in Open. People who play Solo changes their world in Solo. If things we're fixed, I would come back and play Elite Dangerous. It's a great, great game but these decisions I just can't understand.
I joined a Squadron that brings players from my country to play together. They have a Minor Faction so I would do missions for the faction just because it was fun for me to see it grow, to have a place in this huge space that feels like it is yours. I would even do things that I wasn't considering doing like Mining or Transport missions because doing them for the Squadron was fun for me. The fun was doing things with other players.
When I noticed that people could just play Solo and still be influential in BGS, it was such a cold shower for me. I just can't comprehend this. It is like playing a game with ghosts. There is so much potential being thrown away and I just don't know why. It's so simple: people who play on Open changes the world in Open. People who play Solo changes their world in Solo. If things we're fixed, I would come back and play Elite Dangerous. It's a great, great game but these decisions I just can't understand.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's really, really simple: Frontier designed, pitched, developed and sold the game to all backers / players with the three game modes affecting the single shared galaxy state.
They didn't design it to be a PvP-dominant territorial game, by choice.
No they didn't. Very true.
But they didn't anticipate 5C PP activities neither.
There's alot they didn't or did do. Some good some bad.
Reiterating it seems to me to be enforcing the status quo. Which clearly needs to change.
That's what the hotel california posts are all about. It's also why their classed as hotel california posts. It's all a question of perspective. Those that advocate change, those that stick to the rhetoric.
Just because a games design was done in such a way, doesn't make it right.
The forum is about discussion to improve the game.
From ALL points of view.
We should all keep an open mind.
I'm for pvp thats for sure. And l too think this n that.
But I also understand the needs for those who do not partake.
This latest fsd could be construed as a tool for pvp. Or PP merits spam in nav beacons, but you gotta admit..its suspiciously aggressive hehehe
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Sounds like a design problem rather than a modes problem.
While those seeking change seem to be of the opinion that the game "clearly needs to change" to accommodate their preferred gameplay, the same cannot necessarily be said of those who don't enjoy PvP - and we all bought the same game.
The topic of the three game modes and their effects on the game has been ongoing since just after the game completed its Kickstarter, back in January 2013. Frontier have not chosen to grant the desires of those players who cannot accept that others don't need to play with them to affect game that we all share, regardless of game mode.
Just as it does not make it wrong. Right and wrong, in terms of game design, are often a matter of opinion / personal preference.
Noting that some players have diametrically opposed ideas as to what would make the game better (for them).
Unlike this thread where we've had two proposals, one to reduce the relative effects and one to completely remove the effects of players in Solo and Private Groups on the BGS - many of those seeking "meaningful PvP" seem quite quick to support proposals that would, in effect, make the gameplay of players in Solo and Private Groups have less meaning or even meaningless.
Indeed it could, as it seems that when the interdictor engages SCO they automatically win the interdiction....
.... but then no-one needs to choose to play among those who would interdict them.
Last edited:
Honestly, I remember the update that brought us Arx. Basically adding a bunch of underlying code to monitor gameplay to work out what we've done and hand us a bonus for doing certain things. The game was literally unplayable for a short while and I think FDev had to spend some considerable time fixing it. Now, that was for some company target thingy, so had to happen once decided upon.
Would people appreciate that happening again and would FDev want to give themselves that amount of work and grief for a small subset (BGS players who also want to PvP against their opponents in open) of the playerbase for no benefit outside those players having more ability to make changes of some numbers they don't particularly care about?
Going to say it's very unlikely.
Would people appreciate that happening again and would FDev want to give themselves that amount of work and grief for a small subset (BGS players who also want to PvP against their opponents in open) of the playerbase for no benefit outside those players having more ability to make changes of some numbers they don't particularly care about?
Going to say it's very unlikely.
Controversial opinion: a majority of combat logging is done by PvPers, not PvEers. Especially gankers when things don't go their way.
I mean, you're always gonna be playing with ghosts no matter what mode you're in. Take the Titans, for example; once there are half a dozen people in an instance, absent friend list chicanery, you'll likely generate a new instance on dropping in. With hundreds of people going at once, there are likely at least dozens of instances active at any one time.
So even if you wanted to blow up people at the titans, the chances of getting any SPECIFIC person is almost zero.
Without completely reworking the network architecture to a server-based system with a monthly subscription, there's really no way to make 'open only' work.
The BGS is not set up for Open really- it works via layers of abstractions and even in Open you can never really know who is influencing what.
For example you don;t know who players support, and that all activity is pooled into buckets so its like trying to sort out cooked spaghetti.
Powerplay is as close to an Open friendly system as you can get- it has few to no abstractions, all activity is non-pooled and possible to track activity from beginning to end.
For example you don;t know who players support, and that all activity is pooled into buckets so its like trying to sort out cooked spaghetti.
Powerplay is as close to an Open friendly system as you can get- it has few to no abstractions, all activity is non-pooled and possible to track activity from beginning to end.
Add to that there's still a slight advantage to failing missions from your opposing faction and blowing someone up might even be helping them while wasting your time.
I would counter that in my experience, many people who call themselves PvPers typically aren’t. They just want the thrill of the hunt against targets who can’t fight back. But that’s kind of bordering on “no true Scotsman.”
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: Functionally, there is no difference between “defending” a controlling faction via PvP and attacking a faction via PvP. Any BGS manipulator worth their salt would view such PvP opposition as a “Heads I win, tails you lose worse” scenario.
Modes - The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]
There have been several threads on the topic of switching between solo/private groups/open. This thread is going to be the merge target for all other threads on the topic, no matter how 'unique' the thread creator may think their thread is. Creating a poll is not unique. Posting in here has...
Modes - The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes': Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in...
Modes - The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III
Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes': Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in...
Modes - The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California
Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes': Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in...
I need an explanation
I guess Frontier fall under disrespectful type of a company, you can't trust. All respectful companys have strict rules about their BGS (MMO, Free Roam, Open World.) endeavors. I'm asking simple question...Where Frontier stand is on employees manipulating BGS ? There is one person trying to say...
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
I guess they were right, it seems you can never leave. The topic of open vs solo vs groups continues to be a popular discussion. Rather than see new threads being created and closed when duplicate topics alreadys exist, we have chosen to combine these into one easily affordable single...
- Status